Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_4q6e40

CMV: The Media is the most powerful and under-regulated component of US politics

The media decides what people see, and what they dont see. But they have total control what makes it to broadcast, and what doesnt. There is nothing stopping them from taking money from a political party (to my knowledge, if they cannot take money directly, there must be a loophole somewhere that allows it, because it definitely happens) to show their good side and show the bad side of the other because there is no regulation on how they conduct what gets broadcasted. And if they do have a regulation, it is FAR to loose. Its crazy to have Fox news being a well known Republican channel and CNN as a Democrat channel. All news channels should be 100% unbiased if they are on any channel that gets broadcasted to the general public, if they have a specific message they should be put onto a separate paid channel, not unlike HBO. _____ > *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 Media is the most powerful and under-regulated component of US politics. The media decides what people see, and what they dont see. But they have total control what makes it to broadcast, and what doesnt. There is nothing stopping them from taking money from a political party (to my knowledge, if they cannot take money directly, there must be a loophole somewhere that allows it, because it definitely happens) to show their good side and show the bad side of the other because there is no regulation on how they conduct what gets broadcasted. And if they do have a regulation, it is FAR to loose. Its crazy to have Fox news being a well known Republican channel and CNN as a Democrat channel. All news channels should be 100% unbiased if they are on any channel that gets broadcasted to the general public, if they have a specific message they should be put onto a separate paid channel, not unlike HBO.

t3_4fc6i2

CMV: Voters should not be required to show ID at the polls.

Hello. I believe that voter ID requirements are unfair to the general public, but would be willing to accept them if there were just cause. Voting laws in many states require that citizens present photo ID when they go to vote at the polls, in order to prevent voter fraud. My problem with these requirements is that they not only discriminate against lower income voters, and PoC, but also don't help the problem they are trying to solve. These laws tend to prevent lower income voters from coming to the polls, because of the excessive amount of work that is required to obtain photo ID. In many states, because ID is not required for all citizens, DMVs that offer photo ID services are few and far between, and often operate at hours that are difficult for lower income families to attend. This causes a decrease in voters on the left, due to left wing politics skewing younger and more accessible for lower income families. In addition, these laws don't actually help with voter fraud. Less than 1% of all voter fraud is at all linked to people voting multiple times under different voter registrations, and most of these problems arise due to clerical errors. With such a small percentage, I believe that these laws seem to be doing more harm than good. Thoughts? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Voters should not be required to show ID at the polls. Hello. I believe that voter ID requirements are unfair to the general public, but would be willing to accept them if there were just cause. Voting laws in many states require that citizens present photo ID when they go to vote at the polls, in order to prevent voter fraud. My problem with these requirements is that they not only discriminate against lower income voters, and PoC, but also don't help the problem they are trying to solve. These laws tend to prevent lower income voters from coming to the polls, because of the excessive amount of work that is required to obtain photo ID. In many states, because ID is not required for all citizens, DMVs that offer photo ID services are few and far between, and often operate at hours that are difficult for lower income families to attend. This causes a decrease in voters on the left, due to left wing politics skewing younger and more accessible for lower income families. In addition, these laws don't actually help with voter fraud. Less than 1% of all voter fraud is at all linked to people voting multiple times under different voter registrations, and most of these problems arise due to clerical errors. With such a small percentage, I believe that these laws seem to be doing more harm than good. Thoughts?

t3_5278nb

CMV: The CMU-OSU game should have its result overturned.

At the end of the game between Central Michigan University and Oklahoma State University today, there was a *truly* exciting Hail Mary followed by a series of laterals that let CMU come from behind and take the win with no seconds left on the clock. There's just one problem: They should not have been allowed to run that play. They were **erroneously** given the opportunity to run it by the referees failing to correctly apply the NCAA football rulebook. The specifics: OSU had the ball on fourth down on the last play of the game and ran out the clock, ending the play by throwing the ball away. It was ruled intentional grounding, and the referees gave CMU the ball for one untimed down on the grounds that play cannot end on an accepted live-ball penalty. But in fact, there is an exception to that rule: play **can** end on an accepted live-ball penalty if the penalty is one that causes loss of down, such as intentional grounding. So, to apply the rules correctly, the referee should have ended the game after the OSU play. What's more, they ought to overturn the result, as the CMU touchdown was *definitively* scored on the one play of the game that we know should not have been allowed, because the game should have already ended. What will NOT change my view: * The assertion that a result once announced cannot be overturned. Clearly results can be overturned, and in fact the NCAA in particular has a history of vacating wins and overturning games for infractions caught **long** after the fact. This one was spotted within minutes or hours of the mistake being made. * The assertion that this opens up too many referee calls to armchair appealing and overturning. If this weren't clear-cut, I would agree. But it **is** clear - CMU should not have gotten to take that play, because time had expired and the rule that permits play to continue was incorrectly applied. So the correct final outcome of the game can be easily determined, and it's one where OSU wins. ------------------------------------------------- > *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 CMU-OSU game should have its result overturned. At the end of the game between Central Michigan University and Oklahoma State University today, there was a *truly* exciting Hail Mary followed by a series of laterals that let CMU come from behind and take the win with no seconds left on the clock. There's just one problem: They should not have been allowed to run that play. They were **erroneously** given the opportunity to run it by the referees failing to correctly apply the NCAA football rulebook. The specifics: OSU had the ball on fourth down on the last play of the game and ran out the clock, ending the play by throwing the ball away. It was ruled intentional grounding, and the referees gave CMU the ball for one untimed down on the grounds that play cannot end on an accepted live-ball penalty. But in fact, there is an exception to that rule: play **can** end on an accepted live-ball penalty if the penalty is one that causes loss of down, such as intentional grounding. So, to apply the rules correctly, the referee should have ended the game after the OSU play. What's more, they ought to overturn the result, as the CMU touchdown was *definitively* scored on the one play of the game that we know should not have been allowed, because the game should have already ended. What will NOT change my view: * The assertion that a result once announced cannot be overturned. Clearly results can be overturned, and in fact the NCAA in particular has a history of vacating wins and overturning games for infractions caught **long** after the fact. This one was spotted within minutes or hours of the mistake being made. * The assertion that this opens up too many referee calls to armchair appealing and overturning. If this weren't clear-cut, I would agree. But it **is** clear - CMU should not have gotten to take that play, because time had expired and the rule that permits play to continue was incorrectly applied. So the correct final outcome of the game can be easily determined, and it's one where OSU wins. ------------------------------------------------- > *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_1ksy7n

I don't think strip clubs are wrong, nor do they promote sexism any more than mainstream media. CMV.

First off, i will make it clear that i do not nor have ever been to such an establishment, but this is in a direct response to this news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-23777320. I feel It is just another manifestation of the difference in how different genders view sex... Males are very visually orientated.... hence the majority of people visiting strip clubs being male. Females are very mentally oriented.. hence the majority of people reading books akin to mills and boon, and fifty shades of grey are women. Just because you don't personally approve of something doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong.. I personally disagree with the sale of womens magazines.. i feel the advertisement of fad diets, culture of the celebrity/wag and general twaddle they peddle is more damaging to society as a whole.. doesn't mean they should be banned from sale.

I don't think strip clubs are wrong, nor do they promote sexism any more than mainstream media. CMV. First off, i will make it clear that i do not nor have ever been to such an establishment, but this is in a direct response to this news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-23777320. I feel It is just another manifestation of the difference in how different genders view sex... Males are very visually orientated.... hence the majority of people visiting strip clubs being male. Females are very mentally oriented.. hence the majority of people reading books akin to mills and boon, and fifty shades of grey are women. Just because you don't personally approve of something doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong.. I personally disagree with the sale of womens magazines.. i feel the advertisement of fad diets, culture of the celebrity/wag and general twaddle they peddle is more damaging to society as a whole.. doesn't mean they should be banned from sale.

t3_23kv7b

CMV: My girlfriend is an organ donor. While admirable, I want her to opt-back out.

_____ As in title, my girlfriend opted to be an organ donor, before we got together. When I found out I'll admit I was upset. To my mind it feels as if you're not burying the person, just a few bits and bobs, rudely cut open and stolen from. I'm not religious (anymore, yay child brainwashing (but that's my opinion so ignore me), so that's not an excuse/reason. I just feel that saying goodbye to a person that they should be whole. Okay, say they've been dying for a while, you've had time to say your goodbyes properly, but if they die suddenly, then come back with a big cut and some rough stitches... There's something that doesn't feel right about it... It's like how people say after an autopsy the body comes back looking awful and bruised, seeming as the crack open ribs and all sorts (I say crack, I think they use a very sharp saw). It's an argument we've had before, and that we might end up having again now it's on my mind. ChangeMyViewers, can you make me see sense?

CMV: My girlfriend is an organ donor. While admirable, I want her to opt-back out. _____ As in title, my girlfriend opted to be an organ donor, before we got together. When I found out I'll admit I was upset. To my mind it feels as if you're not burying the person, just a few bits and bobs, rudely cut open and stolen from. I'm not religious (anymore, yay child brainwashing (but that's my opinion so ignore me), so that's not an excuse/reason. I just feel that saying goodbye to a person that they should be whole. Okay, say they've been dying for a while, you've had time to say your goodbyes properly, but if they die suddenly, then come back with a big cut and some rough stitches... There's something that doesn't feel right about it... It's like how people say after an autopsy the body comes back looking awful and bruised, seeming as the crack open ribs and all sorts (I say crack, I think they use a very sharp saw). It's an argument we've had before, and that we might end up having again now it's on my mind. ChangeMyViewers, can you make me see sense?

t3_2fh427

CMV: Attractive people have a huge advantage over unattractive people

In example; attractive people can more-so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer(to a certain extent). Attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life. Subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust-worthy than unattractive people. They also don't have to try at all in order to look presentable. Attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people. I could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but I think you all get the point. I believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have WAY more success while putting in WAY less work, financially, socially, and emotionally. I'd like to be proven otherwise but I just don't think that is realistic. Reddit... change my view! EDIT: Went into more detail about what i specifically mean by "advantage"

CMV: Attractive people have a huge advantage over unattractive people. In example; attractive people can more-so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer(to a certain extent). Attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life. Subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust-worthy than unattractive people. They also don't have to try at all in order to look presentable. Attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people. I could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but I think you all get the point. I believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have WAY more success while putting in WAY less work, financially, socially, and emotionally. I'd like to be proven otherwise but I just don't think that is realistic. Reddit... change my view! EDIT: Went into more detail about what i specifically mean by "advantage"

t3_3na725

CMV: High school "research" is a sham.

There are many science competitions out there (Intel, Siemens, etc.) that allow high schoolers to submit papers for research that they have conducted. The papers are supposed to be the students' own work, and let's just assume that they all are. The problem lies with the fact that in high school, the research that a student does is usually luck of the draw - for example, in my area, students basically email the whole NIH directory and hope that someone accepts them. If they get paired up with a brilliant researcher doing groundbreaking research - great! If not, then oh well. Even if the student makes an effort to find a mentor whose research interests align with the students', most high school students at this point don't have the expertise and knowledge that allows them to do anything but build off, or even just carry out the procedures, of their mentors'. Yes, they'd generally have to be smart to get the internship. But they don't really have control of the project they get; they could easily be at fifty other ones. For example: Mentor is in army lab engineering vaccine for malaria. High school intern comes, tests vaccine for certain strains through standard and repetitive methods, finds that vaccine works, vaccine goes to clinical testing. High school intern has just helped to create a potential new malaria vaccine. (True story). Did the high school intern find something new? Yes. Could many other smart people have done what s/he did? Yes. The results of one's research are not indicative of one's mental capability. This kind of thing is more true for fields like biology, where students are limited to doing physical trials. For fields like math and theoretical physics, I can completely see how original research would have to come actually from the students' mind. It takes a lot of work to write an scientific paper, and the quality of the paper should be dependent on the student. But quality of the paper is one thing, and the actual research is another. The second factor, however, is mostly up to circumstance, and therefore a flaw in the nature of competing with high school research. _____ > *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: High school "research" is a sham. There are many science competitions out there (Intel, Siemens, etc.) that allow high schoolers to submit papers for research that they have conducted. The papers are supposed to be the students' own work, and let's just assume that they all are. The problem lies with the fact that in high school, the research that a student does is usually luck of the draw - for example, in my area, students basically email the whole NIH directory and hope that someone accepts them. If they get paired up with a brilliant researcher doing groundbreaking research - great! If not, then oh well. Even if the student makes an effort to find a mentor whose research interests align with the students', most high school students at this point don't have the expertise and knowledge that allows them to do anything but build off, or even just carry out the procedures, of their mentors'. Yes, they'd generally have to be smart to get the internship. But they don't really have control of the project they get; they could easily be at fifty other ones. For example: Mentor is in army lab engineering vaccine for malaria. High school intern comes, tests vaccine for certain strains through standard and repetitive methods, finds that vaccine works, vaccine goes to clinical testing. High school intern has just helped to create a potential new malaria vaccine. (True story). Did the high school intern find something new? Yes. Could many other smart people have done what s/he did? Yes. The results of one's research are not indicative of one's mental capability. This kind of thing is more true for fields like biology, where students are limited to doing physical trials. For fields like math and theoretical physics, I can completely see how original research would have to come actually from the students' mind. It takes a lot of work to write an scientific paper, and the quality of the paper should be dependent on the student. But quality of the paper is one thing, and the actual research is another. The second factor, however, is mostly up to circumstance, and therefore a flaw in the nature of competing with high school research.

t3_2ke33a

CMV: I feel that reducing games to math and number crunching is killing role playing and takes away the spirit of the game.

RPGs. Pokemon. World of Warcraft. Magic: The Gathering. Dungeons & Dragons...Doesn't matter the game. I've seen a sad and disturbing trend over the years of gamers focusing more on crafting mathematically perfect power characters, than on savoring the flavor of the game. WoW is especially guilty of this. Everything is reduced to knowingg the best rotation of attacks and then repeating that ad nauseum until the boss drops. There's no flair. No style. No panache. No real fun. D&D was once the ultimate open ended adventure. No limits beyond imagination, with a few core rules to operate within the world. Now everything is reduced to statistics, math, and number crunching loopholes. Every character has at least one 18 stat. Usually two. How many Rogues are out there with 18s in Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma? (And usually Strength for those who are particularly shameless) M:tG, Pokemon, and other card games? I doubt too many players even read the cards beyond the numbers or effects. Who even imagines the battle? The monsters and spells going off? Even poker, blackjack, and gambling, while not RPGs, have had most of the fun and elegance stripped from them by mathematicians and human calculators. I have played all these games in one form or another for over thirty years. I belong to subreddits dedicated to them. Almost every post gets reduced to the math instead of the creativity or the story. I blame video games for most of it. The video game mindset has leeched into the soil of pen and paper gaming. When I hear D&D players use video game buzzwords like "spamming", "tanking", and "aggro", during play, I feel a bit sad, because they are taking something SO wide open that anything can happen, and confining it within video game limitations because that's what they know. *"If I push X then X will happen."* What about thinking outside the controller or the keyboard? Imagination and creativity are what makes these games special. Not memorization and repetition of sequences, patterns, and key bindings. I don't think that is fun nor do I think it is good for games overall. When you reduce games to stats and numbers, you rip away all the skin, meat, and soul of the game and are reduced to manipulating the bare, dead skeleton. _____ > *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 feel that reducing games to math and number crunching is killing role playing and takes away the spirit of the game. RPGs. Pokemon. World of Warcraft. Magic: The Gathering. Dungeons & Dragons...Doesn't matter the game. I've seen a sad and disturbing trend over the years of gamers focusing more on crafting mathematically perfect power characters, than on savoring the flavor of the game. WoW is especially guilty of this. Everything is reduced to knowingg the best rotation of attacks and then repeating that ad nauseum until the boss drops. There's no flair. No style. No panache. No real fun. D&D was once the ultimate open ended adventure. No limits beyond imagination, with a few core rules to operate within the world. Now everything is reduced to statistics, math, and number crunching loopholes. Every character has at least one 18 stat. Usually two. How many Rogues are out there with 18s in Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma? (And usually Strength for those who are particularly shameless) M:tG, Pokemon, and other card games? I doubt too many players even read the cards beyond the numbers or effects. Who even imagines the battle? The monsters and spells going off? Even poker, blackjack, and gambling, while not RPGs, have had most of the fun and elegance stripped from them by mathematicians and human calculators. I have played all these games in one form or another for over thirty years. I belong to subreddits dedicated to them. Almost every post gets reduced to the math instead of the creativity or the story. I blame video games for most of it. The video game mindset has leeched into the soil of pen and paper gaming. When I hear D&D players use video game buzzwords like "spamming", "tanking", and "aggro", during play, I feel a bit sad, because they are taking something SO wide open that anything can happen, and confining it within video game limitations because that's what they know. *"If I push X then X will happen."* What about thinking outside the controller or the keyboard? Imagination and creativity are what makes these games special. Not memorization and repetition of sequences, patterns, and key bindings. I don't think that is fun nor do I think it is good for games overall. When you reduce games to stats and numbers, you rip away all the skin, meat, and soul of the game and are reduced to manipulating the bare, dead skeleton.

t3_1nlkqw

I believe that the natural resources and intellectual property within the USA should be common pool resources, and citizens should pay royalties for their exclusive use. CMV

Instead of taxing good behavior, like working and economic participation, I believe that we should be charging fees for activity that results in negative externalities, including excluding others from common pool resources like natural minerals, prime spatial locations, electromagnetic bandwidth, and intellectual property. I believe this way of collecting revenue would limit the depletion of our natural resources, reduce artificial scarcity due to speculation behavior, and create a circumstance where we can have a fair democratic capitalism. Obviously polluting our water and air should be heavily fined. Companies could pay a steep (90% - 100% of value) royalty for the right to exclusively mine or harvest timber. If the harvesting or mining destroys other common pool resources like ecosystems that provide services for the public good, entities should pay these costs to society in full. Ultimately, this will result in only the most optimal uses of our common pool natural resources, and minimally destroying our life support system. Exclusive access to land area, electronegative space, and intellectual property should also be charged a steep royalty on the current value of exclusively using such. This will keep entities from owning useful space without optimally using it, thereby increasing its value artificially. Ultimately, this will result in optimal use of these common pool resources. I believe that the other benefits to this type of revenue collection would be to eliminate most market distortions, as values would reflect the true costs to society for products and services. For those interested in researching this further, this is called pigovian taxation, land value taxation, and Georgism. I have found no flaws with this plan yet. I would very much like it if someone can point out flaws that I have missed, which will likely change my view.

I believe that the natural resources and intellectual property within the USA should be common pool resources, and citizens should pay royalties for their exclusive use. CMV. Instead of taxing good behavior, like working and economic participation, I believe that we should be charging fees for activity that results in negative externalities, including excluding others from common pool resources like natural minerals, prime spatial locations, electromagnetic bandwidth, and intellectual property. I believe this way of collecting revenue would limit the depletion of our natural resources, reduce artificial scarcity due to speculation behavior, and create a circumstance where we can have a fair democratic capitalism. Obviously polluting our water and air should be heavily fined. Companies could pay a steep (90% - 100% of value) royalty for the right to exclusively mine or harvest timber. If the harvesting or mining destroys other common pool resources like ecosystems that provide services for the public good, entities should pay these costs to society in full. Ultimately, this will result in only the most optimal uses of our common pool natural resources, and minimally destroying our life support system. Exclusive access to land area, electronegative space, and intellectual property should also be charged a steep royalty on the current value of exclusively using such. This will keep entities from owning useful space without optimally using it, thereby increasing its value artificially. Ultimately, this will result in optimal use of these common pool resources. I believe that the other benefits to this type of revenue collection would be to eliminate most market distortions, as values would reflect the true costs to society for products and services. For those interested in researching this further, this is called pigovian taxation, land value taxation, and Georgism. I have found no flaws with this plan yet. I would very much like it if someone can point out flaws that I have missed, which will likely change my view.

t3_2f7hmz

CMV: I think giving directly to the homeless, vagrants, and beggars incentives them to not get out of their rut. Prefer to give to shelters and charities.

I would much rather give my money through a monthly donation sponsorship through a local soup kitchen, shelter, or etc. I think that giving directly does nothing but further incentivize the begging, potential addictions and bad behaviours which continues to have them there in the first place. Why give my money to these people when there are complex programs which exist that concretely use the money to help get people off of the street and out of the soup kitchen into a job and earning their own meals at their own kitchen table? Edit 1: I accidentally-ed my English in the title. It should say "incentivises" not "incentives" _____ > *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 giving directly to the homeless, vagrants, and beggars incentives them to not get out of their rut. Prefer to give to shelters and charities. I would much rather give my money through a monthly donation sponsorship through a local soup kitchen, shelter, or etc. I think that giving directly does nothing but further incentivize the begging, potential addictions and bad behaviours which continues to have them there in the first place. Why give my money to these people when there are complex programs which exist that concretely use the money to help get people off of the street and out of the soup kitchen into a job and earning their own meals at their own kitchen table? Edit 1: I accidentally-ed my English in the title. It should say "incentivises" not "incentives"

t3_1jhywh

Objecting to abortion rights in all cases makes sense. Exceptions for rape and incest don't. CMV.

Since this is a post about abortion, I want to start by saying that I am entirely in support of legal, healthcare covered abortions under the current limits of 24 or 20 weeks (in the US). My view comes from my evaluation of arguments that often come from the other side of the debate about abortion. There seem to be two main types of positions people against legal abortion argue: 1) Abortion is wrong in all cases. 2) Abortion is wrong in all cases except rape (and often incest). My confusion comes from this: Much of the rhetoric and arguments against abortion concerns whether or not a fetus is has rights as a person or is considered a human life. If someone believes that a fetus IS afforded the rights of personhood and/or is a human life, then why does it matter what series of events caused them into being? Are the rights of personhood no longer afforded to them because they were not created consensually? Why? IF consent is the crux of the belief, how is the abortion argument not about there being consequences for sex? Furthermore - what is the imagined world where abortion would only be legal in cases of rape? (forgetting about the common incest exception for the moment) What burden of proof is on the person to show they were raped before they are given access to an abortion? How do we deal with the fact that rape is hard to prove, vastly underreported, and consent has different meanings to different people (the concept of enthusiastic consent, for instance). When people disagree with abortion except in cases of rape, I really have a hard time understanding what mechanisms they would actually put in place to support that view, or how it can possibly be compatible with the view that a (non-viable) fetus is a person and therefore afforded the same rights. CMV. EDIT: I realize posts on this topic already exist - part of what I am hoping to understand is what the actual practice of that belief - abortion is only ok in cases of rape or incest - would look like in reality. That is what people are actively advocating for and I haven't heard any flushing out of the argument with implementation in mind (or implementation that would adequately allow for exceptions in cases of rape).

Objecting to abortion rights in all cases makes sense. Exceptions for rape and incest don't. CMV. Since this is a post about abortion, I want to start by saying that I am entirely in support of legal, healthcare covered abortions under the current limits of 24 or 20 weeks (in the US). My view comes from my evaluation of arguments that often come from the other side of the debate about abortion. There seem to be two main types of positions people against legal abortion argue: 1) Abortion is wrong in all cases. 2) Abortion is wrong in all cases except rape (and often incest). My confusion comes from this: Much of the rhetoric and arguments against abortion concerns whether or not a fetus is has rights as a person or is considered a human life. If someone believes that a fetus IS afforded the rights of personhood and/or is a human life, then why does it matter what series of events caused them into being? Are the rights of personhood no longer afforded to them because they were not created consensually? Why? IF consent is the crux of the belief, how is the abortion argument not about there being consequences for sex? Furthermore - what is the imagined world where abortion would only be legal in cases of rape? (forgetting about the common incest exception for the moment) What burden of proof is on the person to show they were raped before they are given access to an abortion? How do we deal with the fact that rape is hard to prove, vastly underreported, and consent has different meanings to different people (the concept of enthusiastic consent, for instance). When people disagree with abortion except in cases of rape, I really have a hard time understanding what mechanisms they would actually put in place to support that view, or how it can possibly be compatible with the view that a (non-viable) fetus is a person and therefore afforded the same rights. CMV. EDIT: I realize posts on this topic already exist - part of what I am hoping to understand is what the actual practice of that belief - abortion is only ok in cases of rape or incest - would look like in reality. That is what people are actively advocating for and I haven't heard any flushing out of the argument with implementation in mind (or implementation that would adequately allow for exceptions in cases of rape).

t3_2cazp3

CMV:I think businesses shouldn't give discounts to senior citizens and armed forces

I believe businesses shouldn't (but not to the extent of enforcing it by law*) give discounts to senior citizens and armed forces. Forgive me for saying, but does reaching the arbitrary number of 65 and serving a tougher by nature job entitle you to get a discount at the movies and at a restaurant? Is it just as a way to say thanks? Armed forces seem to already get thanks with tax free goods on base. Senior citizens these days that are retiring are already reaping the benefits of social security, medicare, and hefty retirement funds because the benefits of being in the Baby Boomer generation. There are many tough professions out there that bring lots of value to the table that are tough but don't get discounts. What about farmers? They feed us right? Doctors? They keep us healthy. Scientists? Their discoveries and innovations improve the quality of our every day lives.

CMV:I think businesses shouldn't give discounts to senior citizens and armed forces. I believe businesses shouldn't (but not to the extent of enforcing it by law*) give discounts to senior citizens and armed forces. Forgive me for saying, but does reaching the arbitrary number of 65 and serving a tougher by nature job entitle you to get a discount at the movies and at a restaurant? Is it just as a way to say thanks? Armed forces seem to already get thanks with tax free goods on base. Senior citizens these days that are retiring are already reaping the benefits of social security, medicare, and hefty retirement funds because the benefits of being in the Baby Boomer generation. There are many tough professions out there that bring lots of value to the table that are tough but don't get discounts. What about farmers? They feed us right? Doctors? They keep us healthy. Scientists? Their discoveries and innovations improve the quality of our every day lives.

t3_63073t

CMV: CMV: The Nordic people are inherently superior, either due to culture or genes or both.

Point 1) The first 11 countries with the highest "true" UN Human Development Index are all countries of northern European (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or Finnish) extraction. The vast majority of the world's wealthiest and happiest people are of North European descent, and outside of Europe the richest and wealthiest areas are founded by those settlers. 2) The exceptions to the above are easily explained; Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, and French all have significant Nordic/Germanic influences, and Japanese apparently have a centuries-old relation with the Finns through the shared Ainu community. To this day, many Ainu can pass for European. 3) Even going through history, most of the world's great civilizations were founded by people with White Northern European origins. China, and subsequently the rest of East Asia, was brought out of the stone age by red-haired Caucasoid gingers who could completely fit in modern Europe. At least some pharaohs also had red hair and Northern European features. And just like East Asia, South Asia was originally settled by White Caucasians. 4) Conclusion: White, Northern European people are either genetically or culturally the best in the world. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: CMV: The Nordic people are inherently superior, either due to culture or genes or both. Point 1) The first 11 countries with the highest "true" UN Human Development Index are all countries of northern European (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or Finnish) extraction. The vast majority of the world's wealthiest and happiest people are of North European descent, and outside of Europe the richest and wealthiest areas are founded by those settlers. 2) The exceptions to the above are easily explained; Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, and French all have significant Nordic/Germanic influences, and Japanese apparently have a centuries-old relation with the Finns through the shared Ainu community. To this day, many Ainu can pass for European. 3) Even going through history, most of the world's great civilizations were founded by people with White Northern European origins. China, and subsequently the rest of East Asia, was brought out of the stone age by red-haired Caucasoid gingers who could completely fit in modern Europe. At least some pharaohs also had red hair and Northern European features. And just like East Asia, South Asia was originally settled by White Caucasians. 4) Conclusion: White, Northern European people are either genetically or culturally the best in the world.

t3_1ev3e6

Newton and Einstein were wrong, and the Physics they theorized is false. CMV

Einstein and Newton theorized a one-directional universe, one in which gravity and attractive forces cause everything. Trying to prove these theories has only yielded infinite rabbit holes. I believe they were both wrong, and that is why science and society are so limited. There is a different, two-way model that actually works and doesn't require messy sub theories at different scales (quantum vs. non-quantum physics). If we continue to rely on Newtonian nonsense we will be stuck with the crumbling society we are currently experiencing. Newton and Einstein were wrong. CMV.

Newton and Einstein were wrong, and the Physics they theorized is false. CMV. Einstein and Newton theorized a one-directional universe, one in which gravity and attractive forces cause everything. Trying to prove these theories has only yielded infinite rabbit holes. I believe they were both wrong, and that is why science and society are so limited. There is a different, two-way model that actually works and doesn't require messy sub theories at different scales (quantum vs. non-quantum physics). If we continue to rely on Newtonian nonsense we will be stuck with the crumbling society we are currently experiencing. Newton and Einstein were wrong. CMV.

t3_2xdq2l

CMV: It should be legal to buy and sell raw milk and raw milk products.

In the U.S., unpasteurized milk is illegal or restricted in most states. This is also true in much of Europe—though the Germans and French are more lax (probably because of their wonderful raw milk cheeses)—and in Canada and Australia. I'm American and I choose to ignore these laws and buy raw milk and raw milk cheese from a private buying club. I love dairy products and it's impossible mimic the taste of raw milk. Though I believe that food safety restrictions are important to consumer safety, I feel that milk buyers who have been adequately warned of the risks should be able to purchase raw milk for the following reasons: 1. Regardless of the safety of raw milk, adults are generally considered responsible enough to buy awesome-but-potentially-dangerous substances like alcohol, junk food, and (increasingly) marijuana. 1. We know the risks. Farms that sell raw milk tend to go out of their way to inform consumers of the potential hazards. People who love raw milk enough to buy it on the black market invariably know what they're getting into. If it becomes legal, labeling legislation could be passed. Germany has done so successfully. 3. The penalties for selling raw milk are harsh and unnecessary. Farmers have been imprisoned for selling it. (Slightly irrelevant, I work with criminal justice clients as a social worker and have seen child predators get probation with no prison time.) Please note that I'm *not* arguing that raw milk is perfectly safe or that everyone should drink it. I'm arguing that I should be able to decide whether I take that risk. **EDIT:** Someone seems to be going through my posts and downvoting all of them. Can you not? This is CMV. I'm not trying to terrorize your children with my raw milk diseases. I'm trying to learn. Thanks to everyone who provided helpful info—this is why I keep coming to this sub! **EDIT 2:** Copying one of my comments below. Although I might dispute the CDC's estimate of how much more dangerous raw milk is than other foods (see my other comments), and though I don't know if the risk of foodborne illness is enough to make me reconsider my occasional consumption of raw milk, I do acknowledge that diseases transmissible to other people can be contracted from raw milk in the modern era and that this could be a problem if more people start drinking raw milk. ∆ to /u/ionsquare for helpful links and excellent explanations. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It should be legal to buy and sell raw milk and raw milk products. In the U.S., unpasteurized milk is illegal or restricted in most states. This is also true in much of Europe—though the Germans and French are more lax (probably because of their wonderful raw milk cheeses)—and in Canada and Australia. I'm American and I choose to ignore these laws and buy raw milk and raw milk cheese from a private buying club. I love dairy products and it's impossible mimic the taste of raw milk. Though I believe that food safety restrictions are important to consumer safety, I feel that milk buyers who have been adequately warned of the risks should be able to purchase raw milk for the following reasons: 1. Regardless of the safety of raw milk, adults are generally considered responsible enough to buy awesome-but-potentially-dangerous substances like alcohol, junk food, and (increasingly) marijuana. 1. We know the risks. Farms that sell raw milk tend to go out of their way to inform consumers of the potential hazards. People who love raw milk enough to buy it on the black market invariably know what they're getting into. If it becomes legal, labeling legislation could be passed. Germany has done so successfully. 3. The penalties for selling raw milk are harsh and unnecessary. Farmers have been imprisoned for selling it. (Slightly irrelevant, I work with criminal justice clients as a social worker and have seen child predators get probation with no prison time.) Please note that I'm *not* arguing that raw milk is perfectly safe or that everyone should drink it. I'm arguing that I should be able to decide whether I take that risk. **EDIT:** Someone seems to be going through my posts and downvoting all of them. Can you not? This is CMV. I'm not trying to terrorize your children with my raw milk diseases. I'm trying to learn. Thanks to everyone who provided helpful info—this is why I keep coming to this sub! **EDIT 2:** Copying one of my comments below. Although I might dispute the CDC's estimate of how much more dangerous raw milk is than other foods (see my other comments), and though I don't know if the risk of foodborne illness is enough to make me reconsider my occasional consumption of raw milk, I do acknowledge that diseases transmissible to other people can be contracted from raw milk in the modern era and that this could be a problem if more people start drinking raw milk. ∆ to /u/ionsquare for helpful links and excellent explanations.

t3_1hvr82

I believe making moral acts "cool" rather than explaining why they're "good" is the optimal way to increase total morality. CMV.

By this, I refer to things like shopping at a thrift shop (an incredibly conscious way to recycle and lightly withdraw support from a few nefarious companies -- but people do it because Macklemore does it, because look, the '50s, etc.), vegetarianism (a view I hold as firmly moral -- no need to agree -- but whose adoption is often done because it's a young, hip way to eat ("Have you tried that new vegan place?"), and not for environmental or moral reasons), biking (far better for the environment than cars, but look at the culture that's sprung up around having an old or a silly bike) and protesting, in some cases (namely, that for a time in America it was more "cool" than "important" that you were joining Occupy -- and though legitimacy may have suffered, it was hard to argue with the numbers, even though I do believe most of the participants saw their efforts as, at best, personal rebellion, rather than the dire collective action problem it was and indeed is). Even slacktivist territory like LIVESTRONG bracelets, in which support for an important medical battle is shown through only an article of clothing, needs an aesthetic inroad ("bands are cool!"; "my friends have those bands, I want one too") and not a stance ("I will do everything in my power to battle cancer"). All of this amounts to making medicine tasty. And while I'd rather live in a world in which I could discuss with you that riding your bike to work is more environmentally-conscious, that in my view you're quasi-compelled to do it given the state of affairs, etc., it seems both a. easier and b. more effective to start a Take Your Bike To Work Day in Brooklyn. It may not even be that people are, in aggregate, too stupid to take in the arguments (though I do think that's probably the case). It may just be that you're way more prone to do what your friends do than what's right (yes, my own definition of right; let's set it aside for now), and so it's in my best interests to find the leader of your friend group, convince *her*, and watch the effect metabolize and spread. CMV.

I believe making moral acts "cool" rather than explaining why they're "good" is the optimal way to increase total morality. CMV. By this, I refer to things like shopping at a thrift shop (an incredibly conscious way to recycle and lightly withdraw support from a few nefarious companies -- but people do it because Macklemore does it, because look, the '50s, etc.), vegetarianism (a view I hold as firmly moral -- no need to agree -- but whose adoption is often done because it's a young, hip way to eat ("Have you tried that new vegan place?"), and not for environmental or moral reasons), biking (far better for the environment than cars, but look at the culture that's sprung up around having an old or a silly bike) and protesting, in some cases (namely, that for a time in America it was more "cool" than "important" that you were joining Occupy -- and though legitimacy may have suffered, it was hard to argue with the numbers, even though I do believe most of the participants saw their efforts as, at best, personal rebellion, rather than the dire collective action problem it was and indeed is). Even slacktivist territory like LIVESTRONG bracelets, in which support for an important medical battle is shown through only an article of clothing, needs an aesthetic inroad ("bands are cool!"; "my friends have those bands, I want one too") and not a stance ("I will do everything in my power to battle cancer"). All of this amounts to making medicine tasty. And while I'd rather live in a world in which I could discuss with you that riding your bike to work is more environmentally-conscious, that in my view you're quasi-compelled to do it given the state of affairs, etc., it seems both a. easier and b. more effective to start a Take Your Bike To Work Day in Brooklyn. It may not even be that people are, in aggregate, too stupid to take in the arguments (though I do think that's probably the case). It may just be that you're way more prone to do what your friends do than what's right (yes, my own definition of right; let's set it aside for now), and so it's in my best interests to find the leader of your friend group, convince *her*, and watch the effect metabolize and spread. CMV.

t3_2y5akp

CMV:I have more respect and trust for the police force than the military

First of all, I don't generalise either force, both have good and bad apples. But if I had to choose which one I respect more, and which one I'd rather trust my life with, I'd pick the police both times. The whole purpose of the police force its to stop crime and protect the people, and I think that most people who sign up do so for that fact. How is that not admirable? Most people who become police are good people at heart, because to be honest, the job description pretty much requires you to be. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that most cops care about their job and care about the people they are protecting. Police officers tend to be friendlier people. I have met numerous police officers in my life, some I know, others I have had to meet with for various reasons, and they've all been great. I have never had a bad impression left on me by a cop. Now, I am not saying there no good people in the military, I mean, most of them are probably decent. But lets be honest here people, the infantry 'squaddies' of the army are typically not the nicest people going around. And I mean, maybe that's a good thing, considering the job description. But going from what various different sources say, the army has its fair share of, lets say, unsavoury types. The types who would be in prison if they had't signed up, who spent their school days doing no work, instead bullying others and wreaking havoc, before dropping out of school and finding the ideal employment that would let them express their violent and aggressive nature. Or those overly patriotic, nationalist racists, who signed up to wear a flag on their uniform and shoot at foreigners. And then there's the all out psychopaths who form those rogue killing squads. I know I'll get flak for saying that, but it's true, not everyone in the military is an angel, a lot are good people sure, but certainly not all. You may want to tell me that I should show more respect because they are 'fighting for my freedom' well maybe, but they wouldn't hesitate to take my freedom if ordered to. You may say that the only reason I am here typing this is because our soldiers are keeping me safe. Well, the last time Britain was at real risk of invasion was back in WW2. If anything, it's the police force keeping me safe, much more so than the military. Im no saying I have no respect for the armed forces. I do respect them, but I do not respect every individual person in them, because I judge people for who they are and what they do, rather than what uniform they wear. Same goes for the police. I realise that the police can and does have a lot of corrupt assholes in it. And that a lot, if not most of the armed forces and good or decent people. But, as it is, I have more respect for the police, and I would feel much less safe with soldiers policing the area than I do with the police force. So, what reasons are there to change my view on this matter? I am willing to change my view if I am convinced _____ > *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 have more respect and trust for the police force than the military. First of all, I don't generalise either force, both have good and bad apples. But if I had to choose which one I respect more, and which one I'd rather trust my life with, I'd pick the police both times. The whole purpose of the police force its to stop crime and protect the people, and I think that most people who sign up do so for that fact. How is that not admirable? Most people who become police are good people at heart, because to be honest, the job description pretty much requires you to be. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that most cops care about their job and care about the people they are protecting. Police officers tend to be friendlier people. I have met numerous police officers in my life, some I know, others I have had to meet with for various reasons, and they've all been great. I have never had a bad impression left on me by a cop. Now, I am not saying there no good people in the military, I mean, most of them are probably decent. But lets be honest here people, the infantry 'squaddies' of the army are typically not the nicest people going around. And I mean, maybe that's a good thing, considering the job description. But going from what various different sources say, the army has its fair share of, lets say, unsavoury types. The types who would be in prison if they had't signed up, who spent their school days doing no work, instead bullying others and wreaking havoc, before dropping out of school and finding the ideal employment that would let them express their violent and aggressive nature. Or those overly patriotic, nationalist racists, who signed up to wear a flag on their uniform and shoot at foreigners. And then there's the all out psychopaths who form those rogue killing squads. I know I'll get flak for saying that, but it's true, not everyone in the military is an angel, a lot are good people sure, but certainly not all. You may want to tell me that I should show more respect because they are 'fighting for my freedom' well maybe, but they wouldn't hesitate to take my freedom if ordered to. You may say that the only reason I am here typing this is because our soldiers are keeping me safe. Well, the last time Britain was at real risk of invasion was back in WW2. If anything, it's the police force keeping me safe, much more so than the military. Im no saying I have no respect for the armed forces. I do respect them, but I do not respect every individual person in them, because I judge people for who they are and what they do, rather than what uniform they wear. Same goes for the police. I realise that the police can and does have a lot of corrupt assholes in it. And that a lot, if not most of the armed forces and good or decent people. But, as it is, I have more respect for the police, and I would feel much less safe with soldiers policing the area than I do with the police force. So, what reasons are there to change my view on this matter? I am willing to change my view if I am convinced

t3_1wtcb8

Having reproductive organs doesn't give you the right to breed. Reproduction should be regulated. CMV

I don't think just anyone should be able to have children. It should be regulated like owning a gun or the privilege to drive. Classes should be required and permits should too. Responsibility should be proven before even attempting to conceive. There should be zero incentive, monetary or otherwise, from the government to have children like there is now. Often, in the US, I've seen women purposefully getting pregnant for the sake of government benefits. This needs to stop, if you truly want children and that's something you cannot live without, then taking the classes and getting permitted to have children shouldn't be too much of a task for such an important part of your life.

Having reproductive organs doesn't give you the right to breed. Reproduction should be regulated. CMV. I don't think just anyone should be able to have children. It should be regulated like owning a gun or the privilege to drive. Classes should be required and permits should too. Responsibility should be proven before even attempting to conceive. There should be zero incentive, monetary or otherwise, from the government to have children like there is now. Often, in the US, I've seen women purposefully getting pregnant for the sake of government benefits. This needs to stop, if you truly want children and that's something you cannot live without, then taking the classes and getting permitted to have children shouldn't be too much of a task for such an important part of your life.

t3_1n53ak

[CMV] I believe that Foreign Language should be switched to an elective, and that Comp. Science should take its place in the core curriculum.

In America, Or in New York at least, you need at least 2 years of foreign language in high school. This time spent learning foreign languages is a waste of time in my opinion, since i have hated learning foreign language and have no need or want to learn it. I do, however, want to learn more in other electives. I have not been put in certain electives and I am forced to take foreign language because NY state(America) deems it necessary to be in the core curriculum. It also has no use in real life and no one usually ends up fluent from these classes. Computer science, on the other hand is a much more useful class and has many career options and major options, foreign language has no real major or job options. So go ahead reddit, change my mind :)

[CMV] I believe that Foreign Language should be switched to an elective, and that Comp. Science should take its place in the core curriculum. In America, Or in New York at least, you need at least 2 years of foreign language in high school. This time spent learning foreign languages is a waste of time in my opinion, since i have hated learning foreign language and have no need or want to learn it. I do, however, want to learn more in other electives. I have not been put in certain electives and I am forced to take foreign language because NY state(America) deems it necessary to be in the core curriculum. It also has no use in real life and no one usually ends up fluent from these classes. Computer science, on the other hand is a much more useful class and has many career options and major options, foreign language has no real major or job options. So go ahead reddit, change my mind :)

t3_2jk4dx

CMV: People need to stop saying "I'm probably going to get downvoted for this."

This phrase is only used so people can make their view seem fresh and against the normal opinions heard on Reddit. Most of the time the view isn't in the first place, and the phrase is used to garner upvotes. Even if you think you will get downvoted, what is the point of using this click bait phrasing? To make it seem like you think this post is so important for you to make that you don't care about it getting downvoted while at the same time using a phrase you know will make people more likely to upvote it. And honestly if people used the upvote and downvote system correctly it wouldn't matter if you had an unpopular opinion in the first place if you actually contributed to the conversation. Is there any actual reason for people to say "I'm probably going to get downvoted for this?" _____ > *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 need to stop saying "I'm probably going to get downvoted for this.". This phrase is only used so people can make their view seem fresh and against the normal opinions heard on Reddit. Most of the time the view isn't in the first place, and the phrase is used to garner upvotes. Even if you think you will get downvoted, what is the point of using this click bait phrasing? To make it seem like you think this post is so important for you to make that you don't care about it getting downvoted while at the same time using a phrase you know will make people more likely to upvote it. And honestly if people used the upvote and downvote system correctly it wouldn't matter if you had an unpopular opinion in the first place if you actually contributed to the conversation. Is there any actual reason for people to say "I'm probably going to get downvoted for this?"

t3_1hryq1

I believe that the demonization of pedophiles, and referring to them as monsters and perverts, is not only maling the situation worse, but is immoral in itself. CMV.

A few AMAs from self-professing pedophiles on reddit, plus the majority of literature i can find on the issue, suggests that pedophilia is largely a sexual preference that cannot be helped by the subject. Now I'm in no way condoning child molestation, or any act of violence against a child, whether sexual or non. Butthe demonization of this particular sexual orientation makes it nigh impossible for sufferers to reach out for community support, help programs, or social acceptance. Most seem to vividly recognise that acting on their impulses is morally wrong, but by making them out to be monsters or perverts only forces them to unhealthily bury their urges, rather than finding community support in dealing with them. I believe that pedophiles are not evil monsters unable to control their perversity, but are rather unfortunate individuals curses with urges they cannot avoid, and though their urges should never be made legal, they should be helped, not feared and locked up. CMV.

I believe that the demonization of pedophiles, and referring to them as monsters and perverts, is not only maling the situation worse, but is immoral in itself. CMV. A few AMAs from self-professing pedophiles on reddit, plus the majority of literature i can find on the issue, suggests that pedophilia is largely a sexual preference that cannot be helped by the subject. Now I'm in no way condoning child molestation, or any act of violence against a child, whether sexual or non. Butthe demonization of this particular sexual orientation makes it nigh impossible for sufferers to reach out for community support, help programs, or social acceptance. Most seem to vividly recognise that acting on their impulses is morally wrong, but by making them out to be monsters or perverts only forces them to unhealthily bury their urges, rather than finding community support in dealing with them. I believe that pedophiles are not evil monsters unable to control their perversity, but are rather unfortunate individuals curses with urges they cannot avoid, and though their urges should never be made legal, they should be helped, not feared and locked up. CMV.

t3_3jzk72

CMV: Obama was an overall 'Pretty OK' President.

Hello all! I'm new here, but have had a view in my blue collar work that isn't very popular and nobody seems to have anything to say to convince me otherwise except for: just google it (i did...), he's black, he's not white, he's only for poor people, etc... I have heard pretty much every stereotypical reason for why they the people I work with don't like Obama, but I have yet to be sat down and actually told what the problem with him actually is. I'm coming here, not to hate Obama, but to understand the view my peers have. I am a 23yr old male and politics is not, nor has ever been, apart of my life. I am also mixed Mexican and White while my peers with bad vibes on Obama are White. All the black people I work with love him because "he's black". No, I'm not lying, that's what they told me. They even said they went and voted for him *just because* he is black. If you're wondering why I'm ok with Obama, I guess I'm just not educated enough to hate him. I understand there may be little things here and there, but that why I came to this sub. Please CMV or at least give some reasons why my partners feel the way they do. Thank you for your time. _____ > *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: Obama was an overall 'Pretty OK' President. Hello all! I'm new here, but have had a view in my blue collar work that isn't very popular and nobody seems to have anything to say to convince me otherwise except for: just google it (i did...), he's black, he's not white, he's only for poor people, etc... I have heard pretty much every stereotypical reason for why they the people I work with don't like Obama, but I have yet to be sat down and actually told what the problem with him actually is. I'm coming here, not to hate Obama, but to understand the view my peers have. I am a 23yr old male and politics is not, nor has ever been, apart of my life. I am also mixed Mexican and White while my peers with bad vibes on Obama are White. All the black people I work with love him because "he's black". No, I'm not lying, that's what they told me. They even said they went and voted for him *just because* he is black. If you're wondering why I'm ok with Obama, I guess I'm just not educated enough to hate him. I understand there may be little things here and there, but that why I came to this sub. Please CMV or at least give some reasons why my partners feel the way they do. Thank you for your time.

t3_5xj9f0

CMV: Atheists are an Oppressed Minority in the United States

I believe the oppression of atheists (and other religious groups) stems largely from the social power held by christians. Here are my arguments: 1) It is practically impossible to be elected to most government positions as an atheist, unless they pretend to be christian. A result of this is that atheists’ voices are not heard in the government 2) People are absolutely lambasted for not participating in the Pledge of Allegiance, which declares submission to god. This also applies to prayer at public events 3) Christians can get away with all kinds of awful criticisms and behaviors toward atheists should they choose. An example would be exiling someone from their family for their views. This also occurs at an institutional level. For example, public schools sometimes will get away with holding faculty-led prayer or bringing in religious speakers 4) Atheists can be ostracized by their peers with nobody to support them 5) There is a double-standard for atheists and christians when it comes to analyzing conversations between the two. Atheists must fight much harder to have their voices heard, largely because christians don’t trust them 6) Atheists cannot comfortably speak out about their beliefs in a lot of places and situations 7) Atheists don’t have access to a lot of valuable social capital and experiences offered by groups such as churches, the boy scouts, etc. 8) Our currency, government buildings, license plates, etc. promote belief in god 9) Most of these issues are clear violations of the First Amendment, but atheists are not afforded enough leverage to make much of a difference I want to make it clear that I believe atheists are less oppressed than many oppressed groups, including religious groups. Also, some of these points totally apply to other groups. And, of course, atheists have it far worse in many other countries. This is just a specific issue I wanted to present. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply, I appreciate your thoughts! _____ > *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: Atheists are an Oppressed Minority in the United States. I believe the oppression of atheists (and other religious groups) stems largely from the social power held by christians. Here are my arguments: 1) It is practically impossible to be elected to most government positions as an atheist, unless they pretend to be christian. A result of this is that atheists’ voices are not heard in the government 2) People are absolutely lambasted for not participating in the Pledge of Allegiance, which declares submission to god. This also applies to prayer at public events 3) Christians can get away with all kinds of awful criticisms and behaviors toward atheists should they choose. An example would be exiling someone from their family for their views. This also occurs at an institutional level. For example, public schools sometimes will get away with holding faculty-led prayer or bringing in religious speakers 4) Atheists can be ostracized by their peers with nobody to support them 5) There is a double-standard for atheists and christians when it comes to analyzing conversations between the two. Atheists must fight much harder to have their voices heard, largely because christians don’t trust them 6) Atheists cannot comfortably speak out about their beliefs in a lot of places and situations 7) Atheists don’t have access to a lot of valuable social capital and experiences offered by groups such as churches, the boy scouts, etc. 8) Our currency, government buildings, license plates, etc. promote belief in god 9) Most of these issues are clear violations of the First Amendment, but atheists are not afforded enough leverage to make much of a difference I want to make it clear that I believe atheists are less oppressed than many oppressed groups, including religious groups. Also, some of these points totally apply to other groups. And, of course, atheists have it far worse in many other countries. This is just a specific issue I wanted to present. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply, I appreciate your thoughts!

t3_4syc0g

CMV: The West is largely to blame for the Islamic aggression from the Middle East

From Iraq to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, Israel to Palestine, it seems the West has had their hands very much dipped in all aspects of the Middle East. The fervent obsession with oil has in many cases (like Iraq) culminated in complete regime changes put in place by countries like the US, and on the other end of the spectrum a complete ignoring of the brutality and cruelty present in countries like Saudia Arabia. So Reddit, try and change my view that it is the West that has in many ways brought this on themselves. _____ > *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 West is largely to blame for the Islamic aggression from the Middle East. From Iraq to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, Israel to Palestine, it seems the West has had their hands very much dipped in all aspects of the Middle East. The fervent obsession with oil has in many cases (like Iraq) culminated in complete regime changes put in place by countries like the US, and on the other end of the spectrum a complete ignoring of the brutality and cruelty present in countries like Saudia Arabia. So Reddit, try and change my view that it is the West that has in many ways brought this on themselves.

t3_62e76u

CMV: The majority of women are to blame for their gender being sexually objectified.

Women complain about being objectified by men/society but they're the main cause of it; they wouldn't wear such revealing clothing, taking pictures mainly focusing of their chest (or try and get their butts and breasts in one picture). Let me elaborate: Picture/selfies: The majority of the pictures women take on social media is of their chest, their phone will dropped down further then it needs to be, showing cleavage and their cleavage will take up 75% of the pictures itself, even if their boobs aren't that big. Also every now and then you'll see that awkward twisty spine get my boobs and bum in one picture. It's very rare to see just a woman's face in a picture they've taken themselves. Clothing: All the clothing women choose to wear, all the time is revealing outfits, bits of fabric all showing off, again boobs and the butt (theme). They say they wear basically nothing for comfort; but still wear nothing in cold conditions, and high heels themselves everyone knows they aren't comfortable, but they still wear them, so that argument is irrelevant. Also, I'm 100% positive they could find clothing the covers them up that IS comfortable. Men have penis's, we wear clothing that covers us up and we don't complain about comfort, and as my experience, its the tight clothing thats uncomfortable. I hope by now you've gathered a theme here: Chest and butt. Society: Society hyper-sexualises the female chest and butt, that's obvious. So if women didn't want to be sexually objectified, then they'd do anything to not be objectified, including not wearing revealing clothing, or at least covering up the body parts that are hyper-sexualised, but do they? No. They're further objectifying themselves. The way we dress individually is important, because its the first thing you see upon seeing another human. Examples: A suit: If you see a woman or a man in a suit, what would you think first? Successful? Smart? Important? Sports wear: If you see someone in sports wear, what would you think first? Healthy? Strong? Now: A woman revealing breasts and butt?... Instantly, you're going to objectify them because they're revealing the hyper-sexualised body parts, indicating that they WANT to be objectified. You could say its just the way I think thats wrong, but society influences us since we are born, we have been brought up in a society that hyper-sexualises the breasts and butt, now women are also brought up in the same society and understand the world and whats what, they know and thats why they wear what they wear, to be objectified. Why I want this view changed: I can't stop looking at women like they're just sexual objects and it honestly disgusts me looking at women. Logically: I know theres more to them but can't get past this "mentality".

CMV: The majority of women are to blame for their gender being sexually objectified. Women complain about being objectified by men/society but they're the main cause of it; they wouldn't wear such revealing clothing, taking pictures mainly focusing of their chest (or try and get their butts and breasts in one picture). Let me elaborate: Picture/selfies: The majority of the pictures women take on social media is of their chest, their phone will dropped down further then it needs to be, showing cleavage and their cleavage will take up 75% of the pictures itself, even if their boobs aren't that big. Also every now and then you'll see that awkward twisty spine get my boobs and bum in one picture. It's very rare to see just a woman's face in a picture they've taken themselves. Clothing: All the clothing women choose to wear, all the time is revealing outfits, bits of fabric all showing off, again boobs and the butt (theme). They say they wear basically nothing for comfort; but still wear nothing in cold conditions, and high heels themselves everyone knows they aren't comfortable, but they still wear them, so that argument is irrelevant. Also, I'm 100% positive they could find clothing the covers them up that IS comfortable. Men have penis's, we wear clothing that covers us up and we don't complain about comfort, and as my experience, its the tight clothing thats uncomfortable. I hope by now you've gathered a theme here: Chest and butt. Society: Society hyper-sexualises the female chest and butt, that's obvious. So if women didn't want to be sexually objectified, then they'd do anything to not be objectified, including not wearing revealing clothing, or at least covering up the body parts that are hyper-sexualised, but do they? No. They're further objectifying themselves. The way we dress individually is important, because its the first thing you see upon seeing another human. Examples: A suit: If you see a woman or a man in a suit, what would you think first? Successful? Smart? Important? Sports wear: If you see someone in sports wear, what would you think first? Healthy? Strong? Now: A woman revealing breasts and butt?... Instantly, you're going to objectify them because they're revealing the hyper-sexualised body parts, indicating that they WANT to be objectified. You could say its just the way I think thats wrong, but society influences us since we are born, we have been brought up in a society that hyper-sexualises the breasts and butt, now women are also brought up in the same society and understand the world and whats what, they know and thats why they wear what they wear, to be objectified. Why I want this view changed: I can't stop looking at women like they're just sexual objects and it honestly disgusts me looking at women. Logically: I know theres more to them but can't get past this "mentality".

t3_1whgpn

CMV I think that randomly selecting our political representatives would be a superior system of democracy.

Now, admittedly this comes from the "getting drunk in a pub and debating" school of political science, so there's not that much in depth research done on my part. Secondly I will use the US as a starting point as it is a political system most of us have familiarity with. Our current political system has a major flaw in that the people who get elected aren't necessarily the best at governing, but rather the best at getting elected. It also assumes that people are in either camp A or camp B, when in reality people have much more complicated views (I agree with camp A on economics but hate their social policies etc). This system also creates unnecessary tension between political views (If you vote camp B you are destroying our country). I believe that most of these problems would be solved by having a sort of lottery to decide our representatives. Firstly it would actually represent the views held by the people. Under represented groups such as people under 40, women, and atheists would statistically have a much bigger chance of being represented. They would also not have undergone the soul selling process of getting the money and support to even be considered for election. Obviously this system would require a stronger bureaucracy, where decisions such as the minimum wage would be made by actual economists. This would slightly lessen the power of the legislative branch. I also think that certain restrictions regarding the people who are eligible for the lottery should be set, such as a lack of criminal record and possibly a certain level of education. Something similar to our current system of electing a president should be kept in place, as commander in chief etc. As you probably noticed this is a very undetailed opinion, so please CMV, or expand and improve on the ideas.

CMV I think that randomly selecting our political representatives would be a superior system of democracy. Now, admittedly this comes from the "getting drunk in a pub and debating" school of political science, so there's not that much in depth research done on my part. Secondly I will use the US as a starting point as it is a political system most of us have familiarity with. Our current political system has a major flaw in that the people who get elected aren't necessarily the best at governing, but rather the best at getting elected. It also assumes that people are in either camp A or camp B, when in reality people have much more complicated views (I agree with camp A on economics but hate their social policies etc). This system also creates unnecessary tension between political views (If you vote camp B you are destroying our country). I believe that most of these problems would be solved by having a sort of lottery to decide our representatives. Firstly it would actually represent the views held by the people. Under represented groups such as people under 40, women, and atheists would statistically have a much bigger chance of being represented. They would also not have undergone the soul selling process of getting the money and support to even be considered for election. Obviously this system would require a stronger bureaucracy, where decisions such as the minimum wage would be made by actual economists. This would slightly lessen the power of the legislative branch. I also think that certain restrictions regarding the people who are eligible for the lottery should be set, such as a lack of criminal record and possibly a certain level of education. Something similar to our current system of electing a president should be kept in place, as commander in chief etc. As you probably noticed this is a very undetailed opinion, so please CMV, or expand and improve on the ideas.

t3_1mtlxe

I believe that the only solution to the centered power of the two party system in the U.S. is through the creation of a stronger and more logically sound third party. CMV

Basically I would like to open up this debate with a perspective on the problem of parties in the U.S. that I rarely see. When I talk to fellow young people today about politics, I get a notion that most aren't particularly committed to any political party, and those that are seem to spout tired rhetoric that is often a repackaged version of the other side's point. We seem to be more focused on issues, particularly ones that we can agree on, than party lines. Most young people can consolidate that both sides can have a point occasionally, but are generally entrenched in lobbyists, corruption, war mongoring, and spin-talk. I grew up in a diverse area of metropolitan east texas (houston), and was exposed to the widest of political views. Yet the elderly still held the power and were the most often litigated for, due to the fact that a majority of young people dont realize the change they can inact. Its constantly pushed on us that both options suck, but that third parties are a waste of a vote. I feel that its more than that, that the current third parties are.really just a joke. Libertarians are repackaged tea partiers. Green parties have a good message, but planting trees won't save the world. I believe that what the U.S. needs isn't the old ideas that haven't ever worked like socialism or anarchy, or pleading with representatives. What it really needs is a grass roots movement focused on common sense, that's free from lobbying, that can reform local government as well as congress. It shouldn't be about fundamentalism, but a fundamental system of integrity. Instead of hoping the next politician is different, elect people who truly are for the people. So, what do you guys think? CMV

I believe that the only solution to the centered power of the two party system in the U.S. is through the creation of a stronger and more logically sound third party. CMV. Basically I would like to open up this debate with a perspective on the problem of parties in the U.S. that I rarely see. When I talk to fellow young people today about politics, I get a notion that most aren't particularly committed to any political party, and those that are seem to spout tired rhetoric that is often a repackaged version of the other side's point. We seem to be more focused on issues, particularly ones that we can agree on, than party lines. Most young people can consolidate that both sides can have a point occasionally, but are generally entrenched in lobbyists, corruption, war mongoring, and spin-talk. I grew up in a diverse area of metropolitan east texas (houston), and was exposed to the widest of political views. Yet the elderly still held the power and were the most often litigated for, due to the fact that a majority of young people dont realize the change they can inact. Its constantly pushed on us that both options suck, but that third parties are a waste of a vote. I feel that its more than that, that the current third parties are.really just a joke. Libertarians are repackaged tea partiers. Green parties have a good message, but planting trees won't save the world. I believe that what the U.S. needs isn't the old ideas that haven't ever worked like socialism or anarchy, or pleading with representatives. What it really needs is a grass roots movement focused on common sense, that's free from lobbying, that can reform local government as well as congress. It shouldn't be about fundamentalism, but a fundamental system of integrity. Instead of hoping the next politician is different, elect people who truly are for the people. So, what do you guys think? CMV

t3_286bd9

CMV: Nudity and sex should be completely legal in public.

We see naked animals all the time, and that sex is how most animals procreate is common scientific knowledge. Most people survive encountering naked animals, or even animals having sex with little to no issues. People are basically high functioning animals, and the existence of nude beaches/nudist colonies and swingers clubs/porn shoots is proof that nudity/sex in front of other people is not a danger or harms the non-participating parties in any way. Since there is no harm, there should be no laws regulating how we choose to clothe ourselves or where we engage in consenting activities, so long as we are legally allowed to be there (i.e. This does not apply to another persons private property, where they would have final say). CMV.

CMV: Nudity and sex should be completely legal in public. We see naked animals all the time, and that sex is how most animals procreate is common scientific knowledge. Most people survive encountering naked animals, or even animals having sex with little to no issues. People are basically high functioning animals, and the existence of nude beaches/nudist colonies and swingers clubs/porn shoots is proof that nudity/sex in front of other people is not a danger or harms the non-participating parties in any way. Since there is no harm, there should be no laws regulating how we choose to clothe ourselves or where we engage in consenting activities, so long as we are legally allowed to be there (i.e. This does not apply to another persons private property, where they would have final say). CMV.

t3_23pu2y

CMV: I believe that legalizing prostitution is better than keeping it illegal

* Safety netting: legalized prostitution means that it falls under the same legal protection as all other legitimate businesses. Sex workers are entitled to police and community support without fear of prosecution if and when they are exploited. That means women who can work for themselves, women who can work with less fear of being beaten, raped, robbed, abused emotionally or otherwise. * Reduces demonisation of women in sex work: Wherever you go, whichever country that you visit prostitution exists. However, in only one country I've been to have prostitutes been viewed by the population as members of their society and an important part of their city - Amsterdam, Netherlands. Everywhere else prostitution is seen as a seedy industry; peopled by the homeless, the drug addicted, those with no other options and essentially looked down on by society and given less of a fair shake. * reduces risk of STI's among a vulnerable population: if prostitution is kept illegal, there is no incentive for prostitutes to seek mandated checks for STIs, no incentive to use protection, no incentive for their johns to do the same either. There are more than one way to ruin one's life than being beaten by a pimp - and that's being told that they have HIV. * Offer's a window for clients who would otherwise find physical intimacy impossible or difficult beyond reasonable trial: I'm talking about the elderly, the disabled and people who for reasons unkown simply haven't found a way to get intimate with a member of the opposite sex. Just because someone has a facial disfigurement doesn't mean they don't have sexual desires; i.e. like a sex surrogate (see 'The Sessions'). * Financial incentive: Lastly, prostitution is a business like any other, and can be taxed like any other. Its another financial source. * It's their choice: At the end of the day, when it comes right down to it, its someone's own body. You can tell them time and again that they are commiting a sin, or that one's body is beyond price or that they should opt for something else where they would be less looked down on; or if they would let their daughter become a prostitute. But let's face it - you can't tell a person - man or woman, black or white, gay or straight - what they can and cannot do with their body. If they feel comfortable with selling their body for money, that's their choice. Not ours to take it away from them. I agree that the institution of prostitution is a complex issue, but overall the benefits of legalizing and regulating prostitution outweigh the risks/cons.

CMV: I believe that legalizing prostitution is better than keeping it illegal. * Safety netting: legalized prostitution means that it falls under the same legal protection as all other legitimate businesses. Sex workers are entitled to police and community support without fear of prosecution if and when they are exploited. That means women who can work for themselves, women who can work with less fear of being beaten, raped, robbed, abused emotionally or otherwise. * Reduces demonisation of women in sex work: Wherever you go, whichever country that you visit prostitution exists. However, in only one country I've been to have prostitutes been viewed by the population as members of their society and an important part of their city - Amsterdam, Netherlands. Everywhere else prostitution is seen as a seedy industry; peopled by the homeless, the drug addicted, those with no other options and essentially looked down on by society and given less of a fair shake. * reduces risk of STI's among a vulnerable population: if prostitution is kept illegal, there is no incentive for prostitutes to seek mandated checks for STIs, no incentive to use protection, no incentive for their johns to do the same either. There are more than one way to ruin one's life than being beaten by a pimp - and that's being told that they have HIV. * Offer's a window for clients who would otherwise find physical intimacy impossible or difficult beyond reasonable trial: I'm talking about the elderly, the disabled and people who for reasons unkown simply haven't found a way to get intimate with a member of the opposite sex. Just because someone has a facial disfigurement doesn't mean they don't have sexual desires; i.e. like a sex surrogate (see 'The Sessions'). * Financial incentive: Lastly, prostitution is a business like any other, and can be taxed like any other. Its another financial source. * It's their choice: At the end of the day, when it comes right down to it, its someone's own body. You can tell them time and again that they are commiting a sin, or that one's body is beyond price or that they should opt for something else where they would be less looked down on; or if they would let their daughter become a prostitute. But let's face it - you can't tell a person - man or woman, black or white, gay or straight - what they can and cannot do with their body. If they feel comfortable with selling their body for money, that's their choice. Not ours to take it away from them. I agree that the institution of prostitution is a complex issue, but overall the benefits of legalizing and regulating prostitution outweigh the risks/cons.

t3_265k0q

CMV: I don't think it's unconstitutional for a school/government building to have religious symbols, traditions, etc.

The first amendment only talks about laws. Why then is it deemed unconstitutional for government buildings to put up religious symbols? It's totally trivial and harmless, yet people act like they're being oppressed because a government building puts up a Cross. If you are so sensitive to the fact that people might have different beliefs than you I think you have a problem. If the majority population of a state is Christian, it would make sense for the to celebrate their Christian heritage. Same would be true for any religion. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think it's unconstitutional for a school/government building to have religious symbols, traditions, etc. The first amendment only talks about laws. Why then is it deemed unconstitutional for government buildings to put up religious symbols? It's totally trivial and harmless, yet people act like they're being oppressed because a government building puts up a Cross. If you are so sensitive to the fact that people might have different beliefs than you I think you have a problem. If the majority population of a state is Christian, it would make sense for the to celebrate their Christian heritage. Same would be true for any religion.

t3_6ix6b8

CMV: individual people are meaningless, we only matter in groups.

I personally feel that an individuals life is meaningless only effectually mattering if a group decides it does, and only matters as long as that group exists. So thus the only meaning in life is that which you decide matters, and it only matters to you. I hold as an example Nikola Tesla, Edgar Allen Poe, and Vincent Van Gogh, as quick reference. All of which died penniless and in despair only to be held in high regard after death. I mean this as to say that a person can be a bad or good person, only if a group believes its true. Without a group deciding they are something, they are merely an animal acting on its own intuition. Another Example is Democracy. which in essence is a zero sum game where the majority is the leader, and the rest just live with it. It is an agreement of a group to exist together even in disagreement. That is only possible if the group agrees to it, the individual again does not matter. my last example is a philosophical quandary that is comparable to that of "if a tree fell in the woods." If there were only one human left on the planet, they would just be a hairless monkey with opposable thumbs, their existence would be meaningless beyond their own view of themselves, and would effect nothing in either its life or death. without a group to appreciate it, nothing matters. 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: individual people are meaningless, we only matter in groups. I personally feel that an individuals life is meaningless only effectually mattering if a group decides it does, and only matters as long as that group exists. So thus the only meaning in life is that which you decide matters, and it only matters to you. I hold as an example Nikola Tesla, Edgar Allen Poe, and Vincent Van Gogh, as quick reference. All of which died penniless and in despair only to be held in high regard after death. I mean this as to say that a person can be a bad or good person, only if a group believes its true. Without a group deciding they are something, they are merely an animal acting on its own intuition. Another Example is Democracy. which in essence is a zero sum game where the majority is the leader, and the rest just live with it. It is an agreement of a group to exist together even in disagreement. That is only possible if the group agrees to it, the individual again does not matter. my last example is a philosophical quandary that is comparable to that of "if a tree fell in the woods." If there were only one human left on the planet, they would just be a hairless monkey with opposable thumbs, their existence would be meaningless beyond their own view of themselves, and would effect nothing in either its life or death. without a group to appreciate it, nothing matters. Change My View

t3_35sw2p

CMV: If anyone should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, it should be MLK Jr, not Harriet Tubman

From a legacy standpoint, AJ is probably the least deserving amongst the figures on American paper currency (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Grant, Franklin). It's not like the guy didn't have good qualities or do good things while in office, but for a country that's trying to go in the direction of racial/ethnic inclusiveness, it's pretty baffling that the guy who's responsible for the trail of tears is on our currency. That being said, I thought it was interesting to see in the news that people are trying to change who is on the $20 bill; however, Harriet Tubman seems like an odd choice considering the other possible candidates. Off the top of my head, I think Teddy Roosevelt and MLK are the most deserving, and if I had to choose between them it would be MLK. Obviously, MLK's legacy speaks for itself, being the leader of the civil rights movement. Compared to Tubman I just feel like MLK's impact was far greater. His speeches and non-violent protests impacted the entire nation, millions of people, while Tubman saved ~70 people from slavery. That's not to discredit Tubman because what she did was brave and important, and her accomplishments weren't limited to the underground railroad, but I think it's fair to say that MLK had a greater impact than Tubman, and therefore is more deserving to be placed on the $20 bill. I might even go as far to say that it's not even close. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If anyone should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, it should be MLK Jr, not Harriet Tubman. From a legacy standpoint, AJ is probably the least deserving amongst the figures on American paper currency (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Grant, Franklin). It's not like the guy didn't have good qualities or do good things while in office, but for a country that's trying to go in the direction of racial/ethnic inclusiveness, it's pretty baffling that the guy who's responsible for the trail of tears is on our currency. That being said, I thought it was interesting to see in the news that people are trying to change who is on the $20 bill; however, Harriet Tubman seems like an odd choice considering the other possible candidates. Off the top of my head, I think Teddy Roosevelt and MLK are the most deserving, and if I had to choose between them it would be MLK. Obviously, MLK's legacy speaks for itself, being the leader of the civil rights movement. Compared to Tubman I just feel like MLK's impact was far greater. His speeches and non-violent protests impacted the entire nation, millions of people, while Tubman saved ~70 people from slavery. That's not to discredit Tubman because what she did was brave and important, and her accomplishments weren't limited to the underground railroad, but I think it's fair to say that MLK had a greater impact than Tubman, and therefore is more deserving to be placed on the $20 bill. I might even go as far to say that it's not even close.

t3_2bl47b

CMV: It is in my best interest to not vote.

Note: I am in the USA. Because of the [Paradox of Voting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting) it is in my rational self interest to not vote. As far as the impact of the vote on our democracy, I will focus on local elections over presidential elections, because I have a bigger voice in local elections and then focus on the closest voting result (although I am arguing I still do not have a big enough voice to make it worth my time/effort to vote). My actual vote is almost useless. In the 2012 election for House, my district (VA district 11) had a difference of 84704 votes between the democrat leader and GOP leader^[[1](http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia's_11th_Congressional_District_elections,_2012)] , meaning my vote could be 1 in 84704, if I was republican, which I am not. In an attempt to create a better life for myself and maximize my utility, the amount of time and effort I put into voting multiplied by 1/84704 divided by the impact it has in improving my life shows I am being incredibly inefficient by trying to create that change by voting. I also gain a very minor amount of emotional utility by voting because I know that I am effectively wasting my time with voting instead of something more productive to increase my utility such as studying for exams or reading interesting books (shout out to [HPMOR](http://hpmor.com)). _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is in my best interest to not vote. Note: I am in the USA. Because of the [Paradox of Voting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting) it is in my rational self interest to not vote. As far as the impact of the vote on our democracy, I will focus on local elections over presidential elections, because I have a bigger voice in local elections and then focus on the closest voting result (although I am arguing I still do not have a big enough voice to make it worth my time/effort to vote). My actual vote is almost useless. In the 2012 election for House, my district (VA district 11) had a difference of 84704 votes between the democrat leader and GOP leader^[[1](http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia's_11th_Congressional_District_elections,_2012)] , meaning my vote could be 1 in 84704, if I was republican, which I am not. In an attempt to create a better life for myself and maximize my utility, the amount of time and effort I put into voting multiplied by 1/84704 divided by the impact it has in improving my life shows I am being incredibly inefficient by trying to create that change by voting. I also gain a very minor amount of emotional utility by voting because I know that I am effectively wasting my time with voting instead of something more productive to increase my utility such as studying for exams or reading interesting books (shout out to [HPMOR](http://hpmor.com)).

t3_1c83g2

I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt (with priority). CMV.

This a view that I am very embarrassed to have but nevertheless I just can't shake it no matter how much I think about it. I live in a western country and religion isn't really prevalent (at least around me it's not), I am not religious. 1. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and it should always be between a man and a woman. I don't understand why homosexuals demand the title of "marriage" and why we must redefine marriage for just for them? Why are they not able to have a "civil partnership" with the full rights of marriage instead? I feel like homosexuals getting married will devalue marriage. I am well aware of the heterosexuals that just screw their marriages up and don't value marriage but they tend to be of unintelligent and of the lower class. But it just doesn't feel right because marriage is the joining together of two people of the opposite sex (there's a reason why men and women have complimentary genitals) who usually go on to produce children and create a family. I do not extend this view for transsexuals or those with gender identity mismatches. 2. A child should be raised with a mother and father if possible. I am aware of single parents who do a great job etc. but in terms of adoption, I do not believe that a good homosexual couple should be on a level playing field with a good heterosexual couple (I am not sure if it's currently implemented but it is desired) if they were put against each other to adopt a particular child. The response to this will be that it's not fair to *not* have them on a level playing field but when we discuss fairness in adoption, it should be about the children. Every child deserves a right to grow up with a mother and a father. However, if there's a shortage of heterosexual parents and the best choice for a child are a homosexual couple then so be it - every child deserves to have a family. But in all cases, I believe that heterosexual couples should be given first preference in adoption.

I don't believe homosexuals should be able to marry or adopt (with priority). CMV. This a view that I am very embarrassed to have but nevertheless I just can't shake it no matter how much I think about it. I live in a western country and religion isn't really prevalent (at least around me it's not), I am not religious. 1. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and it should always be between a man and a woman. I don't understand why homosexuals demand the title of "marriage" and why we must redefine marriage for just for them? Why are they not able to have a "civil partnership" with the full rights of marriage instead? I feel like homosexuals getting married will devalue marriage. I am well aware of the heterosexuals that just screw their marriages up and don't value marriage but they tend to be of unintelligent and of the lower class. But it just doesn't feel right because marriage is the joining together of two people of the opposite sex (there's a reason why men and women have complimentary genitals) who usually go on to produce children and create a family. I do not extend this view for transsexuals or those with gender identity mismatches. 2. A child should be raised with a mother and father if possible. I am aware of single parents who do a great job etc. but in terms of adoption, I do not believe that a good homosexual couple should be on a level playing field with a good heterosexual couple (I am not sure if it's currently implemented but it is desired) if they were put against each other to adopt a particular child. The response to this will be that it's not fair to *not* have them on a level playing field but when we discuss fairness in adoption, it should be about the children. Every child deserves a right to grow up with a mother and a father. However, if there's a shortage of heterosexual parents and the best choice for a child are a homosexual couple then so be it - every child deserves to have a family. But in all cases, I believe that heterosexual couples should be given first preference in adoption.

t3_1pqqgj

I should chose a career with more job security and more money, rather than pursue a passion. CMV

I'm currently studying an undergraduate with a major in physics. I have the option of completing a masters in either physics or an engineering discipline. I will chose engineering to take advantage of the larger job market, larger job security and generally higher salaries. I don't believe my passion for physics is enough to outweigh the benefits of a career in engineering. After all, I will still find it engaging. I believe the life I can lead will be more comfortable, simply because I'm earning more and will have more breathing space. A career in physics would require me to be extraordinarily capable intellectually and hard-working to seize the rare job opportunities and to prosper. Attempting to fulfil this passion is not worth the risk.

I should chose a career with more job security and more money, rather than pursue a passion. CMV. I'm currently studying an undergraduate with a major in physics. I have the option of completing a masters in either physics or an engineering discipline. I will chose engineering to take advantage of the larger job market, larger job security and generally higher salaries. I don't believe my passion for physics is enough to outweigh the benefits of a career in engineering. After all, I will still find it engaging. I believe the life I can lead will be more comfortable, simply because I'm earning more and will have more breathing space. A career in physics would require me to be extraordinarily capable intellectually and hard-working to seize the rare job opportunities and to prosper. Attempting to fulfil this passion is not worth the risk.

t3_2yat7f

CMV: I Believe that Pedophiles Who Only View Child Pornography and Don't Act on their Impulses Should Have Dramatically Reduced Sentences

Hi all, This is something I recently read about in [this new yorker article] (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/14/the-science-of-sex-abuse) and it was pretty eye-opening. I learned a lot, perhaps most importantly that a pedophile is generally considered a sexual orientation, and does not refer to someone who has *had* sexual encounters with children. I think we can probably all agree that sexualizing minors in any way constitutes abuse and is just generally really screwed up. But the belief that viewers (NOT creators) of child porn are "likely" to act on their impulses is apparently factually inaccurate. However, sentencing in this country does not reflect this reality. The average sentence for child porn possession has nearly doubled since 2004 to 8 years, and there's no evidence that prison time reduces the rate of recidivism. Actually, according to [this sentencing commission report](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Full_Report_to_Congress.pdf) “psycho-sexual treatment may be effective in reducing recidivism for many sex offenders.” In a study of 610 offenders convicted of possession or receipt of child pornography (not distribution or production), the commission found that the rate of committing more crimes of any sort was 30 percent, and the rate of sexual reoffending was 7.4 percent. It seems that not only do we too harshly punish child porn users by locking them up, we actually do society as a whole a disservice by not providing them treatment instead. Moreover, research has suggested that the amount of pedophiles out there *far* outnumbers the amount of people who actually act on their impulses. I'm not saying that possessing child porn is victimless (it was created after all) and should be legal or that creating it should have any reduced sentence. But in short, I think we should change our sentencing laws to better reflect the actual impact of people who possess child pornography and go after the people who act on their impulses. > *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 Pedophiles Who Only View Child Pornography and Don't Act on their Impulses Should Have Dramatically Reduced Sentences. Hi all, This is something I recently read about in [this new yorker article] (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/14/the-science-of-sex-abuse) and it was pretty eye-opening. I learned a lot, perhaps most importantly that a pedophile is generally considered a sexual orientation, and does not refer to someone who has *had* sexual encounters with children. I think we can probably all agree that sexualizing minors in any way constitutes abuse and is just generally really screwed up. But the belief that viewers (NOT creators) of child porn are "likely" to act on their impulses is apparently factually inaccurate. However, sentencing in this country does not reflect this reality. The average sentence for child porn possession has nearly doubled since 2004 to 8 years, and there's no evidence that prison time reduces the rate of recidivism. Actually, according to [this sentencing commission report](http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/sex-offense-topics/201212-federal-child-pornography-offenses/Full_Report_to_Congress.pdf) “psycho-sexual treatment may be effective in reducing recidivism for many sex offenders.” In a study of 610 offenders convicted of possession or receipt of child pornography (not distribution or production), the commission found that the rate of committing more crimes of any sort was 30 percent, and the rate of sexual reoffending was 7.4 percent. It seems that not only do we too harshly punish child porn users by locking them up, we actually do society as a whole a disservice by not providing them treatment instead. Moreover, research has suggested that the amount of pedophiles out there *far* outnumbers the amount of people who actually act on their impulses. I'm not saying that possessing child porn is victimless (it was created after all) and should be legal or that creating it should have any reduced sentence. But in short, I think we should change our sentencing laws to better reflect the actual impact of people who possess child pornography and go after the people who act on their impulses. > *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_1ds4dg

I believe abortion should be illegal because I think it is murder. CMV

In all honesty, I really don't know much about abortion and therefore I haven't really taken a side on the issue. But, from the limited knowledge I have of biology, I know that once fertilization occurs, the zygote immediately starts dividing, eventually forming the blastocyst and then embryo. Now obviously, barring any chromosomal or developmental abnormalities, the embryo develops into a baby. Now I'm not exactly sure which point in this process abortion occurs, but I feel at any point, you're killing something that will eventually turn into a human being. Now I know there are some legitimate reasons for abortion like in the case of rape or harm to a mother, but I mean if two stupid 16 year olds got it on and were stupid enough to not use contraceptives, I don't think they should be able to get away with it by just killing their mistake. I guess that reasoning applies to two people of any age that just don't want the baby too. So yeah, I really don't know much and you can probably tell I have an extremely limited view of this issue, but CMV and educate me please!

I believe abortion should be illegal because I think it is murder. CMV. In all honesty, I really don't know much about abortion and therefore I haven't really taken a side on the issue. But, from the limited knowledge I have of biology, I know that once fertilization occurs, the zygote immediately starts dividing, eventually forming the blastocyst and then embryo. Now obviously, barring any chromosomal or developmental abnormalities, the embryo develops into a baby. Now I'm not exactly sure which point in this process abortion occurs, but I feel at any point, you're killing something that will eventually turn into a human being. Now I know there are some legitimate reasons for abortion like in the case of rape or harm to a mother, but I mean if two stupid 16 year olds got it on and were stupid enough to not use contraceptives, I don't think they should be able to get away with it by just killing their mistake. I guess that reasoning applies to two people of any age that just don't want the baby too. So yeah, I really don't know much and you can probably tell I have an extremely limited view of this issue, but CMV and educate me please!

t3_6vccbx

CMV: I believe that U.S. military spending should not be cut and should at least remain at its current percent of the U.S. budget.

In my opinion, the size of the U.S.'s defense force is a trademark of American society. While I've seen in other CMV posts that the idea of the uniqueness of American freedom is dead because plenty of other nations share the same levels of freedom, America is still unique in the professionalism of her military and defense. I completely understand those who argue that the U.S. military is no longer fighting for the direct freedom of America and American citizens, but I feel like what the military is actually doing—securing the same freedoms that Americans have for citizens of nations around the globe—is just as, if not more important than defending only American citizens. I for one hope to see the world move more towards globalism and unite under international organizations, and I feel like one large force keeping everything in check is necessary to do so.

CMV: I believe that U.S. military spending should not be cut and should at least remain at its current percent of the U.S. budget. In my opinion, the size of the U.S.'s defense force is a trademark of American society. While I've seen in other CMV posts that the idea of the uniqueness of American freedom is dead because plenty of other nations share the same levels of freedom, America is still unique in the professionalism of her military and defense. I completely understand those who argue that the U.S. military is no longer fighting for the direct freedom of America and American citizens, but I feel like what the military is actually doing—securing the same freedoms that Americans have for citizens of nations around the globe—is just as, if not more important than defending only American citizens. I for one hope to see the world move more towards globalism and unite under international organizations, and I feel like one large force keeping everything in check is necessary to do so.

t3_1v3gre

All political expression in the United States has been criminalized or rendered ineffective. CMV.

## Observations 1. Voting is ineffective as there is little difference between candidates, none with any chance of winning represent the interest of the people, and campaigns are built on deceptions. 2. Writing congressmen earns nothing more than a form letter response. 3. The right to peacefully assemble has been revoked. (See Occupy.) 4. Whistleblowing is met with criminal charges. (See Snowden, Manning.) 5. Our government lies to us about its policies. Some high-ranking government officials have even perjured themselves before Congress to deceive us and got away with it. (See General Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.) 6. Even if voting mattered otherwise, elections are stolen. (See the 2000 presidential election.) ## Summary I believe that there is no longer any legal way to effect meaningful political change, and any methods of expression that might lead to change (peaceful assembly, truth-baring journalism, etc.) have been curtailed by abuses of law. The only hope for America is revolution. Change my view. * * * **Edit:** Revised some wording that encouraged unnecessary arguments.

All political expression in the United States has been criminalized or rendered ineffective. CMV. ## Observations 1. Voting is ineffective as there is little difference between candidates, none with any chance of winning represent the interest of the people, and campaigns are built on deceptions. 2. Writing congressmen earns nothing more than a form letter response. 3. The right to peacefully assemble has been revoked. (See Occupy.) 4. Whistleblowing is met with criminal charges. (See Snowden, Manning.) 5. Our government lies to us about its policies. Some high-ranking government officials have even perjured themselves before Congress to deceive us and got away with it. (See General Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.) 6. Even if voting mattered otherwise, elections are stolen. (See the 2000 presidential election.) ## Summary I believe that there is no longer any legal way to effect meaningful political change, and any methods of expression that might lead to change (peaceful assembly, truth-baring journalism, etc.) have been curtailed by abuses of law. The only hope for America is revolution. Change my view. * * * **Edit:** Revised some wording that encouraged unnecessary arguments.

t3_439ohg

CMV: It's perfectly fine that a white actor is going to play Michael Jackson.

Recently, I've noticed a lot of outrage about Joseph Fiennes being cast as Michael Jackson in an upcoming comedy. I just don't understand it because the film is going to take place in 2001 when Michael Jackson looked white. I know that he looked white because of his Vitiligo, but his skin was still literally white. People also keep bringing up an interview between MJ and Oprah where he says that he wouldn't want a white actor to play him. But in the context of the statement, he's talking about a white child actor playing him as a child. I agree that Hollywood does a lot of whitewashing of roles, I just don't think this is a case where that applies.

CMV: It's perfectly fine that a white actor is going to play Michael Jackson. Recently, I've noticed a lot of outrage about Joseph Fiennes being cast as Michael Jackson in an upcoming comedy. I just don't understand it because the film is going to take place in 2001 when Michael Jackson looked white. I know that he looked white because of his Vitiligo, but his skin was still literally white. People also keep bringing up an interview between MJ and Oprah where he says that he wouldn't want a white actor to play him. But in the context of the statement, he's talking about a white child actor playing him as a child. I agree that Hollywood does a lot of whitewashing of roles, I just don't think this is a case where that applies.

t3_32vz08

CMV: I don't understand the popularity of pretty pictures, especially over words. I find there's a lot less to engage with, but I would love to CMV.

On a lot of social media, there are pages and pages of really wonderful images to look at and scroll through, but I find myself not getting much out of this. I mean, I look at the art, enjoy some of it, then I move on, and no information or impact has been gained from it. I wonder how this is a justifiable use of my time or anyone's time. Which is strange, because I waste heaps of time reading through junk on the internet and typing up junk to people... so what's the disconnect with still pictures? I feel like a Philistine. I mean, I don't mind going to the art gallery, but I feel I'm missing a certain component of the experience. It's something to do but for me it's just "look at that, that's cool"... "that's pretty cool too", and so on. Seeing cool stuff isn't that overwhelmingly exciting to me.. I like film and some shows, though I don't have a TV, and I can see the appeal in comics and magazines, but pictures on their own... maybe their worth a thousand words but none of those words are in coherent sentences. Is it just the saturation of these works on the internet, such as on Tumblr and Instagram and DeviantArt, that has lowered its value with me? Please help me see what art lovers or even casual internet users see that makes it so interesting or enjoyable or engaging to them. Is there anything I could do to improve my experience of still visual art? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't understand the popularity of pretty pictures, especially over words. I find there's a lot less to engage with, but I would love to CMV. On a lot of social media, there are pages and pages of really wonderful images to look at and scroll through, but I find myself not getting much out of this. I mean, I look at the art, enjoy some of it, then I move on, and no information or impact has been gained from it. I wonder how this is a justifiable use of my time or anyone's time. Which is strange, because I waste heaps of time reading through junk on the internet and typing up junk to people... so what's the disconnect with still pictures? I feel like a Philistine. I mean, I don't mind going to the art gallery, but I feel I'm missing a certain component of the experience. It's something to do but for me it's just "look at that, that's cool"... "that's pretty cool too", and so on. Seeing cool stuff isn't that overwhelmingly exciting to me.. I like film and some shows, though I don't have a TV, and I can see the appeal in comics and magazines, but pictures on their own... maybe their worth a thousand words but none of those words are in coherent sentences. Is it just the saturation of these works on the internet, such as on Tumblr and Instagram and DeviantArt, that has lowered its value with me? Please help me see what art lovers or even casual internet users see that makes it so interesting or enjoyable or engaging to them. Is there anything I could do to improve my experience of still visual art?

t3_5f2xob

CMV: Buying Witcher 3 will be a waste of my money.

Everyone keeps claiming that The Witcher 3 is some marvel, once a lifetime type of game. I have tried both the first as well as the 2nd one. I absolutely hated them both. Thought they were messy, over complicated, had too much going on visually, disinteresting story at the start, clunky unorganized combat (Don't get me started on magic) and in general stopped playing them both 1 hour in multiple times. Both games were claimed to be very good, yet I really found them bland. Is Witcher 3 really "that good". What has exactly changed from the last two? I really want to give it a chance just as I gave those 2 a chance after people telling me, only to find out I wasted my money and never got into them.

CMV: Buying Witcher 3 will be a waste of my money. Everyone keeps claiming that The Witcher 3 is some marvel, once a lifetime type of game. I have tried both the first as well as the 2nd one. I absolutely hated them both. Thought they were messy, over complicated, had too much going on visually, disinteresting story at the start, clunky unorganized combat (Don't get me started on magic) and in general stopped playing them both 1 hour in multiple times. Both games were claimed to be very good, yet I really found them bland. Is Witcher 3 really "that good". What has exactly changed from the last two? I really want to give it a chance just as I gave those 2 a chance after people telling me, only to find out I wasted my money and never got into them.

t3_3h70cd

CMV : /r/Funny is not Funny

"providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical:" Out of most default subs that get up-voted on the front page /r/funny is the the least amusing. It's the lowest common denominator type of stuff , lowest of the low hanging fruit , so processed that most corporations could use material for marketing PR , it's like coffee without caffeine , 2Pac - Hit Em Up without insults.. Basically it is not authentically amusing content. It feels like forcing you into safe cute giggle rather than genuinely amuse you.

CMV : /r/Funny is not Funny. "providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical:" Out of most default subs that get up-voted on the front page /r/funny is the the least amusing. It's the lowest common denominator type of stuff , lowest of the low hanging fruit , so processed that most corporations could use material for marketing PR , it's like coffee without caffeine , 2Pac - Hit Em Up without insults.. Basically it is not authentically amusing content. It feels like forcing you into safe cute giggle rather than genuinely amuse you.

t3_1o5br1

I don't believe that women deserve free birth control pills that aren't a medical necessity. CMV.

Now, that's not to say I want to restrict a woman's right to birth control. I'm far from that mindset; if you want to purchase birth control pills or Plan B or whatever else, that's none of my business. My issue is **forcing** insurance companies/taxpayers to front the bill for birth control pills so women can go out and have sex. If the pills are prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes or the insurance plan they have covers the pills **without** legal force, that's a different story and I'm okay with that. Otherwise, I do not feel like condom-less sex is such an entitlement that birth control pills should be readily available for free.

I don't believe that women deserve free birth control pills that aren't a medical necessity. CMV. Now, that's not to say I want to restrict a woman's right to birth control. I'm far from that mindset; if you want to purchase birth control pills or Plan B or whatever else, that's none of my business. My issue is **forcing** insurance companies/taxpayers to front the bill for birth control pills so women can go out and have sex. If the pills are prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes or the insurance plan they have covers the pills **without** legal force, that's a different story and I'm okay with that. Otherwise, I do not feel like condom-less sex is such an entitlement that birth control pills should be readily available for free.

t3_1ytmk4

I do not think the whole idea of a father being possessive about his daughter's sexuality is 'sweet' or acceptable in any way, and believe it indicates a prevalent problem in society. CMV.

I see posts about fathers threatening their daughter's boyfriends, getting offended at the idea of some man having sexual relations with them and so on - this is intended to be endearing, understandable and even encouraged. A lot of the times the responses to such posts go either like, "Aww." or "I want a dad like that." or someone expressing agreement over having such views. Why do I think it's a problem? 1. It's clearly a very patriarchal idea. The very notion that it is the father who owns his daughter and her body, only to be given away to a person whom he deems worthy completely commodifies the woman. 2. It's always the women's sexuality that's seen as dangerous and posing a threat to male powers. So the double standards exist and are exemplified here. There are usually no men or even women (in general, and from what I've largely observed, do feel free to give proof of opposition) going frantic over their sons being sexually active. 3. The very idea of 'possessing' and controlling someone, even if it is your daughter is extremely unnerving. Especially when it comes to personal choices like sexuality. Also, please note, I am talking about mainstream society in the Western world. These factors are completely different and have different connotations in different cultures.

I do not think the whole idea of a father being possessive about his daughter's sexuality is 'sweet' or acceptable in any way, and believe it indicates a prevalent problem in society. CMV. I see posts about fathers threatening their daughter's boyfriends, getting offended at the idea of some man having sexual relations with them and so on - this is intended to be endearing, understandable and even encouraged. A lot of the times the responses to such posts go either like, "Aww." or "I want a dad like that." or someone expressing agreement over having such views. Why do I think it's a problem? 1. It's clearly a very patriarchal idea. The very notion that it is the father who owns his daughter and her body, only to be given away to a person whom he deems worthy completely commodifies the woman. 2. It's always the women's sexuality that's seen as dangerous and posing a threat to male powers. So the double standards exist and are exemplified here. There are usually no men or even women (in general, and from what I've largely observed, do feel free to give proof of opposition) going frantic over their sons being sexually active. 3. The very idea of 'possessing' and controlling someone, even if it is your daughter is extremely unnerving. Especially when it comes to personal choices like sexuality. Also, please note, I am talking about mainstream society in the Western world. These factors are completely different and have different connotations in different cultures.

t3_55fx6a

CMV:My country sucks and I should move out of it

For the purpose of this CMV, my country is Brazil. Here are the points: - The educational system is very, very, very, very shitty ("crappy" is too euphemistic). The teachers are poorly paid, the kids are supposedly indoctrinated by them, and the students misbehave a lot. Recently, the high school system got some changes, and now the students only study what is relevant for their future college courses. - The crime rate is too damn high! Recently, the legal age for jail (IDK the proper term in English) was reduced to 16 (for heinous crimes only like rape or intentional murder) because there were too many crimes committed by them. This crime rate even made Brazil lose to mf-ing **USA** in the Global Peace Index since the last year report. - A few months ago, I asked this subreddit if less developed countries could have something to be proud. One of the answers talked about economic growth and development. IT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE! The former government made the economy go down and the new government isn't helping. - I don't know if this argument may be relevant, but we border Venezuela (the state I live in is very far away from the borders, but whatever), that's becoming a real-life apocalypse scenario (it's probably only a civil war away from Somalia-like scenario). Our former president's party had a similar ideology to Maduro's party's, but she got impeached. Maybe Brazil could've gotten a similar fate. I almost wished Maduro to suffer a lot in his next life. - The police here is too brutal, specially with poor, black people (I'm aware of a similar problem in the US). - Brazil is slowing becoming a bigger, Christan Saudi Arabia: too conservative, too much religious influence in the politics, and there's desertification in some regions (but no oil money). P.S.: - My very religious grandmother says that Brazil is "blessed". Where?! ___________________________________ Beside lack of conditions to move, my only options for migration are Canada and the northern parts of the US (specially Minnesota and the New England). The reasons for the other countries are: ~~- Australia: I'd consider this country too, but I heard that their internet is crappy (and I can't stand very long droughts).~~ Edit: ignore this one, the internet in my country is on average crappy too; but the drought thing stays. - Israel: it has been on a war since the humans went down from the trees (but I heard it's safe when there are no nutjobs bombing everything). - Japan: their education is praised in my country, but the fact that there are women-only cars in their trains convinced me otherwise. - South Korea: too close to real-life *1984*. - Europe: they have too many immigrant-related problems already. - New Zealand: this one is kinda silly, but people might think I'd move to NZ because of Lorde (I used to have a crush on her). - Most of the USA: earthquakes to the west, and hurricanes (and religious nutjobs) to the south. Minnesota and New England are saved (I think). _____ > *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:My country sucks and I should move out of it. For the purpose of this CMV, my country is Brazil. Here are the points: - The educational system is very, very, very, very shitty ("crappy" is too euphemistic). The teachers are poorly paid, the kids are supposedly indoctrinated by them, and the students misbehave a lot. Recently, the high school system got some changes, and now the students only study what is relevant for their future college courses. - The crime rate is too damn high! Recently, the legal age for jail (IDK the proper term in English) was reduced to 16 (for heinous crimes only like rape or intentional murder) because there were too many crimes committed by them. This crime rate even made Brazil lose to mf-ing **USA** in the Global Peace Index since the last year report. - A few months ago, I asked this subreddit if less developed countries could have something to be proud. One of the answers talked about economic growth and development. IT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE! The former government made the economy go down and the new government isn't helping. - I don't know if this argument may be relevant, but we border Venezuela (the state I live in is very far away from the borders, but whatever), that's becoming a real-life apocalypse scenario (it's probably only a civil war away from Somalia-like scenario). Our former president's party had a similar ideology to Maduro's party's, but she got impeached. Maybe Brazil could've gotten a similar fate. I almost wished Maduro to suffer a lot in his next life. - The police here is too brutal, specially with poor, black people (I'm aware of a similar problem in the US). - Brazil is slowing becoming a bigger, Christan Saudi Arabia: too conservative, too much religious influence in the politics, and there's desertification in some regions (but no oil money). P.S.: - My very religious grandmother says that Brazil is "blessed". Where?! ___________________________________ Beside lack of conditions to move, my only options for migration are Canada and the northern parts of the US (specially Minnesota and the New England). The reasons for the other countries are: ~~- Australia: I'd consider this country too, but I heard that their internet is crappy (and I can't stand very long droughts).~~ Edit: ignore this one, the internet in my country is on average crappy too; but the drought thing stays. - Israel: it has been on a war since the humans went down from the trees (but I heard it's safe when there are no nutjobs bombing everything). - Japan: their education is praised in my country, but the fact that there are women-only cars in their trains convinced me otherwise. - South Korea: too close to real-life *1984*. - Europe: they have too many immigrant-related problems already. - New Zealand: this one is kinda silly, but people might think I'd move to NZ because of Lorde (I used to have a crush on her). - Most of the USA: earthquakes to the west, and hurricanes (and religious nutjobs) to the south. Minnesota and New England are saved (I think).

t3_5o7nm3

CMV: As a gay male, I think its better not to get close to Middle-Eastern immigrants I come across.

I live in area with a fair amount of immigrants, and honestly, as a homosexual man, I think its best not to be friends with the immigrants from Middle Eastern and Muslim majority countries. To clarify, I'm referring to the ones who live there their whole lives, not moved when they were really young and are essentially westernized now. The reason I believe this is because to my knowledge, they are the least accepting of homosexuality; a lot of the countries that punish homosexuality are there, [and most of the ones that have the death penalty for it, are in the Middle East.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory) Also, to my knowledge there are no major LGBT rights movements in this part of the world, and the small movements that do exist, the people are usually considered outcasts. [I gather this opinion due to a Pew Research study I saw,](http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/) and similar studies I've seen on this subject have gotten similar results. Now, I'm not suggesting that we ban Muslims from entering the country, but I do feel concerned about letting in groups of people who have a culture and religion that has view negative views of homosexuality, and where bias and violence against gays is widely accepted. While I'm not suggesting this ban, I also couldn't force myself to do anything to fight against it, knowing that the majority of these people are probably okay with violence against me, I think I would feel safer with less of them around. But I'm mainly saying it's probably better for me not to befriend them, because when they find out I'm gay (most people say they can't tell I'm gay) they will probably be uncomfortable and want to end the friendship and probably think less of me. So, because I probably sound bigoted as fuck, CMV Edit: think you for all of your responses, and Im sorry for not getting back to you because Im at work. But I will get back to the responses tonight. Im really grateful for all of your responses.

CMV: As a gay male, I think its better not to get close to Middle-Eastern immigrants I come across. I live in area with a fair amount of immigrants, and honestly, as a homosexual man, I think its best not to be friends with the immigrants from Middle Eastern and Muslim majority countries. To clarify, I'm referring to the ones who live there their whole lives, not moved when they were really young and are essentially westernized now. The reason I believe this is because to my knowledge, they are the least accepting of homosexuality; a lot of the countries that punish homosexuality are there, [and most of the ones that have the death penalty for it, are in the Middle East.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory) Also, to my knowledge there are no major LGBT rights movements in this part of the world, and the small movements that do exist, the people are usually considered outcasts. [I gather this opinion due to a Pew Research study I saw,](http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/) and similar studies I've seen on this subject have gotten similar results. Now, I'm not suggesting that we ban Muslims from entering the country, but I do feel concerned about letting in groups of people who have a culture and religion that has view negative views of homosexuality, and where bias and violence against gays is widely accepted. While I'm not suggesting this ban, I also couldn't force myself to do anything to fight against it, knowing that the majority of these people are probably okay with violence against me, I think I would feel safer with less of them around. But I'm mainly saying it's probably better for me not to befriend them, because when they find out I'm gay (most people say they can't tell I'm gay) they will probably be uncomfortable and want to end the friendship and probably think less of me. So, because I probably sound bigoted as fuck, CMV Edit: think you for all of your responses, and Im sorry for not getting back to you because Im at work. But I will get back to the responses tonight. Im really grateful for all of your responses.

t3_2ex7hn

CMV:It's ridiculous that buildings skip the 13th floor.

This view is pretty simple, and I would hope that it would seem pretty self-explanatory, but I'll expand on it a little. First of all, it's incredibly superstitious, plain and simple. There is nothing special about the number 13 that makes it any more prone to failure, evil, disaster, "bad luck", etc., than any other number. To continue on with this sort of nonsense only serves to reinforce primeval thought processes. Secondly, it's just a label. There is an actual 13th Floor, it's just been renamed to the 14th Floor. The 14th floor has then been renamed to the 15th Floor. This is ridiculous. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:It's ridiculous that buildings skip the 13th floor. This view is pretty simple, and I would hope that it would seem pretty self-explanatory, but I'll expand on it a little. First of all, it's incredibly superstitious, plain and simple. There is nothing special about the number 13 that makes it any more prone to failure, evil, disaster, "bad luck", etc., than any other number. To continue on with this sort of nonsense only serves to reinforce primeval thought processes. Secondly, it's just a label. There is an actual 13th Floor, it's just been renamed to the 14th Floor. The 14th floor has then been renamed to the 15th Floor. This is ridiculous.

t3_38lqn4

CMV: Political campaign contributions should not be legally limited or regulated.

People are free to give any amount of money to any individual, and I'm sure most if not all of you agree with that. However, we all know that (especially in the US) billion-dollar industries and rich individuals "donate" massive amounts of cash to Congressmen and Presidential Candidates in return for political favors. Oil Company donates a couple million to Senator, Senator votes for a bill that deregulates the oil industry, rinse and repeat. People call this out on what it is, thinly-veiled bribery, but then they take the step saying that campaign donations should be limited, regulated, etc. to help stop this practice and I completely disagree for two main reasons: 1. It would be nearly impossible to prosecute politicians for this. If a Senator got a large donation from an Oil Company then voted in favor of the Oil Industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money-vote scheme? Senator says "I've always thought the oil industry was vital to our economy, and I just accepted the donations because why wouldn't I?" or "After having that fundraiser set up by the Oil Company I had a nice chat with the CEO and he really changed my mind about things." Any defense like that would completely throw out the possibility of a conviction, lies or not. Unless there's some evidence like an email directly saying "I'll give you a million, you vote for this" but I don't think most politicians are stupid enough to do that. Also, one solution people have brought up is that politicians would have to declare a "Conflict of Interest" on bills that would effect their large donators, so they wouldn't be able to vote. If consistently enacted this would hurt the Congressional system, as situations would arise such as where tons of Conservative Congressmen wouldn't be able to vote on an anti-regulation fracking bill so the Liberals who didn't get fracking donations would vote it down. That isn't a safe solution. 2. It is up to voters to stop electing crooked politicians. The politicians that take part in this crooked bribery are so obvious about it, that the only reason they keep getting elected is because of ignorant voters voting for them. It is the responsibility of the people to make sure these corrupt politicians don't get elected, that is the essence of democracy, so when they do keep getting elected it is a failure on the voter's part. For the people saying that the government should limit how much individuals and corporations can donate to politicians; why should the freedom of those donators be limited due to the ignorance of others? Why should the freedom to donate money be inhibited because the majority of voters can't take it upon themselves to fix the issue that they very well have the power to? I don't believe you can take away someone's absolute freedom to give their money (even if it's for non-prosecute[able], albeit shady, political favors) in any situation, especially when a solution to the problem created is easily accessible by the effected nation. I know it's a complex issue. Try to change my mind. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Political campaign contributions should not be legally limited or regulated. People are free to give any amount of money to any individual, and I'm sure most if not all of you agree with that. However, we all know that (especially in the US) billion-dollar industries and rich individuals "donate" massive amounts of cash to Congressmen and Presidential Candidates in return for political favors. Oil Company donates a couple million to Senator, Senator votes for a bill that deregulates the oil industry, rinse and repeat. People call this out on what it is, thinly-veiled bribery, but then they take the step saying that campaign donations should be limited, regulated, etc. to help stop this practice and I completely disagree for two main reasons: 1. It would be nearly impossible to prosecute politicians for this. If a Senator got a large donation from an Oil Company then voted in favor of the Oil Industry, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a pure money-vote scheme? Senator says "I've always thought the oil industry was vital to our economy, and I just accepted the donations because why wouldn't I?" or "After having that fundraiser set up by the Oil Company I had a nice chat with the CEO and he really changed my mind about things." Any defense like that would completely throw out the possibility of a conviction, lies or not. Unless there's some evidence like an email directly saying "I'll give you a million, you vote for this" but I don't think most politicians are stupid enough to do that. Also, one solution people have brought up is that politicians would have to declare a "Conflict of Interest" on bills that would effect their large donators, so they wouldn't be able to vote. If consistently enacted this would hurt the Congressional system, as situations would arise such as where tons of Conservative Congressmen wouldn't be able to vote on an anti-regulation fracking bill so the Liberals who didn't get fracking donations would vote it down. That isn't a safe solution. 2. It is up to voters to stop electing crooked politicians. The politicians that take part in this crooked bribery are so obvious about it, that the only reason they keep getting elected is because of ignorant voters voting for them. It is the responsibility of the people to make sure these corrupt politicians don't get elected, that is the essence of democracy, so when they do keep getting elected it is a failure on the voter's part. For the people saying that the government should limit how much individuals and corporations can donate to politicians; why should the freedom of those donators be limited due to the ignorance of others? Why should the freedom to donate money be inhibited because the majority of voters can't take it upon themselves to fix the issue that they very well have the power to? I don't believe you can take away someone's absolute freedom to give their money (even if it's for non-prosecute[able], albeit shady, political favors) in any situation, especially when a solution to the problem created is easily accessible by the effected nation. I know it's a complex issue. Try to change my mind.

t3_2sjck6

CMV: Nintendo is a badly managed company

Over the past few years I have come to the conclusion that Nintendo is horribly run company, as a Nintendo fan I would like to be proven wrong as I can't see how this company can possibly survive. There's a few main points to my view that I will try to outline as clearly as possible. 1) Nintendo botched the launch of the Wii u by not providing titles people wanted. Nintendo has three games that get more attention than the others. Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Mario Party, none of these games existed for the first 18 months of the consoles life. The wii u launched in November of 2012, Mario Kart arrived in May of 2014, Smash Bros in November 2014 and Mario Part is coming in March of 2015. The Wii u does little besides games so for the first 18 months there was no reason to buy the console and hype fizzled and died. These games should have been available on launch so they could build as much hype for the console as possible. They had a good lead on the Xbox One and PS4 and could have captured many more sales if the console actually had games. 2) Nintendo doesn't seem to care about third party developers and as a result you pay the cost of a full console to play a few games. With the Wii U not doing much besides games I essentially wrap the price of each game into the console. After buying the console and controllers I spent roughly $500 on the console, and I currently have 2 games for it (Mario Kart and Smash Bros). At $50 a game if I end up with 4 games I enjoy I have spent $700 for 4 games, or $175 for each game. As someone with a full time job I can handle this cost as I really love Nintendo games. If you play console games exclusively you still face that dilemma of few third party games being made available on the Wii u and may still want to buy an Xbox or PS4. 3) Because Nintendo has to compete against the Xbox One and the PS4 they are forced to implement features without having Dozens of developers paying to use them. Nintendo is trying to make fully featured online and social communities for their games. With the exception of scale they are trying to implement the same things Microsoft and Sony do, however Nintendo does not have dozens of publishers providing money through licensing and royalties. Just as the limited games inflates the cost per game (when taking the console into account) the limited games carry a much higher share of the cost of the features they require. The tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that go into online services become much easier to bare when spread across 100+ games as the Xbox 360 and PS4 eventually had. As much as I love Nintendo and enjoy their consoles I feel that the Wii U should be their last console. It simply does not make sense to put all the resources into building their own console. If games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros were available on the Xbox, PS4 and PC Nintendo could make significantly more money with much less overhead in their business. I hate thinking that Nintendo is so horribly mismanaged, but I cannot see another side to this, so please Reddit, change my view.

CMV: Nintendo is a badly managed company. Over the past few years I have come to the conclusion that Nintendo is horribly run company, as a Nintendo fan I would like to be proven wrong as I can't see how this company can possibly survive. There's a few main points to my view that I will try to outline as clearly as possible. 1) Nintendo botched the launch of the Wii u by not providing titles people wanted. Nintendo has three games that get more attention than the others. Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Mario Party, none of these games existed for the first 18 months of the consoles life. The wii u launched in November of 2012, Mario Kart arrived in May of 2014, Smash Bros in November 2014 and Mario Part is coming in March of 2015. The Wii u does little besides games so for the first 18 months there was no reason to buy the console and hype fizzled and died. These games should have been available on launch so they could build as much hype for the console as possible. They had a good lead on the Xbox One and PS4 and could have captured many more sales if the console actually had games. 2) Nintendo doesn't seem to care about third party developers and as a result you pay the cost of a full console to play a few games. With the Wii U not doing much besides games I essentially wrap the price of each game into the console. After buying the console and controllers I spent roughly $500 on the console, and I currently have 2 games for it (Mario Kart and Smash Bros). At $50 a game if I end up with 4 games I enjoy I have spent $700 for 4 games, or $175 for each game. As someone with a full time job I can handle this cost as I really love Nintendo games. If you play console games exclusively you still face that dilemma of few third party games being made available on the Wii u and may still want to buy an Xbox or PS4. 3) Because Nintendo has to compete against the Xbox One and the PS4 they are forced to implement features without having Dozens of developers paying to use them. Nintendo is trying to make fully featured online and social communities for their games. With the exception of scale they are trying to implement the same things Microsoft and Sony do, however Nintendo does not have dozens of publishers providing money through licensing and royalties. Just as the limited games inflates the cost per game (when taking the console into account) the limited games carry a much higher share of the cost of the features they require. The tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that go into online services become much easier to bare when spread across 100+ games as the Xbox 360 and PS4 eventually had. As much as I love Nintendo and enjoy their consoles I feel that the Wii U should be their last console. It simply does not make sense to put all the resources into building their own console. If games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros were available on the Xbox, PS4 and PC Nintendo could make significantly more money with much less overhead in their business. I hate thinking that Nintendo is so horribly mismanaged, but I cannot see another side to this, so please Reddit, change my view.

t3_22cist

CMV: I get overly upset when otherwise savvy people get excited about their big tax refund. Chang my view

I can't stand when people who are otherwise savvy about personal finance (e.g. Contribute to a 401k, no big debt, etc) get excited about a huge refund. I understand how it could make sense for people who don't know any better and would just spend the extra money as it comes along. But for those who pay closer attention to their finances, I see it as nothing more than an interest free loan to the government that, with just a little bit of planning ahead of time and checking up during the year, they can get rid of. Change my view

CMV: I get overly upset when otherwise savvy people get excited about their big tax refund. Chang my view. I can't stand when people who are otherwise savvy about personal finance (e.g. Contribute to a 401k, no big debt, etc) get excited about a huge refund. I understand how it could make sense for people who don't know any better and would just spend the extra money as it comes along. But for those who pay closer attention to their finances, I see it as nothing more than an interest free loan to the government that, with just a little bit of planning ahead of time and checking up during the year, they can get rid of. Change my view

t3_488edn

CMV:Voting for Trump out of spite shows the willing acceptance the failure of Democracy in America.

Premise 1: Democracy demands that voters be informed and make the best decision they can when voting in election. This process involves reasoning and examination, and it demands that a candidate be best suited to **protect** democracy in the United States. Premise 2: a modern Democracy demands a free press so that voters can be informed. Premise 3: the Press in america repeatedly fails to do this:Because 1: The press in america is obligated to create profits, and subjugates themselves to the same economic model found in other markets. 2: The press condenses the information, and seeks only to grab people's attention rather than examine policy and candidates, which is critical to informing voters. Premise 5: People with more subtle ideological differences are alienated by the press, and partisanship is exacerbated---this has been building for years now. Premise 6: As people become alienated from examining their political candidates they often are forced to equate ideologies with individual candidates, and develop a disdain for all politicians. Conclusion: As People are so alienated with the exacerbated partisanship (and the downright obstructionism that ensues), and begin to accept that politicians are no more than ideological conduits, that they no longer respond to the press' warnings and disdain about Trump. Instead, without any guidance, and being agitated by the media, people respond to anger and rejection of the media and of politicians, that they see in Trump, who seems to be effective at agitating the media and other politicians. In following Trump they (knowingly) disavow themselves of voting in a president who will protect democracy because they now longer know what that looks like or even care. Thus the angry Trump supporter chooses openly accept the failure of democracy. I realize that there is a lot going on in premise 3, but bear with me, I know there are a lot of deeper undercurrents in media and common discourse that affect partisan divides, but that is beside my conclusion. _____ > *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:Voting for Trump out of spite shows the willing acceptance the failure of Democracy in America. Premise 1: Democracy demands that voters be informed and make the best decision they can when voting in election. This process involves reasoning and examination, and it demands that a candidate be best suited to **protect** democracy in the United States. Premise 2: a modern Democracy demands a free press so that voters can be informed. Premise 3: the Press in america repeatedly fails to do this:Because 1: The press in america is obligated to create profits, and subjugates themselves to the same economic model found in other markets. 2: The press condenses the information, and seeks only to grab people's attention rather than examine policy and candidates, which is critical to informing voters. Premise 5: People with more subtle ideological differences are alienated by the press, and partisanship is exacerbated---this has been building for years now. Premise 6: As people become alienated from examining their political candidates they often are forced to equate ideologies with individual candidates, and develop a disdain for all politicians. Conclusion: As People are so alienated with the exacerbated partisanship (and the downright obstructionism that ensues), and begin to accept that politicians are no more than ideological conduits, that they no longer respond to the press' warnings and disdain about Trump. Instead, without any guidance, and being agitated by the media, people respond to anger and rejection of the media and of politicians, that they see in Trump, who seems to be effective at agitating the media and other politicians. In following Trump they (knowingly) disavow themselves of voting in a president who will protect democracy because they now longer know what that looks like or even care. Thus the angry Trump supporter chooses openly accept the failure of democracy. I realize that there is a lot going on in premise 3, but bear with me, I know there are a lot of deeper undercurrents in media and common discourse that affect partisan divides, but that is beside my conclusion.

t3_6ny4l0

CMV: Naseem Hamed beat an underrated, not overrated list of opponents

I often hear criticisms of Naseem Hamed, people often argue that he was a FW who dominated a week era and avoided top competition. In my eyes that's very wrong. Firstly, very early in his career (while at SBW) he took on Laureano Ramírez, who was a pretty solid amateur. While not a world beater, that's a tough fight early in his career. He steps up to the world stage against Steve Robinson (granted htis was back when the WBO title was less well regarded) and beat him convincingly. he beat Manuel Medina, who consistently proved himself to be a relevant FW for a decade. Then he beat Tom Johnson, who was a fairly long lasting titlist in the FW division. He beat Kevin Kelley, who was an elite level talent by most standards (this seems to be the only win that Naz consistently gets credit for). Then he beats Wilfredo Vasquez, who was the lineal champ of the division and sported wins over Canizales, Perez and Rojas as well as being a pretty big puncher. He beat an iron chinned, high volume, fairly well accomplished ammy in McCullough. He beat Paul Ingle who would go on to win a title and beat Junior Jones. Then he beat Cesar Soto, the WBC champion of the time who had just beaten Espinosa. He stopped Bungu in three, who was a highly dominant SBW at the time (over 10 defenses of his title, including wins over Kennedy McKinney). Bungu goes underappreciated, but he was defensively sound and kept up a high volume style that was tricky for a long of guys. Finally he beat Augie Sanchez, who was one of the few ammys known to beat Mayweather (granted this wasn't the Floyd we know today, but still, a good fighter). Some of those guys aren't killers, but Naz consistently faced good to elite level opposition, which is not the narrative usually assigned to him. Most seem to judge him for the Barrera loss, a fight he made little preparation for (granted, that's not an excuse, boxers should always come in prepared, but it clearly wasn't fully representative of his abilities). Most often conveniently forget that it was actually Marquez who turned down Naz, not the other way around. Overall, Naz faced a better lineup of opponents than I think he gets credit for, but if you feel differently, 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: Naseem Hamed beat an underrated, not overrated list of opponents. I often hear criticisms of Naseem Hamed, people often argue that he was a FW who dominated a week era and avoided top competition. In my eyes that's very wrong. Firstly, very early in his career (while at SBW) he took on Laureano Ramírez, who was a pretty solid amateur. While not a world beater, that's a tough fight early in his career. He steps up to the world stage against Steve Robinson (granted htis was back when the WBO title was less well regarded) and beat him convincingly. he beat Manuel Medina, who consistently proved himself to be a relevant FW for a decade. Then he beat Tom Johnson, who was a fairly long lasting titlist in the FW division. He beat Kevin Kelley, who was an elite level talent by most standards (this seems to be the only win that Naz consistently gets credit for). Then he beats Wilfredo Vasquez, who was the lineal champ of the division and sported wins over Canizales, Perez and Rojas as well as being a pretty big puncher. He beat an iron chinned, high volume, fairly well accomplished ammy in McCullough. He beat Paul Ingle who would go on to win a title and beat Junior Jones. Then he beat Cesar Soto, the WBC champion of the time who had just beaten Espinosa. He stopped Bungu in three, who was a highly dominant SBW at the time (over 10 defenses of his title, including wins over Kennedy McKinney). Bungu goes underappreciated, but he was defensively sound and kept up a high volume style that was tricky for a long of guys. Finally he beat Augie Sanchez, who was one of the few ammys known to beat Mayweather (granted this wasn't the Floyd we know today, but still, a good fighter). Some of those guys aren't killers, but Naz consistently faced good to elite level opposition, which is not the narrative usually assigned to him. Most seem to judge him for the Barrera loss, a fight he made little preparation for (granted, that's not an excuse, boxers should always come in prepared, but it clearly wasn't fully representative of his abilities). Most often conveniently forget that it was actually Marquez who turned down Naz, not the other way around. Overall, Naz faced a better lineup of opponents than I think he gets credit for, but if you feel differently, CMV!

t3_3dqdo5

CMV: I feel no sympathy towards this current generation of college graduates.

So on Reddit the users love to talk about how they were told in high school to go to college, and then they went to college and now have $150,000 in debt and there are no jobs available. They also like to say that high school did not teach them any of the stuff they needed to know for the real world (how to file taxes, write checks, etc). I just feel no sympathy for those people. I'm currently a rising senior in high school, I'm applying to 6 or 7 colleges including a service academy and one in state school (that I was pre accepted to in April based on GPA and SAT). I'm also applying for an ROTC scholarship. I want to come out of college debt free, and will only go to an out of state school if I can get an ROTC scholarship or go to a service academy. Do I love the military and just really want to serve a mandatory five years of service. No! I realize that it's worth five years of my time to go to a better school out of state with no cost to myself. In terms of there being no jobs available, I think redditors must have just gone into the wrong fields. I have 3 older siblings, all of whom are college graduates and are working jobs making $80,000+. Yeah if you go into music composing or underwater basket weaving you won't find a job, but why not go into nuclear, software, mechanical, industrial, electrical, computer, petroleum, civil, or chemical engineering where there are always job openings. If engineering is not for you, why not nursing. A person with a BSN can easily make 50 grand. My last point regards people complaining about not learning anything useful in high school. I don't think those people realize that in high school, hardly anyone pays attention in classes that matter (science or math). They definitely won't pay attention to something that will not effect them for another half decade. Also reddit loves claiming to be tech savvy, so why don't these people just research how to write a check or do taxes on the internet? I'm generally known as person is very sympathetic, but I just can't feel sympathetic to these people. They seem to want to complain rather than find a solution.

CMV: I feel no sympathy towards this current generation of college graduates. So on Reddit the users love to talk about how they were told in high school to go to college, and then they went to college and now have $150,000 in debt and there are no jobs available. They also like to say that high school did not teach them any of the stuff they needed to know for the real world (how to file taxes, write checks, etc). I just feel no sympathy for those people. I'm currently a rising senior in high school, I'm applying to 6 or 7 colleges including a service academy and one in state school (that I was pre accepted to in April based on GPA and SAT). I'm also applying for an ROTC scholarship. I want to come out of college debt free, and will only go to an out of state school if I can get an ROTC scholarship or go to a service academy. Do I love the military and just really want to serve a mandatory five years of service. No! I realize that it's worth five years of my time to go to a better school out of state with no cost to myself. In terms of there being no jobs available, I think redditors must have just gone into the wrong fields. I have 3 older siblings, all of whom are college graduates and are working jobs making $80,000+. Yeah if you go into music composing or underwater basket weaving you won't find a job, but why not go into nuclear, software, mechanical, industrial, electrical, computer, petroleum, civil, or chemical engineering where there are always job openings. If engineering is not for you, why not nursing. A person with a BSN can easily make 50 grand. My last point regards people complaining about not learning anything useful in high school. I don't think those people realize that in high school, hardly anyone pays attention in classes that matter (science or math). They definitely won't pay attention to something that will not effect them for another half decade. Also reddit loves claiming to be tech savvy, so why don't these people just research how to write a check or do taxes on the internet? I'm generally known as person is very sympathetic, but I just can't feel sympathetic to these people. They seem to want to complain rather than find a solution.

t3_2duw22

CMV: We should absolutely be worried about Artificial Intelligences and increasingly complex systems. We need to be taking measures now.

Hi, So, my position is that we, as a society, should be very worried about the increasing development of highly-complex decision making systems. Yes, I'm talking about things like Watson, where we are actively trying to make a computer speak natural language and use all the information of the internet to give us coherent, spoken-word answers. But I think there is a much bigger threat: the increasingly complex decision making systems we are putting in effect that we are NOT actively trying to make speak natural language! I'm talking about things like the enormously complex set of algorithms that are involved in stock-trading and future-trading. I think that systems like Watson could, but are not likely, to spawn into actual "entities" that self-recognize, but I think we are a long long way from that. And, even if they would spawn, I believe that because Natural Language will be programmed into them (they will be "programmed to our image" and Natural Language will be as Natural for them as it is Natural for us) we could actually talk to these things, and we could reach some understanding. They will have "hardcoded empathy" much like the non-psychopath ones of us do, so there's hope there. It is a whole different debate where the line would lie between these things "speaking" and these things being "conscious". That debate may come up in the post, but let it say that by no means is "passing the Turing Test" a sufficient evidence of the kind of entity I'm speaking about. This thing would have Intentionality. But, check this out. One of the things about Intentionality is that it needs to be "materially determined". This means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing "Meaning" or "Aboutness", you will just be a set of procedures. In order for you to be a "Mind", you need to be materially conditioned: you need to live in a world that threatens you and forces you to make decisions in order to keep existing, and that "keeping existing" needs to matter to you. Now, I don't think that because we teach a thing to speak it will automatically "Care" or "have goals". But that doesn't mean that we cannot teach a thing to "care" or to "have goals" without actually teaching it how to speak! When we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates (millions and millions of transactions per second), we start developing self-improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like? That is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted! Thing is, those things will not be "dumb" when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals, "spawn to their own consciousness", they will not live in our world. Their experience will be totally inintelligible for us. We don't have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong. High Speed Stock Trading needs to be banned, for a whole different set of reasons, but we really need to be careful with what we do with this type of complexity, because it will only take one mistake to make us all just obstacles in the Machine's project of building a Dyson Sphere. 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: We should absolutely be worried about Artificial Intelligences and increasingly complex systems. We need to be taking measures now. Hi, So, my position is that we, as a society, should be very worried about the increasing development of highly-complex decision making systems. Yes, I'm talking about things like Watson, where we are actively trying to make a computer speak natural language and use all the information of the internet to give us coherent, spoken-word answers. But I think there is a much bigger threat: the increasingly complex decision making systems we are putting in effect that we are NOT actively trying to make speak natural language! I'm talking about things like the enormously complex set of algorithms that are involved in stock-trading and future-trading. I think that systems like Watson could, but are not likely, to spawn into actual "entities" that self-recognize, but I think we are a long long way from that. And, even if they would spawn, I believe that because Natural Language will be programmed into them (they will be "programmed to our image" and Natural Language will be as Natural for them as it is Natural for us) we could actually talk to these things, and we could reach some understanding. They will have "hardcoded empathy" much like the non-psychopath ones of us do, so there's hope there. It is a whole different debate where the line would lie between these things "speaking" and these things being "conscious". That debate may come up in the post, but let it say that by no means is "passing the Turing Test" a sufficient evidence of the kind of entity I'm speaking about. This thing would have Intentionality. But, check this out. One of the things about Intentionality is that it needs to be "materially determined". This means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing "Meaning" or "Aboutness", you will just be a set of procedures. In order for you to be a "Mind", you need to be materially conditioned: you need to live in a world that threatens you and forces you to make decisions in order to keep existing, and that "keeping existing" needs to matter to you. Now, I don't think that because we teach a thing to speak it will automatically "Care" or "have goals". But that doesn't mean that we cannot teach a thing to "care" or to "have goals" without actually teaching it how to speak! When we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates (millions and millions of transactions per second), we start developing self-improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like? That is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted! Thing is, those things will not be "dumb" when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals, "spawn to their own consciousness", they will not live in our world. Their experience will be totally inintelligible for us. We don't have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong. High Speed Stock Trading needs to be banned, for a whole different set of reasons, but we really need to be careful with what we do with this type of complexity, because it will only take one mistake to make us all just obstacles in the Machine's project of building a Dyson Sphere. CMV!

t3_69pnkd

CMV: It's not just ordinary people who splurge, the majority of wealthy people splurge too.

I constantly hear people saying things like, "Look at Warren Buffett, he's rich but he drives a regular car, lives in the same house and wears simple clothing. Therefore if you're wearing clothing from fashion brands like Louis Vuitton then you are definitely not wealthy because the truly wealthy live very simple lives and never splurge." I disagree, I believe that the majority of wealthy people are just like us, they like to splurge on things they enjoy too, that's what humans do. Sure it might not be the same things that we splurge on but everyone has things they like to spend extra money on. For example - Mark Zuckerberg. He gets praised for wearing the same thing despite being wealthy, but what if he's not splurging on clothes because he's not into fashion? Didn't he pay more than $100 million for that oceanfront estate in Kauai? Maybe he's splurging on property instead because spending $100 million on a property doesn't sound very simple to me. Similar situation with Elon Musk, he dresses like an ordinary guy despite being wealthy. So we know he doesn't splurge on fashion, but is it possible that he splurges on something else? Remember that McLaren F1 that he crashed whilst it was uninsured? Is a McLaren F1 the first thing you think of when you think of a simple life? I doubt it. To CMV, prove to me that the majority of wealthy people don't splurge on anything and that the majority of wealthy people live simple lives because I'm just not seeing it. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's not just ordinary people who splurge, the majority of wealthy people splurge too. I constantly hear people saying things like, "Look at Warren Buffett, he's rich but he drives a regular car, lives in the same house and wears simple clothing. Therefore if you're wearing clothing from fashion brands like Louis Vuitton then you are definitely not wealthy because the truly wealthy live very simple lives and never splurge." I disagree, I believe that the majority of wealthy people are just like us, they like to splurge on things they enjoy too, that's what humans do. Sure it might not be the same things that we splurge on but everyone has things they like to spend extra money on. For example - Mark Zuckerberg. He gets praised for wearing the same thing despite being wealthy, but what if he's not splurging on clothes because he's not into fashion? Didn't he pay more than $100 million for that oceanfront estate in Kauai? Maybe he's splurging on property instead because spending $100 million on a property doesn't sound very simple to me. Similar situation with Elon Musk, he dresses like an ordinary guy despite being wealthy. So we know he doesn't splurge on fashion, but is it possible that he splurges on something else? Remember that McLaren F1 that he crashed whilst it was uninsured? Is a McLaren F1 the first thing you think of when you think of a simple life? I doubt it. To CMV, prove to me that the majority of wealthy people don't splurge on anything and that the majority of wealthy people live simple lives because I'm just not seeing it.

t3_1v8vnr

I believe it is extremely offensive to call another culture's food disgusting, CMV.

Whenever I hear someone say something along the lines of, "Ugh, I can't believe those [insert race/demonym] people actually eat [insert food]," I can't help but be irritated, and I feel as if they are being really inconsiderate. Not everyone grew up in the same area, ate the same kind of foods made from the same plants and animals. Everyone, to an extent, has an acquired taste of their own foods based on their heritage and where they grew up, and I think insulting someone else's food is just as bad as insulting any other part of their heritage/race/etc. When growing up, I was taught that if I didn't like a sort of food, I would say "I don't know how to eat it" instead of something along the lines of "That's gross," because 99% of the time, that is usually the case. You can raise anyone to like any sort of food. So, I think it makes sense to say "I don't know how to eat it" because you weren't raised to eat that particular type of food.

I believe it is extremely offensive to call another culture's food disgusting, CMV. Whenever I hear someone say something along the lines of, "Ugh, I can't believe those [insert race/demonym] people actually eat [insert food]," I can't help but be irritated, and I feel as if they are being really inconsiderate. Not everyone grew up in the same area, ate the same kind of foods made from the same plants and animals. Everyone, to an extent, has an acquired taste of their own foods based on their heritage and where they grew up, and I think insulting someone else's food is just as bad as insulting any other part of their heritage/race/etc. When growing up, I was taught that if I didn't like a sort of food, I would say "I don't know how to eat it" instead of something along the lines of "That's gross," because 99% of the time, that is usually the case. You can raise anyone to like any sort of food. So, I think it makes sense to say "I don't know how to eat it" because you weren't raised to eat that particular type of food.

t3_2nleyo

CMV: Israel is as legitimate as Poland

**Poland** At the beginning of the 20th century, [there was no Poland](http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1900/1900.jpg). After the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) lost the First World War, the international community decided to take some of Germany's territory and create Poland. This resulted in [multiple wars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War). Germany started World War II to recapture territories. After WWII, [**eight million** Germans were expelled from Poland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II). The civilian death toll was somewhere between 400,000 and two million. Many German civilians were raped or murdered by Poles. Some were kept in concentration camps and 200,000 were employed in forced labor in Poland - others were sent to Russia. Germany accepted this and did not fight back. Nowadays, the existence of Poland is not controversial. It's respected as a modern, liberal democracy. **Israel** At the beginning of the 20th century, [there was no Israel](http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/419/429222/illustrations/WALL5295653.gif). During World War I, British forces defeated the Ottomans (who were in a military alliance with the Germans) in Southern Syria and [governed that area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine). They promised support for a Jewish national home. The international community agreed with British rule in Palestine. After World War II and the Holocaust, many Jews fled to Israel. They [declared the establishment of a Jewish State](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence). This state was quickly recognized by the United States, the Soviet Union and many other countries. This immediately resulted in [war with the surrounding Arab nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War). Similar wars were fought [over](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) and [over](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) and [over](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War) again. Nowadays, Israel is one of the most liberal, democratic, wealthy and stable nations in the region. Yet [they continue to be attacked](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) by their neighbours. **CMV** Many people are opposed to Israel's existence because they maltreated Arabs. But Poles have also maltreated many Germans. Both nations were created in the aftermath of world wars and had support from many nations and international organizations. I think that those who criticize Israel should also criticize Poland - but I have literally never heard people criticize the existence of Poland. If you think that Poland should return territory to Germany, people think you're a Nazi, yet it's common for people to demand that Israel should give back territory to the Arabs. If the Arab struggle against Israel is legitimate, than a German struggle against Poland is legitimate as well. But it's hypocritical to accept Poland and criticize Israel's existence. **CMV!**

CMV: Israel is as legitimate as Poland. **Poland** At the beginning of the 20th century, [there was no Poland](http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1900/1900.jpg). After the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) lost the First World War, the international community decided to take some of Germany's territory and create Poland. This resulted in [multiple wars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War). Germany started World War II to recapture territories. After WWII, [**eight million** Germans were expelled from Poland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II). The civilian death toll was somewhere between 400,000 and two million. Many German civilians were raped or murdered by Poles. Some were kept in concentration camps and 200,000 were employed in forced labor in Poland - others were sent to Russia. Germany accepted this and did not fight back. Nowadays, the existence of Poland is not controversial. It's respected as a modern, liberal democracy. **Israel** At the beginning of the 20th century, [there was no Israel](http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/419/429222/illustrations/WALL5295653.gif). During World War I, British forces defeated the Ottomans (who were in a military alliance with the Germans) in Southern Syria and [governed that area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine). They promised support for a Jewish national home. The international community agreed with British rule in Palestine. After World War II and the Holocaust, many Jews fled to Israel. They [declared the establishment of a Jewish State](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence). This state was quickly recognized by the United States, the Soviet Union and many other countries. This immediately resulted in [war with the surrounding Arab nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War). Similar wars were fought [over](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) and [over](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) and [over](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War) again. Nowadays, Israel is one of the most liberal, democratic, wealthy and stable nations in the region. Yet [they continue to be attacked](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) by their neighbours. **CMV** Many people are opposed to Israel's existence because they maltreated Arabs. But Poles have also maltreated many Germans. Both nations were created in the aftermath of world wars and had support from many nations and international organizations. I think that those who criticize Israel should also criticize Poland - but I have literally never heard people criticize the existence of Poland. If you think that Poland should return territory to Germany, people think you're a Nazi, yet it's common for people to demand that Israel should give back territory to the Arabs. If the Arab struggle against Israel is legitimate, than a German struggle against Poland is legitimate as well. But it's hypocritical to accept Poland and criticize Israel's existence. **CMV!**

t3_1xw9kn

I believe that parents hitting their children for any reason/in any way is child abuse and does nothing but harm CMV

I think parents that hit their children, whether open handed spanking or closed fist are both physically, mentally and emotionally harming their children. I think that parents who raise their children correctly will never have to hit their children for any reason. I truly believe it is child abuse and any parent who hits their child should face consequences of some sort. I have seen many threads in which Redditors will say things along the lines of, "if I said/did this to my mother I would get smacked/spanked/belted/hit" I find this so horribly disturbing. My parents have never hit me, instead they have established respect for them by enacting reasonable punishments that fit the offense I have committed. I like to think of myself as a caring, respectful and mature person. I feel that if they had ever hit me I would completely lose trust for them and be extremely hurt. I've observed that low-income areas have higher instances of parents hitting children. I think this is due to the cycle of abuse (parent hits child, child believes that this is appropriate, hits their own child, rinse and repeat) and a lack of education regarding anger management and raising children well. [Source.]( http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&jsid=b6e4643d0f1d8b7c9e8c6c11ddba2b98&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010115232&u=oak30216&zid=282a5233fe6b607129a4d9d7fa193fa9) I have read and learned in various classes that hitting children can lead to behavior problems later in life, and have seen strong statistics that 30% abused children go on to abuse their own children. [This article has a bunch of statistics on child abuse.]( http://www.childhelp-usa.com/pages/statistics) A grey area for me is whether child protective services/police should be contacted every time an instance of hitting is reported/observed. My gut says that yes, parents who hit their children should be immediately punished, but my head points more towards parenting classes and individual, family and couples(provided the parents are married/together) therapy. Also I believe that any adult/child that defends the hitting/spanking of children (I've heard that it builds respect for parents/elders) has either never experienced it/read on the subject or has lingering mental/emotional damage if they were hit themselves as children. [Here's a great article I found supporting my thoughts]( http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/opinion/mackenzie-spanking-effects/) I hold this view because I am currently a student of psychology (I'm only a freshman so I do not claim to have great great knowledge of psychology, hence this post asking for other views and sources) and I have a strong interest in child development and mental health in general. I am a firm believer that mental health is just as important as medical/physical health. For reference, I am an 18 year old female living in a liberal area of the United States (New England). I would love to hear views from both adults/teenagers who have been hit in some way by their parents/guardians at any point in their life and disagree with what I'm saying, and people who have not been hit at all and disagree with me. I'd love to see some sources to support your counterarguments. **TL;DR I believe hitting your children in any way for any reason is abuse and shows that you are a bad parent.**

I believe that parents hitting their children for any reason/in any way is child abuse and does nothing but harm CMV. I think parents that hit their children, whether open handed spanking or closed fist are both physically, mentally and emotionally harming their children. I think that parents who raise their children correctly will never have to hit their children for any reason. I truly believe it is child abuse and any parent who hits their child should face consequences of some sort. I have seen many threads in which Redditors will say things along the lines of, "if I said/did this to my mother I would get smacked/spanked/belted/hit" I find this so horribly disturbing. My parents have never hit me, instead they have established respect for them by enacting reasonable punishments that fit the offense I have committed. I like to think of myself as a caring, respectful and mature person. I feel that if they had ever hit me I would completely lose trust for them and be extremely hurt. I've observed that low-income areas have higher instances of parents hitting children. I think this is due to the cycle of abuse (parent hits child, child believes that this is appropriate, hits their own child, rinse and repeat) and a lack of education regarding anger management and raising children well. [Source.]( http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&jsid=b6e4643d0f1d8b7c9e8c6c11ddba2b98&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010115232&u=oak30216&zid=282a5233fe6b607129a4d9d7fa193fa9) I have read and learned in various classes that hitting children can lead to behavior problems later in life, and have seen strong statistics that 30% abused children go on to abuse their own children. [This article has a bunch of statistics on child abuse.]( http://www.childhelp-usa.com/pages/statistics) A grey area for me is whether child protective services/police should be contacted every time an instance of hitting is reported/observed. My gut says that yes, parents who hit their children should be immediately punished, but my head points more towards parenting classes and individual, family and couples(provided the parents are married/together) therapy. Also I believe that any adult/child that defends the hitting/spanking of children (I've heard that it builds respect for parents/elders) has either never experienced it/read on the subject or has lingering mental/emotional damage if they were hit themselves as children. [Here's a great article I found supporting my thoughts]( http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/opinion/mackenzie-spanking-effects/) I hold this view because I am currently a student of psychology (I'm only a freshman so I do not claim to have great great knowledge of psychology, hence this post asking for other views and sources) and I have a strong interest in child development and mental health in general. I am a firm believer that mental health is just as important as medical/physical health. For reference, I am an 18 year old female living in a liberal area of the United States (New England). I would love to hear views from both adults/teenagers who have been hit in some way by their parents/guardians at any point in their life and disagree with what I'm saying, and people who have not been hit at all and disagree with me. I'd love to see some sources to support your counterarguments. **TL;DR I believe hitting your children in any way for any reason is abuse and shows that you are a bad parent.**

t3_66eeci

CMV: Vaccines and Vaccinations etc.

This is my first post on here so I apologize for my post title being kinda weird. Anyways, My brother and I have been raised by parents that were anti-vaxxers to a certain degree, but we both had most of our shots(just not the boosters) Pretty much my whole life I've been led to believe that vaccines, while doing some good, can also cause immense harm. I've seen some of this with my own eyes, my brother was born with an egg allergy, about a 30 on the RAST test and the doctors thought he'd probably outgrow it. Now many if not all of the vaccines are made on/or with( I apologize I don't know the exact terminology) eggs, but the CDC still recommends getting them even if you have an egg allergy. After my brother received his first round of vaccinations his egg allergy went up over 100 on the RAST scale. I understand that this could have been an unintended consequence, but that seems kind of unlikely to me. Additionally, there were multiple parents with autistic children in my class alone who swore that vaccines were the reason there kids were the way they are. I kind of feel like I've been indoctrinated to a certain degree here, but I want to learn and seek knowledge for myself so CMV, I'm looking forward to having a discussion.

CMV: Vaccines and Vaccinations etc. This is my first post on here so I apologize for my post title being kinda weird. Anyways, My brother and I have been raised by parents that were anti-vaxxers to a certain degree, but we both had most of our shots(just not the boosters) Pretty much my whole life I've been led to believe that vaccines, while doing some good, can also cause immense harm. I've seen some of this with my own eyes, my brother was born with an egg allergy, about a 30 on the RAST test and the doctors thought he'd probably outgrow it. Now many if not all of the vaccines are made on/or with( I apologize I don't know the exact terminology) eggs, but the CDC still recommends getting them even if you have an egg allergy. After my brother received his first round of vaccinations his egg allergy went up over 100 on the RAST scale. I understand that this could have been an unintended consequence, but that seems kind of unlikely to me. Additionally, there were multiple parents with autistic children in my class alone who swore that vaccines were the reason there kids were the way they are. I kind of feel like I've been indoctrinated to a certain degree here, but I want to learn and seek knowledge for myself so CMV, I'm looking forward to having a discussion.

t3_30mpfy

CMV:*Victims of rape due to getting too drunk or high to make good decisions or become incapacitated, should take personal responsibility for inhibiting their senses and judgement.

This has to do with cases in which the *victim was drunk/high and taken advantage of. I'm *not* saying that the person who took advantage of the *victim isn't guilty, and I do believe that in cases where there is irrefutable evidence they should be tried to the full extent of law. However, a person needs to take precaution and avoid risky situations in which getting too drunk/high to function at a party(or party of two), bar or any place where there are strangers/people you barely know/acquaintances is one of them. I am *not* saying the victim is responsible for the actions of the offender. I am saying the victim is responsible for their actions: deciding to inhibit their senses and decisions. *I use victim loosely, because this topic is not as black and white as people make it out to be and I don't think it's an appropriate term in some cases. EDIT: I apologize if I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. It is not about blame, it's about personal responsibility and I think that plays into these types of rape cases. I believe this is important to acknowledge, so people will understand that these particular cases are exacerbated by inhibiting/incapacitating yourself. If you take personal responsibility for your well being, there is a good chance that you won't be taken advantage of, thus, if we teach it then it's possible less of these cases will pop up. I am *not* talking about anything regarding legal action, nor am I shifting blame from the offender. This is my view. EDIT: (Thanks to one of the only civil, unaccusatory counterarguments from Lluxx) I've thought about it a bit more and I believe that it is definitely okay to acknowledge this on a precautionary level when informing people, but to be handled very, very, very delicately when speaking to the individual. I do not believe it shouldn't be said *at all* but I concede that depending on the person it should not be said until they have recovered mentally and emotionally from the ordeal. We don't want them to be traumatized further before they are able to heal. EDIT: I'm not answering anyone being antagonistic, adding irrelevant arguments or coming up with arbitrary comparisons "If you do X and Y happens then A and B will too, so you should never do A, is that what you're saying?" Shut up. That's a childish and shows you didn't read the words in the CMV and just the title. Drinking responsibly is not the same as not drinking *at all* and I *did not* say anyone should never drink. If you have a counter argument that actually tackles my view feel free to give it. If you are presuming that I'm part of the "victim blame" part of society then move along, because I've always been persecuted for something I don't believe or have said, and there's no need for you to add to it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:*Victims of rape due to getting too drunk or high to make good decisions or become incapacitated, should take personal responsibility for inhibiting their senses and judgement. This has to do with cases in which the *victim was drunk/high and taken advantage of. I'm *not* saying that the person who took advantage of the *victim isn't guilty, and I do believe that in cases where there is irrefutable evidence they should be tried to the full extent of law. However, a person needs to take precaution and avoid risky situations in which getting too drunk/high to function at a party(or party of two), bar or any place where there are strangers/people you barely know/acquaintances is one of them. I am *not* saying the victim is responsible for the actions of the offender. I am saying the victim is responsible for their actions: deciding to inhibit their senses and decisions. *I use victim loosely, because this topic is not as black and white as people make it out to be and I don't think it's an appropriate term in some cases. EDIT: I apologize if I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. It is not about blame, it's about personal responsibility and I think that plays into these types of rape cases. I believe this is important to acknowledge, so people will understand that these particular cases are exacerbated by inhibiting/incapacitating yourself. If you take personal responsibility for your well being, there is a good chance that you won't be taken advantage of, thus, if we teach it then it's possible less of these cases will pop up. I am *not* talking about anything regarding legal action, nor am I shifting blame from the offender. This is my view. EDIT: (Thanks to one of the only civil, unaccusatory counterarguments from Lluxx) I've thought about it a bit more and I believe that it is definitely okay to acknowledge this on a precautionary level when informing people, but to be handled very, very, very delicately when speaking to the individual. I do not believe it shouldn't be said *at all* but I concede that depending on the person it should not be said until they have recovered mentally and emotionally from the ordeal. We don't want them to be traumatized further before they are able to heal. EDIT: I'm not answering anyone being antagonistic, adding irrelevant arguments or coming up with arbitrary comparisons "If you do X and Y happens then A and B will too, so you should never do A, is that what you're saying?" Shut up. That's a childish and shows you didn't read the words in the CMV and just the title. Drinking responsibly is not the same as not drinking *at all* and I *did not* say anyone should never drink. If you have a counter argument that actually tackles my view feel free to give it. If you are presuming that I'm part of the "victim blame" part of society then move along, because I've always been persecuted for something I don't believe or have said, and there's no need for you to add to it.

t3_686ffd

CMV: Spikes in video games should only damage the player when the player is touching the pointy part

Many video games have it so that the spikes will damage/kill the player regardless of which side they are being interacted with. This makes no sense to me on two levels. My first point is realism. While realism is not a pivotal design feature of many video games, it is still unrealistic to an annoying degree. If you were to set up a spiked object, such as a nail or pin in the real world, you would only feel pain from the pointy side, not the edge or back of them. The second is general player annoyance. Many games that involve spikes have platforming as an important focus, and sometimes platforming requires precision jumps over a spiked obsticle. To make said jump, I would get close to the spikes to make the success chance of the jump more likely. When you kill me for this practice, it does nothing other than punishing the player. There is a genuine difference between hard games and punishing ones, and killing the player when it doesn't seem like they deserve to die is one sure fire way to frustrate the player.

CMV: Spikes in video games should only damage the player when the player is touching the pointy part. Many video games have it so that the spikes will damage/kill the player regardless of which side they are being interacted with. This makes no sense to me on two levels. My first point is realism. While realism is not a pivotal design feature of many video games, it is still unrealistic to an annoying degree. If you were to set up a spiked object, such as a nail or pin in the real world, you would only feel pain from the pointy side, not the edge or back of them. The second is general player annoyance. Many games that involve spikes have platforming as an important focus, and sometimes platforming requires precision jumps over a spiked obsticle. To make said jump, I would get close to the spikes to make the success chance of the jump more likely. When you kill me for this practice, it does nothing other than punishing the player. There is a genuine difference between hard games and punishing ones, and killing the player when it doesn't seem like they deserve to die is one sure fire way to frustrate the player.

t3_21h3ct

CMV: I reject Blackstone's formulation

That is, I disagree with the statement "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Benjamin Franklin famously repeated it and upped the ante--he said that it was better 100 guilty people should go free than that one innocent should suffer. This principle is key to most modern justice systems, and is intimately tied to high standards of evidence and a strong presumption of innocence. The problem is, letting a guilty criminal go free causes the innocent to suffer. It keeps the victim, or victim's family, from gaining closure or a sense of justice, not to mention any kind of restitution. More importantly, it leaves a criminal on the streets, where he can offend again. A crime going unpunished will also encourage other potential criminals, as this will show how easy it is to commit the crime in question with impunity. Take a murder. If one innocent person is convicted of murder, his or her life is more or less destroyed. Of course that's regrettable. But if ten or, all the more so, 100 murderers walk free, a certain number of them will re-offend, and a major disincentive to other murderers (the fear of punishment) will be undermined. The net result of this will almost certainly be more murders, which will mean the destruction of more than one innocent life. Clearly this is the worse outcome. To be clear, I'm not quite advocating a presumption of guilt, but I think the presumption of innocence should be weaker. Juries shouldn't be told to look for "proof beyond reasonable doubt," something like "a strong likelihood" of guilt should be sufficient for a conviction. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I reject Blackstone's formulation. That is, I disagree with the statement "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Benjamin Franklin famously repeated it and upped the ante--he said that it was better 100 guilty people should go free than that one innocent should suffer. This principle is key to most modern justice systems, and is intimately tied to high standards of evidence and a strong presumption of innocence. The problem is, letting a guilty criminal go free causes the innocent to suffer. It keeps the victim, or victim's family, from gaining closure or a sense of justice, not to mention any kind of restitution. More importantly, it leaves a criminal on the streets, where he can offend again. A crime going unpunished will also encourage other potential criminals, as this will show how easy it is to commit the crime in question with impunity. Take a murder. If one innocent person is convicted of murder, his or her life is more or less destroyed. Of course that's regrettable. But if ten or, all the more so, 100 murderers walk free, a certain number of them will re-offend, and a major disincentive to other murderers (the fear of punishment) will be undermined. The net result of this will almost certainly be more murders, which will mean the destruction of more than one innocent life. Clearly this is the worse outcome. To be clear, I'm not quite advocating a presumption of guilt, but I think the presumption of innocence should be weaker. Juries shouldn't be told to look for "proof beyond reasonable doubt," something like "a strong likelihood" of guilt should be sufficient for a conviction.

t3_1shg73

I believe there's nothing wrong with people living with their parents after college. It's actually a smart thing to do financially. CMV

I think there's a huge stigma attached to people living with their parents and its totally wrong. People like to think if you still live with your folks that you're a loser and will never get laid. But those people living on their own aren't necessarily happier or date more. I would argue that the main difference is that people living on their own have much less money available to save, and they struggle to pay bills and student loans. Some friends of mine are 26 and pay $1500/month in rent, plus another $800-1000 in student loans. Then they wonder why they can't save money and live paycheck to paycheck. People living with their parents however, are more likely to save money and be better off in the long run financially because they got a head start in saving while they were working their first few jobs out of college. There's nothing wrong with living with your parents and its actually financially smart to live with them until you can save some money and find a good job. CMV

I believe there's nothing wrong with people living with their parents after college. It's actually a smart thing to do financially. CMV. I think there's a huge stigma attached to people living with their parents and its totally wrong. People like to think if you still live with your folks that you're a loser and will never get laid. But those people living on their own aren't necessarily happier or date more. I would argue that the main difference is that people living on their own have much less money available to save, and they struggle to pay bills and student loans. Some friends of mine are 26 and pay $1500/month in rent, plus another $800-1000 in student loans. Then they wonder why they can't save money and live paycheck to paycheck. People living with their parents however, are more likely to save money and be better off in the long run financially because they got a head start in saving while they were working their first few jobs out of college. There's nothing wrong with living with your parents and its actually financially smart to live with them until you can save some money and find a good job. CMV

t3_264dh4

CMV: I don't plan to vote tomorrow in the EU and UK council elections.

I've always thought badly of people who don't vote but this year I honestly can't find a reason to pick one party/candidate over any other. For the EU election in the south east these are the parties http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/south-east-european-candidates-2014/ As a low earning man in my mid twenties I can't see which party would help my situation at all. I used to campaign for the Greens around the last general election but I'm very put off by their anti-science policies (nuclear, GMO etc) and frankly the more senior party members I met were the very definition of champagne socialists - as elitist as the Conservatives but with a friendlier face. Obviously Ukip are a bunch of racists and homophobes, the Lib Dems aren't trustworthy and the Conservatives and Labour only care about their big business and union backers respectively. I'm totally open to bring persuaded why I should vote and even who for. Otherwise I will be staying home tomorrow. I'm sure there are other redditors who feel the same way. Please CMV!

CMV: I don't plan to vote tomorrow in the EU and UK council elections. I've always thought badly of people who don't vote but this year I honestly can't find a reason to pick one party/candidate over any other. For the EU election in the south east these are the parties http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/south-east-european-candidates-2014/ As a low earning man in my mid twenties I can't see which party would help my situation at all. I used to campaign for the Greens around the last general election but I'm very put off by their anti-science policies (nuclear, GMO etc) and frankly the more senior party members I met were the very definition of champagne socialists - as elitist as the Conservatives but with a friendlier face. Obviously Ukip are a bunch of racists and homophobes, the Lib Dems aren't trustworthy and the Conservatives and Labour only care about their big business and union backers respectively. I'm totally open to bring persuaded why I should vote and even who for. Otherwise I will be staying home tomorrow. I'm sure there are other redditors who feel the same way. Please CMV!

t3_1i1osb

I believe that /r/atheism/ is full of ignorant, intolerent, naive, and mostly bigoted people, that aren't a valid reflection on the atheist people I encounter in my day to day life. CMV.

have a look at it. almost every post is dissing one religion or another. posting some bad stuff a muslim does, poking fun at christians, mocking jews. if any of these religions groups did any of this stuff to eachother then it is frowned upon, and rightly so, yet it seems to be alright on there. People do bad things. some of them will be muslim, christian, jewish or, believe it or not, atheist. posting articles citing such examples displays a belief that this behaviour is refletive on that religion and a representation of the average (insert religion here), which is highly offensive and narrow minded, intolerant summation. I know quite a few atheists, and they don't display that backwards mentality. Maybe it's just an american thing. If I took reddit as my guide to life I'd be thinking Atheist = racist, intolerant, bigoted scumbag. Luckily I know enough people IRL to suggest that this is not the case.

I believe that /r/atheism/ is full of ignorant, intolerent, naive, and mostly bigoted people, that aren't a valid reflection on the atheist people I encounter in my day to day life. CMV. have a look at it. almost every post is dissing one religion or another. posting some bad stuff a muslim does, poking fun at christians, mocking jews. if any of these religions groups did any of this stuff to eachother then it is frowned upon, and rightly so, yet it seems to be alright on there. People do bad things. some of them will be muslim, christian, jewish or, believe it or not, atheist. posting articles citing such examples displays a belief that this behaviour is refletive on that religion and a representation of the average (insert religion here), which is highly offensive and narrow minded, intolerant summation. I know quite a few atheists, and they don't display that backwards mentality. Maybe it's just an american thing. If I took reddit as my guide to life I'd be thinking Atheist = racist, intolerant, bigoted scumbag. Luckily I know enough people IRL to suggest that this is not the case.

t3_1bdocs

[MOD POST] Welcome, new subscribers! Some things we want to mention regarding our growth...

**This is mod post 10. You can read the previous mod post [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1atm1m/mod_post_a_rearrangement_of_the_guidelines_and/), or by visiting the [mod post archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.** _____ **Over 3,500 new subscribers!** So, on Saturday night (UK) I noticed we were picking up quite a few subscribers and our "viewers here now" number was over one hundred. I knew we must have been mentioned somewhere, but it was 3 in the morning, so I was too tired to check. Plus, I didn't think it would be as big as it was... So I went to sleep with the subscriber count at 5,540, and when I woke up, we were over 9,000. We had been mentioned at the top of a [popular thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1bbyvj/why_are_you_legally_held_accountable_for_your/) in AskReddit. Seeing this figure initially made me feel like a child on Christmas morning, but I soon realised there was a good chance that our beloved subreddit had turned to shit in the course of a few hours. I scanned through the new posts (there was about 60), expecting to see loads of comments that broke rule III, and others. But I was pleasantly surprised. Most comments had followed the guidelines, and if they hadn't, one of our users had pointed out the broken rule. This was very different to the last time we had an influx of subscribers - *a lot* of comments were circle-jerky or rude, so thank you for being so awesome! **DeltaBot exploded** Another thing that happened was /u/DeltaBot had crashed overnight, so most of the deltas hadn't been counted. This meant I had to add them all up manually, slowly but surely. I am only human though, so there's a chance I missed some. If you know of any, please send me a message :) We'd like you to do this whenever a delta has been missed in the future - sometimes there's a bug in the script and it needs to be fixed. You can report missed or suspicious deltas, but messaging the mods would save any confusion. **Reporting** I wanted to take this opportunity to remind users that reporting bad comments is becoming more and more important as we gain subscribers. There was a time when we could moderate each post thoroughly because there was a lot less. Now, things are starting to slip past us due to CMV being a lot busier and the fact that our mod team isn't as big as other subreddits'. So please, **report! report! report!** **Anything you'd like to discuss?** As always, we'd like you to take mod posts as an opportunity to express any concerns or share your ideas :) **Keep up the good discussions!** Regards, /u/Snorrrlax and the rest of the /r/changemyview mod team. _____ Edit: Fair play to whoever reported this post, being April Fools and all ;)

[MOD POST] Welcome, new subscribers! Some things we want to mention regarding our growth... **This is mod post 10. You can read the previous mod post [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1atm1m/mod_post_a_rearrangement_of_the_guidelines_and/), or by visiting the [mod post archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.** So, on Saturday night (UK) I noticed we were picking up quite a few subscribers and our "viewers here now" number was over one hundred. I knew we must have been mentioned somewhere, but it was 3 in the morning, so I was too tired to check. Plus, I didn't think it would be as big as it was... So I went to sleep with the subscriber count at 5,540, and when I woke up, we were over 9,000. We had been mentioned at the top of a [popular thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1bbyvj/why_are_you_legally_held_accountable_for_your/) in AskReddit. Seeing this figure initially made me feel like a child on Christmas morning, but I soon realised there was a good chance that our beloved subreddit had turned to shit in the course of a few hours. I scanned through the new posts (there was about 60), expecting to see loads of comments that broke rule III, and others. But I was pleasantly surprised. Most comments had followed the guidelines, and if they hadn't, one of our users had pointed out the broken rule. This was very different to the last time we had an influx of subscribers - *a lot* of comments were circle-jerky or rude, so thank you for being so awesome! **DeltaBot exploded** Another thing that happened was /u/DeltaBot had crashed overnight, so most of the deltas hadn't been counted. This meant I had to add them all up manually, slowly but surely. I am only human though, so there's a chance I missed some. If you know of any, please send me a message :) We'd like you to do this whenever a delta has been missed in the future - sometimes there's a bug in the script and it needs to be fixed. You can report missed or suspicious deltas, but messaging the mods would save any confusion. **Reporting** I wanted to take this opportunity to remind users that reporting bad comments is becoming more and more important as we gain subscribers. There was a time when we could moderate each post thoroughly because there was a lot less. Now, things are starting to slip past us due to CMV being a lot busier and the fact that our mod team isn't as big as other subreddits'. So please, **report! report! report!** **Anything you'd like to discuss?** As always, we'd like you to take mod posts as an opportunity to express any concerns or share your ideas :) **Keep up the good discussions!** Regards, /u/Snorrrlax and the rest of the /r/changemyview mod team.

t3_28swg0

CMV. Film and television actors deserve little to no credit for their work, good or bad.

I assert that the credit actors get (in prerecorded/edited projects like film and television) is largely undeserved because; 1. Casting: Actors like Pedro Pascal (Oberyn Martell) who people are shitting themselves over have often been chosen out of dozens and sometimes hundreds of options. The casting crew chose Pascal because he already fit the bill more than reams of other people who also wanted the job. This doesn't really mean he's the greatest actor out of that bunch, it just means that whatever he was able to do fit the casting crew's vision of what they wanted. It's not like they blind hired some dude and gave him this role and he knocked it out of the park. 2. Takes: Actors in film/television have a LOT of chances to get it right. They get feedback from the director who is ultimately the person who is deciding how said character behaves. They don't just give the actor the script and throw them in front of a camera and work with what the actor gives them. They scrutinize that shit. 3. Editing: Actors perform different scenes and lines sometimes in many different ways and editing decides whether a line is performed one way or another after the actor is long gone. IMO you can't think of the amalgam of scenes starring said character as the actor's "interpretation" of that character, because it's not. It's the editors'. This applies to positive as well as negative acting reviews. I think it's possible that many actors may have understood or performed a character much better than the final product revealed because of bad editing/directing etc. The idea that actors are so greatly lauded/derided for doing a job they have been specifically chosen to perform by someone else, given many many chances to get right, and ultimately never are responsible for deciding how their performance comes together is pretty lame. It's probably obvious I know next to nothing about the film and television industry and by posting this I'm hoping to learn something that will enhance my entertainment experience. Edit: Formatting.

CMV. Film and television actors deserve little to no credit for their work, good or bad. I assert that the credit actors get (in prerecorded/edited projects like film and television) is largely undeserved because; 1. Casting: Actors like Pedro Pascal (Oberyn Martell) who people are shitting themselves over have often been chosen out of dozens and sometimes hundreds of options. The casting crew chose Pascal because he already fit the bill more than reams of other people who also wanted the job. This doesn't really mean he's the greatest actor out of that bunch, it just means that whatever he was able to do fit the casting crew's vision of what they wanted. It's not like they blind hired some dude and gave him this role and he knocked it out of the park. 2. Takes: Actors in film/television have a LOT of chances to get it right. They get feedback from the director who is ultimately the person who is deciding how said character behaves. They don't just give the actor the script and throw them in front of a camera and work with what the actor gives them. They scrutinize that shit. 3. Editing: Actors perform different scenes and lines sometimes in many different ways and editing decides whether a line is performed one way or another after the actor is long gone. IMO you can't think of the amalgam of scenes starring said character as the actor's "interpretation" of that character, because it's not. It's the editors'. This applies to positive as well as negative acting reviews. I think it's possible that many actors may have understood or performed a character much better than the final product revealed because of bad editing/directing etc. The idea that actors are so greatly lauded/derided for doing a job they have been specifically chosen to perform by someone else, given many many chances to get right, and ultimately never are responsible for deciding how their performance comes together is pretty lame. It's probably obvious I know next to nothing about the film and television industry and by posting this I'm hoping to learn something that will enhance my entertainment experience. Edit: Formatting.

t3_5jq8at

CMV: One of the reasons women shouldn't be in front lines is because men have the instinct to be irrational when they her in danger, which eill endanger himself.

Men will always have this instinct that cannot go away when a women is seen in trouble. He I'll risk his life to protect her which will destroy the dynamics on the team. Study shown here "For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield…" Source: http://mobile.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#!

CMV: One of the reasons women shouldn't be in front lines is because men have the instinct to be irrational when they her in danger, which eill endanger himself. Men will always have this instinct that cannot go away when a women is seen in trouble. He I'll risk his life to protect her which will destroy the dynamics on the team. Study shown here "For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield…" Source: http://mobile.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#!

t3_2xho8s

CMV: Attaching minimum to inflation would not solve the problem of people living off of a "non-livable wage".

I believe that attaching minimum to inflation would not solve the problem of people living off of a "non-livable wage". There are people that believe this will cause companies to stop hiking up their prices when it comes to wages. This is just not the case. They will just hire less people and just go and increase the amount that they outsource their jobs. Things will become even more mechanically and automated just to avoid hiring people which will increase the amount of unemployed people. Just imagine a whole mall with one 3 self checkout machines in each store and someone working just walking around to fold clothes and answer questions.

CMV: Attaching minimum to inflation would not solve the problem of people living off of a "non-livable wage". I believe that attaching minimum to inflation would not solve the problem of people living off of a "non-livable wage". There are people that believe this will cause companies to stop hiking up their prices when it comes to wages. This is just not the case. They will just hire less people and just go and increase the amount that they outsource their jobs. Things will become even more mechanically and automated just to avoid hiring people which will increase the amount of unemployed people. Just imagine a whole mall with one 3 self checkout machines in each store and someone working just walking around to fold clothes and answer questions.

t3_1gfk03

I believe firm gun laws are a necessity in the United States, CMV!

As the title states, I believe that America needs firm gun laws because: 1. Guns have little to no benefit for the American people other than causing harm. 2. Hunting and other recreational things can still be done in certain regulated areas, but keeping multiple guns in your home is unnecessary. 3. According to this source there were over 31,000 deaths due to guns in 2010. Laws can prevent all of these things and countries with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/#footnote_1_5975 (If I am incorrect on any of these things please tell me, I like to be informed with correct information) CMV!

I believe firm gun laws are a necessity in the United States, CMV!. As the title states, I believe that America needs firm gun laws because: 1. Guns have little to no benefit for the American people other than causing harm. 2. Hunting and other recreational things can still be done in certain regulated areas, but keeping multiple guns in your home is unnecessary. 3. According to this source there were over 31,000 deaths due to guns in 2010. Laws can prevent all of these things and countries with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/#footnote_1_5975 (If I am incorrect on any of these things please tell me, I like to be informed with correct information) CMV!

t3_1vp246

I think that the subreddits that try to cause an emotional reaction (/r/Rage; /r/ShitRedditSays; /r/JusticePorn; etc) are childish. CMV.

There are tons of these subreddits out there, and I think they pander to a segment of society that is generally less intelligent and less emotionally developed. They are also the ones most likely to be responsible for vote brigading, another childish thing to do. Some of them hold a special place as ones that actually have users that go out and find people that piss them off on reddit, so they can link to these people's comment on reddit and thus get everyone really mad and get a bunch of upvotes. SRS (ShitRedditSays) is the classic example of this, though there are others. The entire premise of it is asinine, but they somehow try to wrap themselves up in "we're good for society!" bits of silly. Another one that is especially dumb in my opinion is /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam. These people actually cross-post to *libertarian subreddits* in order to bitch about what Libertarians are doing (The obvious answer to anyone who doesn't want to see this "libertarian spam" is to simply *not go to those subreddits*, but I guess this logic is lost on them). The opposite of this subreddit would be /r/ShitStatistsSay, and they are guilty of the same things for the same reasons. When these subreddits get their britches twisted, they usually "Go over there and give them a piece of their mind", as I call it, which involves clicking over to that post and downvoting it, then replying with something explaining why they are dumb. Other subreddits aren't inwardly focused but can be pretty damn mean in my opinion. One such example is /r/CringePics, where you take a photo from someone who probably made an err in judgement, then make sure thousands of people see it so they can be even more embarassed. Everyone here has done something when they were young that they would be embarassed if everyone knew about it. /r/CringePics is essentially taking a photo of that, and then going "HEY EVERYBODY! LOOK WHAT $username IS DOING! HAHA WHAT A FAGGOT, RIGHT?" Not very nice at all. This is all extremely childish and I wish they would go away. Change my view.

I think that the subreddits that try to cause an emotional reaction (/r/Rage; /r/ShitRedditSays; /r/JusticePorn; etc) are childish. CMV. There are tons of these subreddits out there, and I think they pander to a segment of society that is generally less intelligent and less emotionally developed. They are also the ones most likely to be responsible for vote brigading, another childish thing to do. Some of them hold a special place as ones that actually have users that go out and find people that piss them off on reddit, so they can link to these people's comment on reddit and thus get everyone really mad and get a bunch of upvotes. SRS (ShitRedditSays) is the classic example of this, though there are others. The entire premise of it is asinine, but they somehow try to wrap themselves up in "we're good for society!" bits of silly. Another one that is especially dumb in my opinion is /r/EnoughLibertarianSpam. These people actually cross-post to *libertarian subreddits* in order to bitch about what Libertarians are doing (The obvious answer to anyone who doesn't want to see this "libertarian spam" is to simply *not go to those subreddits*, but I guess this logic is lost on them). The opposite of this subreddit would be /r/ShitStatistsSay, and they are guilty of the same things for the same reasons. When these subreddits get their britches twisted, they usually "Go over there and give them a piece of their mind", as I call it, which involves clicking over to that post and downvoting it, then replying with something explaining why they are dumb. Other subreddits aren't inwardly focused but can be pretty damn mean in my opinion. One such example is /r/CringePics, where you take a photo from someone who probably made an err in judgement, then make sure thousands of people see it so they can be even more embarassed. Everyone here has done something when they were young that they would be embarassed if everyone knew about it. /r/CringePics is essentially taking a photo of that, and then going "HEY EVERYBODY! LOOK WHAT $username IS DOING! HAHA WHAT A FAGGOT, RIGHT?" Not very nice at all. This is all extremely childish and I wish they would go away. Change my view.

t3_3xrmv6

CMV: If humanity became extinct, there is little to no chance of an advanced society evolving on earth again.

I think that humanity is Earth's one and only shot at a species that can potentially reach beyond the planet and colonize other places. If we became extinct, or if our society and infrastructure was destroyed to any significant degree, there is little to no chance an equal or greater society would ever come about again on Earth. This is due to the amount of resources we have used up so far, that will potentially never be replenished, and that are necessary to make the jump from an intelligent species to an industrialized, globalized society. All of Earth's infrastructure is interrelated to such a degree, that if some disaster destroyed 70+% of the infrastructure and killed 70%+ of the people, there would be almost no chance of clawing our way back. If we were to revert to a pre-industrial age, there wouldn't be enough easily accessible energy/materials to kickstart an industrial revolution, and we would be forced to make small, incremental improvement until we were wiped out by some natural disaster or cosmic event. The same would apply to any new intelligent species trying to industrialize. Oil and Coal is replenished far slower than it was in the past, due to more recently evolved bacteria and fungi that can break down organic matter and return it to the carbon cycle. Rare metals we have mined will never become replenished. Stuff that we have used would be long gone after several million years. The fossil fuels we have left unused will still be there of course, but most of these are locked deep underground, or in shale, or at the bottom of the ocean, where a pre-industrial civilization would find it all but impossible to retrieve them. In summary, I think that the industrial revolution was kick started by cheap accessible energy, and the modern age we live in now was started by the transistor - a technology only available to a fairly advanced, industrial society. Neither of these things would be available to a new civilization/a post-apocalyptic human civilization, so I don't believe they would have a chance to colonize other planets before their luck ran out and they were hit with an extinction level event. CMV.

CMV: If humanity became extinct, there is little to no chance of an advanced society evolving on earth again. I think that humanity is Earth's one and only shot at a species that can potentially reach beyond the planet and colonize other places. If we became extinct, or if our society and infrastructure was destroyed to any significant degree, there is little to no chance an equal or greater society would ever come about again on Earth. This is due to the amount of resources we have used up so far, that will potentially never be replenished, and that are necessary to make the jump from an intelligent species to an industrialized, globalized society. All of Earth's infrastructure is interrelated to such a degree, that if some disaster destroyed 70+% of the infrastructure and killed 70%+ of the people, there would be almost no chance of clawing our way back. If we were to revert to a pre-industrial age, there wouldn't be enough easily accessible energy/materials to kickstart an industrial revolution, and we would be forced to make small, incremental improvement until we were wiped out by some natural disaster or cosmic event. The same would apply to any new intelligent species trying to industrialize. Oil and Coal is replenished far slower than it was in the past, due to more recently evolved bacteria and fungi that can break down organic matter and return it to the carbon cycle. Rare metals we have mined will never become replenished. Stuff that we have used would be long gone after several million years. The fossil fuels we have left unused will still be there of course, but most of these are locked deep underground, or in shale, or at the bottom of the ocean, where a pre-industrial civilization would find it all but impossible to retrieve them. In summary, I think that the industrial revolution was kick started by cheap accessible energy, and the modern age we live in now was started by the transistor - a technology only available to a fairly advanced, industrial society. Neither of these things would be available to a new civilization/a post-apocalyptic human civilization, so I don't believe they would have a chance to colonize other planets before their luck ran out and they were hit with an extinction level event. CMV.

t3_6f7ehx

CMV: America is a place of fear and hardship

I am referring to a climate of existential fear due to our deeply flawed institutions. The need for healthcare or the rule of law can strike at any time, yet these are out of reach for many, sometimes most, of us. We have: **Very little rule of law:** English law (Common Law) and juries open even the question of what is or is not the Law to argument, making any legal process potentially deeply convoluted. They also reward tactics and showmanship. This makes any legal result costly, and depending​ more on the means of the parties than on any legal merits. Precedent setting can also give a ruling political significance, further skewing the role of the court. **Poor healthcare:** I see this as largely due to cost. Unlike everywhere else in the world, many prices in healthcare are not negotiated at all in the US. For example, no state or federal government in the US sets prices for prescription medications. We are gauged because we refuse to negotiate. We just take it. **A relatively terrible Constitution:** This issue likely contributes to our lacking rule of law. At it's best, it's outdated and imprecise, at it's worst, it's deliberately discriminatory. It has no immutable and inviolable principles, and relatively few protections for anyone or anything. It's even a constant argument what our Constitution even says, due to our tradition of never actually changing it, but instead just tacking overruling contradictions onto the end of it. Constitutions written since, even ones directly influenced by our government, have learned from our mistakes, we have not. Yet I often hear it referred to as if it were holy scripture. We fear illness, unemployment, the police, random people with weapons, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc., that all carry a threat of poverty or death. These fears aren't inherent to life itself, as I once thought. They are the American Way. I used to shrug these things off with the usual: "Eh, what can you do? That's the World." But I have lived the last few years outside the US, and assure you it is not. Now I very much want to return, but that now seems objectively insane, given an alternative. **TL;DR** Please convince me America doesn't suck. I want to go home. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: America is a place of fear and hardship. I am referring to a climate of existential fear due to our deeply flawed institutions. The need for healthcare or the rule of law can strike at any time, yet these are out of reach for many, sometimes most, of us. We have: **Very little rule of law:** English law (Common Law) and juries open even the question of what is or is not the Law to argument, making any legal process potentially deeply convoluted. They also reward tactics and showmanship. This makes any legal result costly, and depending​ more on the means of the parties than on any legal merits. Precedent setting can also give a ruling political significance, further skewing the role of the court. **Poor healthcare:** I see this as largely due to cost. Unlike everywhere else in the world, many prices in healthcare are not negotiated at all in the US. For example, no state or federal government in the US sets prices for prescription medications. We are gauged because we refuse to negotiate. We just take it. **A relatively terrible Constitution:** This issue likely contributes to our lacking rule of law. At it's best, it's outdated and imprecise, at it's worst, it's deliberately discriminatory. It has no immutable and inviolable principles, and relatively few protections for anyone or anything. It's even a constant argument what our Constitution even says, due to our tradition of never actually changing it, but instead just tacking overruling contradictions onto the end of it. Constitutions written since, even ones directly influenced by our government, have learned from our mistakes, we have not. Yet I often hear it referred to as if it were holy scripture. We fear illness, unemployment, the police, random people with weapons, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc., that all carry a threat of poverty or death. These fears aren't inherent to life itself, as I once thought. They are the American Way. I used to shrug these things off with the usual: "Eh, what can you do? That's the World." But I have lived the last few years outside the US, and assure you it is not. Now I very much want to return, but that now seems objectively insane, given an alternative. **TL;DR** Please convince me America doesn't suck. I want to go home.

t3_26ggj3

CMV: My girlfriend and I can’t wait to leave America and move to Sweden.

**Our Values and Interests:** Autodidacticism, life-long learning, cognitive science, media’s impact on global culture from Edward Bernays forward, read/write culture, copyright reform, the Pirate Party, identity, social criticism, anti-consumerism, anti-capitalism, The Principia Discordia, Dadaism, secular humanism and “free-thought.” **My work:** I independently developed a lecture series, multimedia pieces, a lab and label from which to remaster and issue recordings which never lived beyond their initial analog release, and I manage a lossless archive of 77,000+ historically significant recordings and complete discographic libraries of notable composers and musicians. **My focus:** … is on neoclassical compositions, Kosmische Musik, Psybient, Downtempo, Musique Concrete, Jazz, Ambient, Electroacoustic, The Canterbury Scene, The Berlin School, The Second Viennese School, Noise and Drone musics, but my library also includes the sounds of early music through the big band foundations of jazz. **My Dream:** I’d like to operate a number of web radio stations to feature these wonderful recordings, with a special collection of material not available anywhere else. I approached a local university with my vision to start a not-for-profit educational music foundation with the mission of increasing community awareness of 20th century sound art and the avant garde. The head of the library department told me there was “no audience for my work” and that “it was not sustainable or even legally viable in America today.” **Why We Want to Leave the US:** Appalled by capitalist and consumer culture, I disposed of my radio and television in 1999 and have never purchased a newspaper or periodical. I’ve effectively eliminated over 90% of advertisements from my web-browsing experience, and I walk to the office so I have little exposure to billboards or drive-by advertising. I take an active interest in world news, but have no interest in popular culture. **Leaving Consumer Culture Behind:** I gave up shopping in stores over a decade ago, and other than the 15 grocery items I purchase week in and week out, I only purchase antique goods. A local antique shop provides me with second-hand menswear, shoes and accessories so that, (internet bill and rent aside), I leave as minimal an imprint on the consumer grid as possible. Please don’t think me a pretentious hipster; I simply have no use for or interest in contemporary goods, so I’ve eliminated the products and their marketplaces from my life. **Social Alienation from the States:** I have few peers in the States and every survey I take online (with a grain of salt, of course), tells me that I have the highest cultural, political and value compatibility with Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. I am considering moving to Sweden, envisioning a utopian culture where education is considered an investment in a society’s future, where intellectualism and autodidacticism is valued, where “academic” and “art” music is not limited to the shadows outside of the bright and spangled pop spectrum, and where copyright reform has a voice. My love, (a writer), shares my values and wants to join me in the hope that Sweden will be a more promising environment for her authorship and for our future children. _____ > *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: My girlfriend and I can’t wait to leave America and move to Sweden. **Our Values and Interests:** Autodidacticism, life-long learning, cognitive science, media’s impact on global culture from Edward Bernays forward, read/write culture, copyright reform, the Pirate Party, identity, social criticism, anti-consumerism, anti-capitalism, The Principia Discordia, Dadaism, secular humanism and “free-thought.” **My work:** I independently developed a lecture series, multimedia pieces, a lab and label from which to remaster and issue recordings which never lived beyond their initial analog release, and I manage a lossless archive of 77,000+ historically significant recordings and complete discographic libraries of notable composers and musicians. **My focus:** … is on neoclassical compositions, Kosmische Musik, Psybient, Downtempo, Musique Concrete, Jazz, Ambient, Electroacoustic, The Canterbury Scene, The Berlin School, The Second Viennese School, Noise and Drone musics, but my library also includes the sounds of early music through the big band foundations of jazz. **My Dream:** I’d like to operate a number of web radio stations to feature these wonderful recordings, with a special collection of material not available anywhere else. I approached a local university with my vision to start a not-for-profit educational music foundation with the mission of increasing community awareness of 20th century sound art and the avant garde. The head of the library department told me there was “no audience for my work” and that “it was not sustainable or even legally viable in America today.” **Why We Want to Leave the US:** Appalled by capitalist and consumer culture, I disposed of my radio and television in 1999 and have never purchased a newspaper or periodical. I’ve effectively eliminated over 90% of advertisements from my web-browsing experience, and I walk to the office so I have little exposure to billboards or drive-by advertising. I take an active interest in world news, but have no interest in popular culture. **Leaving Consumer Culture Behind:** I gave up shopping in stores over a decade ago, and other than the 15 grocery items I purchase week in and week out, I only purchase antique goods. A local antique shop provides me with second-hand menswear, shoes and accessories so that, (internet bill and rent aside), I leave as minimal an imprint on the consumer grid as possible. Please don’t think me a pretentious hipster; I simply have no use for or interest in contemporary goods, so I’ve eliminated the products and their marketplaces from my life. **Social Alienation from the States:** I have few peers in the States and every survey I take online (with a grain of salt, of course), tells me that I have the highest cultural, political and value compatibility with Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. I am considering moving to Sweden, envisioning a utopian culture where education is considered an investment in a society’s future, where intellectualism and autodidacticism is valued, where “academic” and “art” music is not limited to the shadows outside of the bright and spangled pop spectrum, and where copyright reform has a voice. My love, (a writer), shares my values and wants to join me in the hope that Sweden will be a more promising environment for her authorship and for our future children.

t3_1fjb29

I believe that we don't need laws that protect people from themselves or coerce them into socially positive behaviors. CMV

Since we've seen a lot of anti-libertarian views lately, I thought I'd submit one to show the other side. I believe that people have a right and responsibility to protect themselves and their own and to seek self-actualization and fulfillment in their own way. Governments are ineffective at coercing people into better behavior or protecting citizens from harm. Thus helmet laws, seatbelt laws, drug laws, safety laws on private property, and the rest are incredibly harmful and infringe on human freedom and are fundamentally coercive. I believe that other people have no right to tell me how to live my own life insofar as I am not coercing others or infringing on their rights, happiness or well-being. If they want to invest in me and my decisions (give me money for school and public services), they must do so voluntarily, not with the expectation that I will "pay them back" by conforming my life into what the public sector would like. Even though there are ample statistics that back up these views showing things like helmet laws increase fatalities, drug prohibition enriches crime and establishes an underclass, and many others, there are other more fundamental reasons for these beliefs. I admire thinkers, artists and scientists who didn't conform to the beliefs of their times and their governments (Voltaire the outspoken critic, Einstein the communist, Pacifist and even Jewish, Milton, MLK, etc.) And there is a feeling that coercive laws exist to benefit a few undeserving people, not society as a whole and certainly not me. I am a grad student from the US and don't understand how this can be such an unpopular opinion/feeling. I'll close by providing a link to Watchmen that sort of summarizes my views and feelings (from Anarchist Alan Moore). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky8OxantWiI

I believe that we don't need laws that protect people from themselves or coerce them into socially positive behaviors. CMV. Since we've seen a lot of anti-libertarian views lately, I thought I'd submit one to show the other side. I believe that people have a right and responsibility to protect themselves and their own and to seek self-actualization and fulfillment in their own way. Governments are ineffective at coercing people into better behavior or protecting citizens from harm. Thus helmet laws, seatbelt laws, drug laws, safety laws on private property, and the rest are incredibly harmful and infringe on human freedom and are fundamentally coercive. I believe that other people have no right to tell me how to live my own life insofar as I am not coercing others or infringing on their rights, happiness or well-being. If they want to invest in me and my decisions (give me money for school and public services), they must do so voluntarily, not with the expectation that I will "pay them back" by conforming my life into what the public sector would like. Even though there are ample statistics that back up these views showing things like helmet laws increase fatalities, drug prohibition enriches crime and establishes an underclass, and many others, there are other more fundamental reasons for these beliefs. I admire thinkers, artists and scientists who didn't conform to the beliefs of their times and their governments (Voltaire the outspoken critic, Einstein the communist, Pacifist and even Jewish, Milton, MLK, etc.) And there is a feeling that coercive laws exist to benefit a few undeserving people, not society as a whole and certainly not me. I am a grad student from the US and don't understand how this can be such an unpopular opinion/feeling. I'll close by providing a link to Watchmen that sort of summarizes my views and feelings (from Anarchist Alan Moore). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky8OxantWiI

t3_2msoba

CMV: Some atheists (contrary to what they like to believe ) are bad for science by alienating a huge number of people from it.

I met a lot of atheists. I also met some angry atheists. My problem is with them. A lot of angry atheists attack religions and religious people by using science. A lot of them seem to think that they are helping scientific progress. I think they are doing the opposite. Scientific advancement is a group effort from the society. If more people take part in science, more progress is made. The more the merrier. By using science to attack people who are religious, they alienate a huge population from science. So the number of people in science is lower. So less progress. More time until we get space ships. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Some atheists (contrary to what they like to believe ) are bad for science by alienating a huge number of people from it. I met a lot of atheists. I also met some angry atheists. My problem is with them. A lot of angry atheists attack religions and religious people by using science. A lot of them seem to think that they are helping scientific progress. I think they are doing the opposite. Scientific advancement is a group effort from the society. If more people take part in science, more progress is made. The more the merrier. By using science to attack people who are religious, they alienate a huge population from science. So the number of people in science is lower. So less progress. More time until we get space ships.

t3_20ftq8

lot of talk of piracy lately. I think digital piracy (for the most part) is not only not immoral, but probably necessary. CMV

Firstly, digital piracy is illegal. Anyone who does anything illegal whether you agree with it or not should be prepared to face the consequences. That said, the *only* reason that piracy is illegal is because the creators of digital media are either unable to or unwilling to update their business models to suit today's technology. The fact that some people argue that *the consumer* should be the one to adapt, rather than the companies and creators themselves, is baffling to me. Claiming that piracy is immoral is like saying, "walking into my house is immoral." No it's not, it's just some arbitrary rule I just made up. But of course the argument is that you're "stealing" or that you're "taking profit away from creators," which is similarly absurd. Piracy is not "stealing." You are not taking something from someone else, you are making a copy of something. The entirety of what makes stealing immoral is the fact that you are disturbing/harming/inconveniencing/etc someone else by taking something that belongs to them. This is not what is happening with digital piracy. The only "inconvenience" caused from piracy is the idea that someone *may* *theoretically* have lost some *theoretical* money. And again, this is not because digital files have any value, but because of the arbitrary, outdated business model that media companies have. Making piracy illegal implies that people are downloading things that they would have otherwise paid for, i.e people just want free shit. But obviously this isn't true, all you have to do is look at the amazing success of things like iTunes and Netflix. People don't mind paying for media, as long as it's good, cheap, and convenient. I suspect that companies and creators know this, but they are just trying to maximize profits. And I doubt I'll ever be in favor of screwing over the consumer just so you can maximize profits. So not only do I not have a problem with piracy, I almost feel that it is compulsory to force companies and creators to, as they say, *get with the times.* How can they update their business model to take advantage of the ease at which we can download and transfer digital files? Well A. That's another discussion and B. It's not really my problem. The fact of the matter is, you don't throttle the use of technology so you can make more money. Screw that. CMV.

lot of talk of piracy lately. I think digital piracy (for the most part) is not only not immoral, but probably necessary. CMV. Firstly, digital piracy is illegal. Anyone who does anything illegal whether you agree with it or not should be prepared to face the consequences. That said, the *only* reason that piracy is illegal is because the creators of digital media are either unable to or unwilling to update their business models to suit today's technology. The fact that some people argue that *the consumer* should be the one to adapt, rather than the companies and creators themselves, is baffling to me. Claiming that piracy is immoral is like saying, "walking into my house is immoral." No it's not, it's just some arbitrary rule I just made up. But of course the argument is that you're "stealing" or that you're "taking profit away from creators," which is similarly absurd. Piracy is not "stealing." You are not taking something from someone else, you are making a copy of something. The entirety of what makes stealing immoral is the fact that you are disturbing/harming/inconveniencing/etc someone else by taking something that belongs to them. This is not what is happening with digital piracy. The only "inconvenience" caused from piracy is the idea that someone *may* *theoretically* have lost some *theoretical* money. And again, this is not because digital files have any value, but because of the arbitrary, outdated business model that media companies have. Making piracy illegal implies that people are downloading things that they would have otherwise paid for, i.e people just want free shit. But obviously this isn't true, all you have to do is look at the amazing success of things like iTunes and Netflix. People don't mind paying for media, as long as it's good, cheap, and convenient. I suspect that companies and creators know this, but they are just trying to maximize profits. And I doubt I'll ever be in favor of screwing over the consumer just so you can maximize profits. So not only do I not have a problem with piracy, I almost feel that it is compulsory to force companies and creators to, as they say, *get with the times.* How can they update their business model to take advantage of the ease at which we can download and transfer digital files? Well A. That's another discussion and B. It's not really my problem. The fact of the matter is, you don't throttle the use of technology so you can make more money. Screw that. CMV.

t3_21mate

CMV: I believe that western countries should do more resource extraction, and that environmentalist protesters are allowing other countries to gain more geo-political power through resource wealth.

In my city and region right now there are a lot of anti-pipeline protests and a lot of really pro-environment people. I'm always hearing on the radio, facebook, newspapers, and television about people being opposed to different mines, natural gas sites, and oil rigs and pipelines for environmental reasons. Mostly the protesters cite safety reasons, like spills, and how large companies don't do enough to avoid disasters, and don't do enough to pay for them afterwards. They also say that we should preserve our natural wilderness and beauty as much as possible, and leave everything in the ground. While these might be somewhat legitimate criticisms, I do not think that they are good enough of a reason not to develop more resource extraction and infrastructure anywhere that is moderately safe to do so. So many of these protesters fail to see the benefits of having a strong economy built through exporting resources. I don't just mean jobs, but the actual capital that a country acquires through the industry. I live in Canada, a liberal democracy that exports a lot of oil to the US, and around the world and we have become very wealthy because of it. Wealth is power, especially if you are a liberal democracy. We would not be a member of the G8 without our massive resource exports. And yet, these environmentalists want to oppose just about every aspect of these powerhouse industries. If we allow opposition to continue, our wealth could diminish and other countries would gladly step into our place. I'm talking about countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Venezuela. These countries have governments that will not be stopped by civilian opposition, and do not care about the environment. By allowing these countries to gain wealth unchecked, we allow them to gain power and influence and we will have less resources to stop them. Do I want to live in a world where these countries can do whatever they want? Absolutely not, and I feel like we have an obligation to democracies everywhere to continue to extract resources and gain wealth in order to hold back other countries who run these industries unopposed. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that western countries should do more resource extraction, and that environmentalist protesters are allowing other countries to gain more geo-political power through resource wealth. In my city and region right now there are a lot of anti-pipeline protests and a lot of really pro-environment people. I'm always hearing on the radio, facebook, newspapers, and television about people being opposed to different mines, natural gas sites, and oil rigs and pipelines for environmental reasons. Mostly the protesters cite safety reasons, like spills, and how large companies don't do enough to avoid disasters, and don't do enough to pay for them afterwards. They also say that we should preserve our natural wilderness and beauty as much as possible, and leave everything in the ground. While these might be somewhat legitimate criticisms, I do not think that they are good enough of a reason not to develop more resource extraction and infrastructure anywhere that is moderately safe to do so. So many of these protesters fail to see the benefits of having a strong economy built through exporting resources. I don't just mean jobs, but the actual capital that a country acquires through the industry. I live in Canada, a liberal democracy that exports a lot of oil to the US, and around the world and we have become very wealthy because of it. Wealth is power, especially if you are a liberal democracy. We would not be a member of the G8 without our massive resource exports. And yet, these environmentalists want to oppose just about every aspect of these powerhouse industries. If we allow opposition to continue, our wealth could diminish and other countries would gladly step into our place. I'm talking about countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Venezuela. These countries have governments that will not be stopped by civilian opposition, and do not care about the environment. By allowing these countries to gain wealth unchecked, we allow them to gain power and influence and we will have less resources to stop them. Do I want to live in a world where these countries can do whatever they want? Absolutely not, and I feel like we have an obligation to democracies everywhere to continue to extract resources and gain wealth in order to hold back other countries who run these industries unopposed. Change my view.

t3_2lqmp9

CMV: The new Nicki Minaj music video "Only" is glorifying Nazism and Hitler

[Here is the video that I am referencing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU769XX_dIQ) After watching the video I can't understand why they went with a Nazi theme. They portray Nicki as Hitler and have the other rappers as her subordinates. They don't seem to be playing a role that they are satirizing or criticizing, as the lyrics are about them. I suppose it is possible that they are criticizing their fan base for following them blindly. But I don't understand why they would do that, and it is insulting to how horrible the Nazi's were. I feel that I must be missing something here. I am not a huge fan of rap or any of these artists, nor am I an outspoken critic. I want my view changed because I don't really believe that the artists are Nazi's. _____ > *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 new Nicki Minaj music video "Only" is glorifying Nazism and Hitler. [Here is the video that I am referencing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU769XX_dIQ) After watching the video I can't understand why they went with a Nazi theme. They portray Nicki as Hitler and have the other rappers as her subordinates. They don't seem to be playing a role that they are satirizing or criticizing, as the lyrics are about them. I suppose it is possible that they are criticizing their fan base for following them blindly. But I don't understand why they would do that, and it is insulting to how horrible the Nazi's were. I feel that I must be missing something here. I am not a huge fan of rap or any of these artists, nor am I an outspoken critic. I want my view changed because I don't really believe that the artists are Nazi's.

t3_5fv15r

CMV: Spez's announcement was just a cheap shot at T_D and not trying to make the situation better

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_editing_some_comments_and_creating_an/ Reddit has been dealing with this feud for awhile, and while the some users of T_D have been a part of the shittiness, r/politics has been equally as shitty with r/enoughtrumpspam equally as shitty as well as quite a few others. >We have dedicated many of our resources to fighting harassment on Reddit, > If there is anything about this election that we have learned, it is that there are communities that feel alienated and just want to be heard The entire announcement was just about how to filter out T_D, completely contradicting his own words. The main reason T_D is so defensive is because this is the second change to Reddit as a whole to quiet them. Despite many feature requests by mods/users that have gone unheard of years, these some how became top priority overnight. r/politics, what is supposed to be the main political discussion reddit, became an echo-chamber against donald. There's a lot of users pro-donald(as T_D has proven) and shutting them out of the main r/all sub forced them to get their voice heard by making a sub that would balance out the anti-donald with pro-donald on r/all. When subs like r/enougtrumpspam are entirely dedicated against T_D, and not just that, but actually have the harassment that their users do not even mentioned, it's just inciting more fuel to the fire. Realistically, political discussion would've been a much smaller topic on reddit if there was proper moderation / administration, and not being a part of the rivalry. EDIT: Literally every comment is not trying to CMV just to convince me how I'm delusional. This has nothing to do with pro-trump / anti-trump, this has to do with user bases and communities. And if you keep shitting on one community calling them liars, harassing them, shadow-banning / downvote brigading etc. etc. -- don't act surprised when they do it back. So far everyone commenting is acting like T_D and its users are the devil, while anyone anti-trump on reddit is a fact-checking angel that would never do horrible. I guarantee you that as long as Reddit keeps doing all they can to censor T_D, those users are going to find a way around it and manipulate until they are treated equally.

CMV: Spez's announcement was just a cheap shot at T_D and not trying to make the situation better. https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_editing_some_comments_and_creating_an/ Reddit has been dealing with this feud for awhile, and while the some users of T_D have been a part of the shittiness, r/politics has been equally as shitty with r/enoughtrumpspam equally as shitty as well as quite a few others. >We have dedicated many of our resources to fighting harassment on Reddit, > If there is anything about this election that we have learned, it is that there are communities that feel alienated and just want to be heard The entire announcement was just about how to filter out T_D, completely contradicting his own words. The main reason T_D is so defensive is because this is the second change to Reddit as a whole to quiet them. Despite many feature requests by mods/users that have gone unheard of years, these some how became top priority overnight. r/politics, what is supposed to be the main political discussion reddit, became an echo-chamber against donald. There's a lot of users pro-donald(as T_D has proven) and shutting them out of the main r/all sub forced them to get their voice heard by making a sub that would balance out the anti-donald with pro-donald on r/all. When subs like r/enougtrumpspam are entirely dedicated against T_D, and not just that, but actually have the harassment that their users do not even mentioned, it's just inciting more fuel to the fire. Realistically, political discussion would've been a much smaller topic on reddit if there was proper moderation / administration, and not being a part of the rivalry. EDIT: Literally every comment is not trying to CMV just to convince me how I'm delusional. This has nothing to do with pro-trump / anti-trump, this has to do with user bases and communities. And if you keep shitting on one community calling them liars, harassing them, shadow-banning / downvote brigading etc. etc. -- don't act surprised when they do it back. So far everyone commenting is acting like T_D and its users are the devil, while anyone anti-trump on reddit is a fact-checking angel that would never do horrible. I guarantee you that as long as Reddit keeps doing all they can to censor T_D, those users are going to find a way around it and manipulate until they are treated equally.

t3_5bj8xl

CMV: Jim Comey should be fired for his recent conduct.

Jim Comey's letter last week which strongly insinuated new information about Secy. Clinton, and his subsequent letter today indicating that there was no new actionable information have been egregious violations of the Hatch Act for which Comey should be fired. I have three principal reasons for this * Comey acted with almost no information. When Comey sent his first letter, all he knew was that Weiner's laptop had been scanned and metadata had indicated there were emails on it that went to or were from Clinton's email server. He did not know what if anything they said, whether the FBI had seen them before, or whether they were in any way relevant to Secretary Clinton herself. This was woefully insufficient information for any responsible FBI director to make a public statement about any case whatsoever. * Comey acted contrary to the advice and instructions of his department. [Comey was warned that his actions would violate DoJ policy before he undertook them.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-officials-warned-fbi-that-comeys-decision-to-update-congress-was-not-consistent-with-department-policy/2016/10/29/cb179254-9de7-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html) You are not allowed to act contrary to your policy and specific instructions from your department and keep your job. * Comey revealed absolutely no new information of public value. Comey might be forgiven for the above if he had revealed substantial information of public value before an election so that voters could decide. But in fact Comey's letters revealed no new information of any public value. If you're gonna break the rules for public benefit, you'd better have some public benefit. _____ > *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: Jim Comey should be fired for his recent conduct. Jim Comey's letter last week which strongly insinuated new information about Secy. Clinton, and his subsequent letter today indicating that there was no new actionable information have been egregious violations of the Hatch Act for which Comey should be fired. I have three principal reasons for this * Comey acted with almost no information. When Comey sent his first letter, all he knew was that Weiner's laptop had been scanned and metadata had indicated there were emails on it that went to or were from Clinton's email server. He did not know what if anything they said, whether the FBI had seen them before, or whether they were in any way relevant to Secretary Clinton herself. This was woefully insufficient information for any responsible FBI director to make a public statement about any case whatsoever. * Comey acted contrary to the advice and instructions of his department. [Comey was warned that his actions would violate DoJ policy before he undertook them.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-officials-warned-fbi-that-comeys-decision-to-update-congress-was-not-consistent-with-department-policy/2016/10/29/cb179254-9de7-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html) You are not allowed to act contrary to your policy and specific instructions from your department and keep your job. * Comey revealed absolutely no new information of public value. Comey might be forgiven for the above if he had revealed substantial information of public value before an election so that voters could decide. But in fact Comey's letters revealed no new information of any public value. If you're gonna break the rules for public benefit, you'd better have some public benefit.

t3_4dkoe8

CMV: Hey Jude was a lyrically lazy song undeserving of that much of a legacy

Disclaimer: this is my favorite song, completely open to my views changed. I know that the song was written to comfort Julian Lennon over the divorce of his parents and can likewise be applied onto anybody going through some kind of hardship but to me I think that structurally, the song feels somewhat simplistic. The first 3-4 minutes revolve around the same "Don't be sad/Play it cool" lyrics but rephrased over and over again within that time span and the refrain is unnecessarily way too long. _____ > *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: Hey Jude was a lyrically lazy song undeserving of that much of a legacy. Disclaimer: this is my favorite song, completely open to my views changed. I know that the song was written to comfort Julian Lennon over the divorce of his parents and can likewise be applied onto anybody going through some kind of hardship but to me I think that structurally, the song feels somewhat simplistic. The first 3-4 minutes revolve around the same "Don't be sad/Play it cool" lyrics but rephrased over and over again within that time span and the refrain is unnecessarily way too long.

t3_37vt4d

CMV: Sexual intercourse should only be shared between two people already intimately acquainted

I just had an orgasm. I realized in that brief half minute or so, I was stripped of all inhibition, showing what could only be described as my rawest, most human self. It struck me that experiencing that moment, in either the first or secondhand, is a very personal experience and something valuable enough that I would not want to share it with anyone that I did not already trust and love. This is the basis for my view. I realize that not everyone feels and interprets an orgasm the same way. The experience is still as important to me as it was my first time, due to essentially maintaining its value. I've only had intercourse with people already very close and dear. As such, I'm able to feel fully myself in those times and share intimate moments that, quite frankly, I can't see myself having with someone I met 4 hours beforehand. I'm making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience. This is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where I falter? Thanks for the thoughts. This view I hold is quickly becoming very incongruent with the view of the average 20-something and I want to get rid of it as fast as possible! _____ > *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: Sexual intercourse should only be shared between two people already intimately acquainted. I just had an orgasm. I realized in that brief half minute or so, I was stripped of all inhibition, showing what could only be described as my rawest, most human self. It struck me that experiencing that moment, in either the first or secondhand, is a very personal experience and something valuable enough that I would not want to share it with anyone that I did not already trust and love. This is the basis for my view. I realize that not everyone feels and interprets an orgasm the same way. The experience is still as important to me as it was my first time, due to essentially maintaining its value. I've only had intercourse with people already very close and dear. As such, I'm able to feel fully myself in those times and share intimate moments that, quite frankly, I can't see myself having with someone I met 4 hours beforehand. I'm making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience. This is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where I falter? Thanks for the thoughts. This view I hold is quickly becoming very incongruent with the view of the average 20-something and I want to get rid of it as fast as possible!

t3_61h17l

CMV: Referring to Russian actions as "meddling in the election" is misleading and dangerous.

The go-to snippet to refer to Russian/Russian-supported/Russian-backed actions around the US presidential campaign and election seems to be "Russian meddling in the US election". This is the phrase that I most often hear in news broadcasts and read in articles and discussion. Instead I think we should be referring to it as "meddling in the *campaign*". As I understand there are three main thrusts to the allegations: * The release of the DNC emails * The release of the John Podesta emails * Ties between Trump campaign officials/surrogates and Russian entities. All three of these only affected the campaign, and for the first two they brought to light facts about the opposition. What I would consider meddling or interference in the *election* would be: * Compromise of voting machines / systems * Voter suppression, compromise of voter rolls * Interference/bribing of electoral officials * Loss, theft, or alteration of collected ballots * Support or payment for voter fraud (paying for votes, paying people to vote twice) Unless I am ignorant to something, I do not see any allegations towards Russia regarding this class of issues. For argument let's assume the absolute worst of the three main allegations. Let's post that: Russian agents hacked the emails, Wikileaks is Russian controlled, the scheduling/analysis/dissemination of email contents and talking points was Russian ordered and controlled, Russia had but sat on incriminating/compromising evidence against the Trump campaign, Manafort & Flynn were conspiring with Russian officials to steer the Trump campaign and presidency in a pro-Russia direction. Etc., etc., etc. All of that, even at its worst, is still only about the *campaign*, not the election. Let's take a similar situation and apply my line of thinking. Barack Obama went to the UK and spoke out against Brexit. I see this clearly as the United States interfering in the campaign of the UK. But in no way is that *election* interference. If it comes to light that the CIA intercepted and destroyed "stay" Brexit ballots, then **that** would be election meddling. ----- With this distinction defined, let's examine the impact of the word choice. Understanding it as *election* meddling allows the Trump opposition to shift the blame of the result to an outside party. It allows the opposition to completely ignore and side-step sometimes **contents** of the leaked emails, and how they affected voter opinion and action. To equate campaign meddling with election meddling is an undermining of the intelligence of the American voter. The American electorate had the option to see the Russian campaign meddling, hear the Democrats label it as such, and thus decide that it was bunk. But they didn't. If we refer to it as *campaign* interference, we have to have the difficult discussion of how voters think, what matters to them, how legitimate campaigns can counter illegitimate information, etc. Instead it's referred to as *election* interference, and the end result becomes the fault of an outside party, and no introspection takes place. Further, our electoral system *is* vulnerable, especially with regards to electronic & computerized voting systems. Under my understanding that has not yet been compromised, but due to the current rhetoric I can see others would not see it that way. Fixing these systems is of paramount importance to our democracy, but it feels like that battle has already been lost. ---- It's a small difference in word choice, but I see it as hugely impactful. To change my view I would need: * Evidence of Russian election interference under my definition. I may simply be ignorant to something. * A counter argument that what I see as mere *campaign* interference in effect constitutes *election* interference.

CMV: Referring to Russian actions as "meddling in the election" is misleading and dangerous. The go-to snippet to refer to Russian/Russian-supported/Russian-backed actions around the US presidential campaign and election seems to be "Russian meddling in the US election". This is the phrase that I most often hear in news broadcasts and read in articles and discussion. Instead I think we should be referring to it as "meddling in the *campaign*". As I understand there are three main thrusts to the allegations: * The release of the DNC emails * The release of the John Podesta emails * Ties between Trump campaign officials/surrogates and Russian entities. All three of these only affected the campaign, and for the first two they brought to light facts about the opposition. What I would consider meddling or interference in the *election* would be: * Compromise of voting machines / systems * Voter suppression, compromise of voter rolls * Interference/bribing of electoral officials * Loss, theft, or alteration of collected ballots * Support or payment for voter fraud (paying for votes, paying people to vote twice) Unless I am ignorant to something, I do not see any allegations towards Russia regarding this class of issues. For argument let's assume the absolute worst of the three main allegations. Let's post that: Russian agents hacked the emails, Wikileaks is Russian controlled, the scheduling/analysis/dissemination of email contents and talking points was Russian ordered and controlled, Russia had but sat on incriminating/compromising evidence against the Trump campaign, Manafort & Flynn were conspiring with Russian officials to steer the Trump campaign and presidency in a pro-Russia direction. Etc., etc., etc. All of that, even at its worst, is still only about the *campaign*, not the election. Let's take a similar situation and apply my line of thinking. Barack Obama went to the UK and spoke out against Brexit. I see this clearly as the United States interfering in the campaign of the UK. But in no way is that *election* interference. If it comes to light that the CIA intercepted and destroyed "stay" Brexit ballots, then **that** would be election meddling. ----- With this distinction defined, let's examine the impact of the word choice. Understanding it as *election* meddling allows the Trump opposition to shift the blame of the result to an outside party. It allows the opposition to completely ignore and side-step sometimes **contents** of the leaked emails, and how they affected voter opinion and action. To equate campaign meddling with election meddling is an undermining of the intelligence of the American voter. The American electorate had the option to see the Russian campaign meddling, hear the Democrats label it as such, and thus decide that it was bunk. But they didn't. If we refer to it as *campaign* interference, we have to have the difficult discussion of how voters think, what matters to them, how legitimate campaigns can counter illegitimate information, etc. Instead it's referred to as *election* interference, and the end result becomes the fault of an outside party, and no introspection takes place. Further, our electoral system *is* vulnerable, especially with regards to electronic & computerized voting systems. Under my understanding that has not yet been compromised, but due to the current rhetoric I can see others would not see it that way. Fixing these systems is of paramount importance to our democracy, but it feels like that battle has already been lost. ---- It's a small difference in word choice, but I see it as hugely impactful. To change my view I would need: * Evidence of Russian election interference under my definition. I may simply be ignorant to something. * A counter argument that what I see as mere *campaign* interference in effect constitutes *election* interference.

t3_1vbc5x

I don't think men cheating on women is quite as bad as women cheating on men, CMV

I know it sounds very hypocritical, but despite the western obsession with "equality" (whatever that means), I don't think that men and women should be considered as "equal". I'm not talking about people's rights, I mean biologically. I think men and women are for the most part wired differently, and often view the same relationship completely differently. I have heard many times women expressing opinions that they don't care that much if their man is sleeping around, as long as she is the on he wants to come home to. Men often just want "quantity". Whereas often if a woman cheats, it means the man is not good enough for her anymore. Of course, every relationship is different, but I think that what I am saying applies to a lot more couples than people are wiling to admit. So yeah, please change my view. EDIT: Here is another way to put it. **When a woman cheats on a man there is a much higher probability that that couple is having a real trouble then when a man cheats on a woman.**

I don't think men cheating on women is quite as bad as women cheating on men, CMV. I know it sounds very hypocritical, but despite the western obsession with "equality" (whatever that means), I don't think that men and women should be considered as "equal". I'm not talking about people's rights, I mean biologically. I think men and women are for the most part wired differently, and often view the same relationship completely differently. I have heard many times women expressing opinions that they don't care that much if their man is sleeping around, as long as she is the on he wants to come home to. Men often just want "quantity". Whereas often if a woman cheats, it means the man is not good enough for her anymore. Of course, every relationship is different, but I think that what I am saying applies to a lot more couples than people are wiling to admit. So yeah, please change my view. EDIT: Here is another way to put it. **When a woman cheats on a man there is a much higher probability that that couple is having a real trouble then when a man cheats on a woman.**

t3_6affts

CMV:Russia did not hack the election

Russia did not hack the actual election, it hacked the campaign and diction matters. I understand that Russia hacked the Clinton emails during the election and helped in releasing them on Wikileaks. As per wikipedia, "Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to denigrate and harm Clinton's electoral chances and potential presidency". At the end of the day, the American people still voted for their president, wrongly influenced or not. Personally, I think the wording makes the whole argument sound disingenuous because hacking an election equates the same to tampering with voting machines to change votes in battleground states. Trump won fair and square, albeit with *indirect* help from email dumps from Russia and Comey. *Russia hacked the campaign* as shown by the Wikileaks emails. I may be missing some of the tidbits here because I've been out of the loop for a long time, so I wanted to change my view on this topic. _____ > *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:Russia did not hack the election. Russia did not hack the actual election, it hacked the campaign and diction matters. I understand that Russia hacked the Clinton emails during the election and helped in releasing them on Wikileaks. As per wikipedia, "Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to denigrate and harm Clinton's electoral chances and potential presidency". At the end of the day, the American people still voted for their president, wrongly influenced or not. Personally, I think the wording makes the whole argument sound disingenuous because hacking an election equates the same to tampering with voting machines to change votes in battleground states. Trump won fair and square, albeit with *indirect* help from email dumps from Russia and Comey. *Russia hacked the campaign* as shown by the Wikileaks emails. I may be missing some of the tidbits here because I've been out of the loop for a long time, so I wanted to change my view on this topic.

t3_6vdimw

CMV: Anarchism is a system that cannot work.

I understand that anarchism/anarchy is not necessarily ending in a ruleless wasteland but anarchists have told me they wanted to get rid of money in general (which I think is a perfect means of facilitating exchange) and draw no boundaries anywhere (which I believe won't last very long unless you manipulate people) and that, in an anarchist worldwide direct democracy, the people's interest might be very badly represented. (Such that a law lots of Americans, Indians and Chinese people find great but Europeans might not), I also think a state is needed to facilitate things such as healthcare, infrastructure, regulations and whatnot. (Sorry for unprofessional wording) ______

CMV: Anarchism is a system that cannot work. I understand that anarchism/anarchy is not necessarily ending in a ruleless wasteland but anarchists have told me they wanted to get rid of money in general (which I think is a perfect means of facilitating exchange) and draw no boundaries anywhere (which I believe won't last very long unless you manipulate people) and that, in an anarchist worldwide direct democracy, the people's interest might be very badly represented. (Such that a law lots of Americans, Indians and Chinese people find great but Europeans might not), I also think a state is needed to facilitate things such as healthcare, infrastructure, regulations and whatnot. (Sorry for unprofessional wording) ______

t3_1pcf77

I believe that a relationship will make me happy. CMV.

I don't want to believe that but I've been stuck in an extremely redundant life. I hate where I live. I hate my job right now. I've been stuck here for seven months, and I have five to go (military). I keep feeling sorry for myself but I just don't see anything positive anymore. I understand a lot of people have it worse, but seeing people on Facebook or even on Reddit show off their great lives with their attractive partners to share that life with? The jealousy and envy tears at me. I believe that a relationship will make me happy. Because I think that the feelings evoked from that relationship with an ideal partner would change my life. I'm 19, I know I'm decently attractive, and I've got stable income. But I've never experienced a true relationship or any sort of affection beyond a few nights of sexual intercourse. Sex to me is an immediate gratification, but it would amount to nothing more the next day. I want more than that. I want to wake up knowing that fantasy is a reality, and that I actually have something to look forward to in my day. I want to experience what so many people have experienced... I feel like a late bloomer. People say that a relationship comes to you naturally and that you have to find your own true happiness before you're ready. But goddamn it, what if I'm never ready? Please CMV.

I believe that a relationship will make me happy. CMV. I don't want to believe that but I've been stuck in an extremely redundant life. I hate where I live. I hate my job right now. I've been stuck here for seven months, and I have five to go (military). I keep feeling sorry for myself but I just don't see anything positive anymore. I understand a lot of people have it worse, but seeing people on Facebook or even on Reddit show off their great lives with their attractive partners to share that life with? The jealousy and envy tears at me. I believe that a relationship will make me happy. Because I think that the feelings evoked from that relationship with an ideal partner would change my life. I'm 19, I know I'm decently attractive, and I've got stable income. But I've never experienced a true relationship or any sort of affection beyond a few nights of sexual intercourse. Sex to me is an immediate gratification, but it would amount to nothing more the next day. I want more than that. I want to wake up knowing that fantasy is a reality, and that I actually have something to look forward to in my day. I want to experience what so many people have experienced... I feel like a late bloomer. People say that a relationship comes to you naturally and that you have to find your own true happiness before you're ready. But goddamn it, what if I'm never ready? Please CMV.

t3_1ngqol

Americas Policing the World is todays “Manifest Destiny” CMV

I believe that the United States uses the Term “Policing the world” when what its trying to do is further the “Manifest Destiny” concept. America wants to spread its way of life as the only acceptable way. America is quick to step in and threaten, embargo, regime change, or even go to war with anyone that stands in its way or holds to a different way of life. Once done they install governments that align and represent the views of America at the expense of the native people, pushing for more dependence on America. I feel like this is mostly done behind closed doors and hushed in most media outlets. Please change my view.

Americas Policing the World is todays “Manifest Destiny” CMV. I believe that the United States uses the Term “Policing the world” when what its trying to do is further the “Manifest Destiny” concept. America wants to spread its way of life as the only acceptable way. America is quick to step in and threaten, embargo, regime change, or even go to war with anyone that stands in its way or holds to a different way of life. Once done they install governments that align and represent the views of America at the expense of the native people, pushing for more dependence on America. I feel like this is mostly done behind closed doors and hushed in most media outlets. Please change my view.

t3_67ti6u

CMV: Skins inside games, such as Counter-strike or Team Fortress 2 are a good thing for the game overall.

I believe that these items overall enhance the game somewhat. They make more money for these specific games which allows more devs to be added to the teams, or more content and maps being pushed to the games. Counter strike is a great example of this with their e-sports cases, which raised money for the esports tournaments that year, promoting the game. While there can be downsides with the way these skins are distributed(cases) I believe they do not harm the game, and can even be beneficial to the game.

CMV: Skins inside games, such as Counter-strike or Team Fortress 2 are a good thing for the game overall. I believe that these items overall enhance the game somewhat. They make more money for these specific games which allows more devs to be added to the teams, or more content and maps being pushed to the games. Counter strike is a great example of this with their e-sports cases, which raised money for the esports tournaments that year, promoting the game. While there can be downsides with the way these skins are distributed(cases) I believe they do not harm the game, and can even be beneficial to the game.

t3_1xnno8

I think Arcade Fire is one of the worst bands that have hit it big. CMV

Personally, I believe Arcade Fire to be just one of the worst things that have happened to music, and to be terrible in their own right. However, they've struck it big. I don't know how. Their music is repetitive, lyrics (even when uplifting) come across and whiny and annoying. They seem to be to the a musical equivalent of an emo kid in the early 00's screaming "WE ARE UNIQUE. PLEASE LISTEN TO US. OUR MUSIC IS AS DEEP AS OUR SOULS. I've tried and tried to like them, and I'm just not biting into their "flavour" (I dislike both their music, and really don't understand the hype around them) I have listened to the entire **Funeral**, **Suburbs**, **Reflektor** albums, and "Black Mirror" and "Keep the Car Running" from **Neon Bible** Please, CMV. *Edited with more information

I think Arcade Fire is one of the worst bands that have hit it big. CMV. Personally, I believe Arcade Fire to be just one of the worst things that have happened to music, and to be terrible in their own right. However, they've struck it big. I don't know how. Their music is repetitive, lyrics (even when uplifting) come across and whiny and annoying. They seem to be to the a musical equivalent of an emo kid in the early 00's screaming "WE ARE UNIQUE. PLEASE LISTEN TO US. OUR MUSIC IS AS DEEP AS OUR SOULS. I've tried and tried to like them, and I'm just not biting into their "flavour" (I dislike both their music, and really don't understand the hype around them) I have listened to the entire **Funeral**, **Suburbs**, **Reflektor** albums, and "Black Mirror" and "Keep the Car Running" from **Neon Bible** Please, CMV. *Edited with more information

t3_48lswl

CMV: Redditors should stop masturbating over Bernie's OK win and should cry about his TX loss

It is all about the delegate numbers won or lost. He only won 4 extra delegates over Hillary in OK, but the thread about it has 3000 comments. Yet Hillary won in Texas by 74 delegates. That is 18 times more than Bernie's OK win !!!! The point is that smaller losses for Bernie are way more meaningful than a small win, specially in a not so big state. So stop masturbating about it, realize how the primaries work and get real about your candidate's no chance of winning the nomination. Oh yes, and remember he lost Massachusetts although only by 2 delegates, but that is the trend what is more important, not the tiny wins. As I mentioned in my earlier CMV (and nobody changed my view), the super delegates already decided the nomination, but super Tuesday put the knife through the heart of Bernie's campaign and Hillary is up by almost 200 delegates NOT counting the supers. If we add the supers, Hillary is leading by 670 delegates, a lead that can not be overcome by Bernie. Hey, you can always hope for a heart attack or an indictment for Hillary. At this point I want to see less congratulatory threads on my main page. It looks like I am a subscriber to r/sandersforpresident, very annoying. The Minnesota win was nice and meaningful, celebrate that one instead. _____ > *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: Redditors should stop masturbating over Bernie's OK win and should cry about his TX loss. It is all about the delegate numbers won or lost. He only won 4 extra delegates over Hillary in OK, but the thread about it has 3000 comments. Yet Hillary won in Texas by 74 delegates. That is 18 times more than Bernie's OK win !!!! The point is that smaller losses for Bernie are way more meaningful than a small win, specially in a not so big state. So stop masturbating about it, realize how the primaries work and get real about your candidate's no chance of winning the nomination. Oh yes, and remember he lost Massachusetts although only by 2 delegates, but that is the trend what is more important, not the tiny wins. As I mentioned in my earlier CMV (and nobody changed my view), the super delegates already decided the nomination, but super Tuesday put the knife through the heart of Bernie's campaign and Hillary is up by almost 200 delegates NOT counting the supers. If we add the supers, Hillary is leading by 670 delegates, a lead that can not be overcome by Bernie. Hey, you can always hope for a heart attack or an indictment for Hillary. At this point I want to see less congratulatory threads on my main page. It looks like I am a subscriber to r/sandersforpresident, very annoying. The Minnesota win was nice and meaningful, celebrate that one instead.

t3_5mnt6x

CMV: I think Affirmative Action is essentially racism

As most of you know, Affirmative Action is a policy often implemented by colleges and workplaces to give minority students and workers more spots in the workforce/university. I am Asian-American, which means that Affirmative Action hurts my chances of getting into good schools or jobs. I didn't ask to be Asian American, it's not a choice I've made. It's also not something that necessarily helps me in any way. Asian Americans are not genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than others, nor are they more hardworking. Even if you can find several studies proving I am wrong on this point, I can't control my birth race any more than anyone else can. By penalizing me for something that is against my control, my race, I think Affirmative Action qualifies as a form of racism. Edit: /u/The_Account_UK (and others) have pointed out a language issue with my post: What I am describing here is racial discrimination, which is a bit more specific than the blanket term of "racism". Edit 2: There are like a ton of comments on here, forgive me if I didn't get to everyone ><. Trust me, I've been reading pretty much everything :D _____ > *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 Affirmative Action is essentially racism. As most of you know, Affirmative Action is a policy often implemented by colleges and workplaces to give minority students and workers more spots in the workforce/university. I am Asian-American, which means that Affirmative Action hurts my chances of getting into good schools or jobs. I didn't ask to be Asian American, it's not a choice I've made. It's also not something that necessarily helps me in any way. Asian Americans are not genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than others, nor are they more hardworking. Even if you can find several studies proving I am wrong on this point, I can't control my birth race any more than anyone else can. By penalizing me for something that is against my control, my race, I think Affirmative Action qualifies as a form of racism. Edit: /u/The_Account_UK (and others) have pointed out a language issue with my post: What I am describing here is racial discrimination, which is a bit more specific than the blanket term of "racism". Edit 2: There are like a ton of comments on here, forgive me if I didn't get to everyone ><. Trust me, I've been reading pretty much everything :D

t3_1jjduh

I believe that there is nothing that our Government could do, that is worse than the status quo. CMV

*EDIT: Yes I understand the rate and scale at which we do these things could infinitely increase... but what is there that could be done, not per count, that we aren't openly engaged in.* I'm a once naive and proud American, but now I'm disgusted by our country... We kidnap: See for example the kidnapping of Abu Omar(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case), all the prisoners held at Guantanamo who were kidnapped simply because of fear of their Muslim heritage and associations(http://www.truth-out.org/article/item/713:exbush-official-willing-to-testify-bush-cheney-knew-gitmo-prisoners-innocent), some of those still held after they were recognized innocent and left to die(http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-detainee-death-release-922/) We torture: To include Sexual Assault/Humiliation, Sleep Deprivation, Sensory Deprivation, Solitary Confinement/Isolation, Mock Executions, Forced Medication, Use of Dogs to Scare Detainees, Temperature Extremes, Sensory Bombardment (Noise), Watching Others Being Tortured, and Psychological Techniques at Guantanamo(http://thejusticecampaign.org/?page_id=273) We murder: Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, Countless Americans murdered at the hands of their own police(see /r/bad_cop_no_donut) We steal: Asset forfeiture for various reasons, both "legal" and illegal(http://www.vice.com/read/bad-cop-blotter-asset-forfeiture-the-cash-cow-of-the-drug-war) We spy: Warrantless police cell phone tracking, NSA/FBI spy programs (see /r/restorethefourth) We enslave: Prison work forces filled with prisoners behind bars for trivial crimes, selective service. It's tainted my view on our government and military leaders, our name, everything American is starting to disgust me... as a Veteran this is truly tearing me in half because I once loved and would have died for this country. Please, don't just attack my points and citations, attack my sentiments, and change my view.

I believe that there is nothing that our Government could do, that is worse than the status quo. CMV. *EDIT: Yes I understand the rate and scale at which we do these things could infinitely increase... but what is there that could be done, not per count, that we aren't openly engaged in.* I'm a once naive and proud American, but now I'm disgusted by our country... We kidnap: See for example the kidnapping of Abu Omar(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case), all the prisoners held at Guantanamo who were kidnapped simply because of fear of their Muslim heritage and associations(http://www.truth-out.org/article/item/713:exbush-official-willing-to-testify-bush-cheney-knew-gitmo-prisoners-innocent), some of those still held after they were recognized innocent and left to die(http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-detainee-death-release-922/) We torture: To include Sexual Assault/Humiliation, Sleep Deprivation, Sensory Deprivation, Solitary Confinement/Isolation, Mock Executions, Forced Medication, Use of Dogs to Scare Detainees, Temperature Extremes, Sensory Bombardment (Noise), Watching Others Being Tortured, and Psychological Techniques at Guantanamo(http://thejusticecampaign.org/?page_id=273) We murder: Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, Countless Americans murdered at the hands of their own police(see /r/bad_cop_no_donut) We steal: Asset forfeiture for various reasons, both "legal" and illegal(http://www.vice.com/read/bad-cop-blotter-asset-forfeiture-the-cash-cow-of-the-drug-war) We spy: Warrantless police cell phone tracking, NSA/FBI spy programs (see /r/restorethefourth) We enslave: Prison work forces filled with prisoners behind bars for trivial crimes, selective service. It's tainted my view on our government and military leaders, our name, everything American is starting to disgust me... as a Veteran this is truly tearing me in half because I once loved and would have died for this country. Please, don't just attack my points and citations, attack my sentiments, and change my view.

t3_1ya552

I believe commercial establishments that present no signage/advertisement in the official national language promote segregation and act to the detriment of Society. CMV

Where I live, there are several areas that are inundated with shops/stores that are advertised exclusively in foreign languages. This means that, as a speaker of my country's national language, I am simply not able to provide any of these businesses with my patronage. Obviously, no other english speaking people will be able to live/work/shop in these areas either. It seems clear that this is promoting at least to some degree the idea of segregation. This segregation means that people in these areas don't need to learn/understand English, and they can exist comfortably in relative isolation from society as a whole. It also restricts the ability of the rest of society to be comfortable with these different cultures and to facilitate social/cultural progress. I'm not arguing against cultural communities within a larger society. What I do believe, though, is that cultural communities that are inherently inaccessible to the rest of society are detrimental to the interests of everyone.

I believe commercial establishments that present no signage/advertisement in the official national language promote segregation and act to the detriment of Society. CMV. Where I live, there are several areas that are inundated with shops/stores that are advertised exclusively in foreign languages. This means that, as a speaker of my country's national language, I am simply not able to provide any of these businesses with my patronage. Obviously, no other english speaking people will be able to live/work/shop in these areas either. It seems clear that this is promoting at least to some degree the idea of segregation. This segregation means that people in these areas don't need to learn/understand English, and they can exist comfortably in relative isolation from society as a whole. It also restricts the ability of the rest of society to be comfortable with these different cultures and to facilitate social/cultural progress. I'm not arguing against cultural communities within a larger society. What I do believe, though, is that cultural communities that are inherently inaccessible to the rest of society are detrimental to the interests of everyone.

t3_1nft61

I believe working your generic "9 to 5" after college is not bad at all. CMV

Most individuals recommend enjoying college while it lasts because after that the real world hits you. As a junior in college, I must say working a dead end 9 to 5 job is far better than being a college student. Let's see, with a 9 to 5, you are free from 5 to whenever to do what you want, have the weekends to do whatever you want, and get paid throughout this. Now for your average college student like me, I'm a broke full time student, work 20ish hours a week for some crappy pay, get horrible amounts of sleep, have little to no free time, and aside from the occasional binge drinking, my weekends are often filled with homework or more work. So you're telling me, slaving away 40-50 hours a week is worse than working your ass off and having little to no time for yourself WHILE being a broke joke? I have two more years of this crap, someone CMV before I lose my mind.

I believe working your generic "9 to 5" after college is not bad at all. CMV. Most individuals recommend enjoying college while it lasts because after that the real world hits you. As a junior in college, I must say working a dead end 9 to 5 job is far better than being a college student. Let's see, with a 9 to 5, you are free from 5 to whenever to do what you want, have the weekends to do whatever you want, and get paid throughout this. Now for your average college student like me, I'm a broke full time student, work 20ish hours a week for some crappy pay, get horrible amounts of sleep, have little to no free time, and aside from the occasional binge drinking, my weekends are often filled with homework or more work. So you're telling me, slaving away 40-50 hours a week is worse than working your ass off and having little to no time for yourself WHILE being a broke joke? I have two more years of this crap, someone CMV before I lose my mind.

t3_4rao4g

CMV: New England-style hot dog bread is inferior to the traditional hot dog bun

For those unfamiliar with what New Englanders put their hot dogs in, here is an image (which I will call "buns" with double quotes since they are not bun-like in appearance at all). In the interest of fairness I've tried to use what I thought to be the most appetizing image from the first page of GIS search results: https://roadfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/rfl_2864.jpg (You may attempt to GIS this phrase yourself but then this thread might be considered nsfw as you might vom all over your keyboard or attempt to claw your eyes out of your face) The benefits as I know them are that they are able to stand up on their own, which gives them an advantage over sliced bread but not over a standard bun, and that since the sides are flat they can be more evenly charred than round buns. That isn't my style, but your kink doesn't have to be my kink, so I get that that burning ones food is a trait that some people zero in on and that this bun is more well suited for that. As previously stated, I believe the "buns" are basically the same as rolling a hotdog in a slice of bread. The downside to this is that they will basically melt if you add toppings and condiments or if you don't hold them delicately. And chili dogs? Just forget it entirely. I've never understood the appeal of these hot dog "buns" and would appreciate at the very least a justification for their existence. I can understand if they are cheaper to manufacture in some way but I don't believe the benefits outweigh the costs. New Englanders have long been ensorcelled by these "buns", likely due to some kind of big business bread lobbyists, and I believe this insanity must end today on the 240th birthday of America.

CMV: New England-style hot dog bread is inferior to the traditional hot dog bun. For those unfamiliar with what New Englanders put their hot dogs in, here is an image (which I will call "buns" with double quotes since they are not bun-like in appearance at all). In the interest of fairness I've tried to use what I thought to be the most appetizing image from the first page of GIS search results: https://roadfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/rfl_2864.jpg (You may attempt to GIS this phrase yourself but then this thread might be considered nsfw as you might vom all over your keyboard or attempt to claw your eyes out of your face) The benefits as I know them are that they are able to stand up on their own, which gives them an advantage over sliced bread but not over a standard bun, and that since the sides are flat they can be more evenly charred than round buns. That isn't my style, but your kink doesn't have to be my kink, so I get that that burning ones food is a trait that some people zero in on and that this bun is more well suited for that. As previously stated, I believe the "buns" are basically the same as rolling a hotdog in a slice of bread. The downside to this is that they will basically melt if you add toppings and condiments or if you don't hold them delicately. And chili dogs? Just forget it entirely. I've never understood the appeal of these hot dog "buns" and would appreciate at the very least a justification for their existence. I can understand if they are cheaper to manufacture in some way but I don't believe the benefits outweigh the costs. New Englanders have long been ensorcelled by these "buns", likely due to some kind of big business bread lobbyists, and I believe this insanity must end today on the 240th birthday of America.

t3_1z18vg

I think it is arrogant to tell someone that they shouldn't read celebrity gossip, People magazine, etc. and that they should follow "important" news instead. CMV.

First, I just want to point out that I am not a fan of celebrity gossip and all that and I prefer to pay attention to pressing world issues. However, in America, we have such a thing called freedom of press. While freedom of press might have originally been created so that we could have the freedom to criticize our government, to me, it means that the news and magazines can choose to focus on whatever stories they want, whether they address the Syrian conflict or whatever new fashion trends Katie Perry is following. Besides, who are you to tell someone that they can't choose to read something that is superficial if they enjoy following superficial topics? Maybe it is better if we are all informed about what is going on in the world, but I believe we must make the active choice to do so ourselves, rather than force others into doing so.

I think it is arrogant to tell someone that they shouldn't read celebrity gossip, People magazine, etc. and that they should follow "important" news instead. CMV. First, I just want to point out that I am not a fan of celebrity gossip and all that and I prefer to pay attention to pressing world issues. However, in America, we have such a thing called freedom of press. While freedom of press might have originally been created so that we could have the freedom to criticize our government, to me, it means that the news and magazines can choose to focus on whatever stories they want, whether they address the Syrian conflict or whatever new fashion trends Katie Perry is following. Besides, who are you to tell someone that they can't choose to read something that is superficial if they enjoy following superficial topics? Maybe it is better if we are all informed about what is going on in the world, but I believe we must make the active choice to do so ourselves, rather than force others into doing so.

t3_2f9f57

CMV: First world countries should not help third world countries because they have grown dependent of it

When first world countries (FWC's) send help, food, etc. to third world counties (TWC's), the TWC's won't feel the need to do something about it themselves. You might say that they can not survive without us intervening, but a few decades/centuries ago, we were as civilized as they are now, and we improved without help from other civilizations. The only problem now is that we already have interfered so much with their systems, that they have access to things (guns, democratic systems) which they are not capable of handling correctly just yet. This came to my mind with the ebola spread in certain african countries. People there were saying that "the FWC's aren't helping fast enough". In medieval times when plagues broke out in western civilizations, they didn't have anyone to help them, and that caused them to study diseases. But since the TWC's are used to getting help from FWC's, they won't try to find a solution themselves and they will always stay dependent.

CMV: First world countries should not help third world countries because they have grown dependent of it. When first world countries (FWC's) send help, food, etc. to third world counties (TWC's), the TWC's won't feel the need to do something about it themselves. You might say that they can not survive without us intervening, but a few decades/centuries ago, we were as civilized as they are now, and we improved without help from other civilizations. The only problem now is that we already have interfered so much with their systems, that they have access to things (guns, democratic systems) which they are not capable of handling correctly just yet. This came to my mind with the ebola spread in certain african countries. People there were saying that "the FWC's aren't helping fast enough". In medieval times when plagues broke out in western civilizations, they didn't have anyone to help them, and that caused them to study diseases. But since the TWC's are used to getting help from FWC's, they won't try to find a solution themselves and they will always stay dependent.