Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1gm5gw

I believe it is okay for certain races or demographics to be suspected more in their respective situation, CMV

I strongly believe that things related to national security and other law based issues should be based on profiling. I live in the United States, and am white. When it comes to airline security and the TSA, I truly believe that a middle eastern man should be suspected more than other, seemly benign people of other demographics. It is obvious that radical Muslims misuse the teachings in the Quran, and have deep hatred for the United States and Americans. The bottom line is if you have 10 Middle Easterners lined up and 10 white people, there is a higher chance you have a terrorists among the Middle Easterners than the whites. I am not saying that the entire TSA operation should be completely skewed to the point of abuse and obvious hatred, but the probability a Middle Easterner undergoes extra screening should be higher than other demographics. I don't think it is racist one bit, but simply follows a simple utility function to maximize the effectiveness of airport security by mirroring the probability that a person is a danger. I believe the same goes for suspicion in Mexico boarder states. Why shouldn't the Hispanic be profiled as a likely illegal immigrant than other demographics? There is a higher chance he is. I don't call for racism, where authoritative figures will exercise hatred and abuse certain races, but if the ratio of illegal Hispanic immigrants to White ones is 50:1, shouldn't suspicion of a Hispanic be 50x greater than white people? I seriously would like to see what you guys have to say. I have had many discussions, many of which simply is the counter that I am a racist bigot and wouldn't like the same happen to me. EDIT: Informed that alien is seen as offensive. Sorry for the syntax error, changed it to be PC friendly- didn't mean any negative connotation! Reflecting on this, I suppose it would be very strange to have someone say, "This is our new foreign exchange student, he is an alien from France." EDIT 2: Due to my lack of clarity, I tried to edit Muslim to Middle Easterner. EDIT 3: Interesting question I asked: Why should I, a (insert ethnicity), be punished in the form of a higher chance of prison sentencing because other members of other ethic groups committed crimes?

I believe it is okay for certain races or demographics to be suspected more in their respective situation, CMV. I strongly believe that things related to national security and other law based issues should be based on profiling. I live in the United States, and am white. When it comes to airline security and the TSA, I truly believe that a middle eastern man should be suspected more than other, seemly benign people of other demographics. It is obvious that radical Muslims misuse the teachings in the Quran, and have deep hatred for the United States and Americans. The bottom line is if you have 10 Middle Easterners lined up and 10 white people, there is a higher chance you have a terrorists among the Middle Easterners than the whites. I am not saying that the entire TSA operation should be completely skewed to the point of abuse and obvious hatred, but the probability a Middle Easterner undergoes extra screening should be higher than other demographics. I don't think it is racist one bit, but simply follows a simple utility function to maximize the effectiveness of airport security by mirroring the probability that a person is a danger. I believe the same goes for suspicion in Mexico boarder states. Why shouldn't the Hispanic be profiled as a likely illegal immigrant than other demographics? There is a higher chance he is. I don't call for racism, where authoritative figures will exercise hatred and abuse certain races, but if the ratio of illegal Hispanic immigrants to White ones is 50:1, shouldn't suspicion of a Hispanic be 50x greater than white people? I seriously would like to see what you guys have to say. I have had many discussions, many of which simply is the counter that I am a racist bigot and wouldn't like the same happen to me. EDIT: Informed that alien is seen as offensive. Sorry for the syntax error, changed it to be PC friendly- didn't mean any negative connotation! Reflecting on this, I suppose it would be very strange to have someone say, "This is our new foreign exchange student, he is an alien from France." EDIT 2: Due to my lack of clarity, I tried to edit Muslim to Middle Easterner. EDIT 3: Interesting question I asked: Why should I, a (insert ethnicity), be punished in the form of a higher chance of prison sentencing because other members of other ethic groups committed crimes?

t3_3dca3x

CMV: If a country opts for a progressive taxation system then the society is longer based on equality and those who contribute more should be entitled to more benefits and favourable treatment.

I do not understand how the notion of equality can coexist with progressive taxation. If everyone has equal opportunity then why should some one who is wealthy have to pay more taxes i.e. contribute to society more. Here are my arguments : 1 - The top 1 percent pay more in taxes than the entire [bottom 50%](http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data) . They are driving force of our economy and by extension our society. For example if a rich business man drinks and drives, by putting him in jail, you force to close his business and effectively rendering many people jobless and this will in turn hurt many families. His life is worth a lot more, he has contributed more to society than some people will their entire lives. Why are we happily taking his money but treating him the same? 2- Everyone has equal opportunity. Steve Jobs , J K Rowling, Jim Carrey, Oprah Winfrey, John D Rockerfeller are all great examples of how people made it from rags to riches. Wealthy people made their money and it is rightfully theirs why should they bear the burden of the poor without any benefits. 3- Everything we do as adults we are responsible for, if we cannot take care of ourselves we should not be having kids., If you have kids and you do not have the means to give them a proper education you are denying them of a proper shot in the world and it is by extension the parents fault for further burdening the society.

CMV: If a country opts for a progressive taxation system then the society is longer based on equality and those who contribute more should be entitled to more benefits and favourable treatment. I do not understand how the notion of equality can coexist with progressive taxation. If everyone has equal opportunity then why should some one who is wealthy have to pay more taxes i.e. contribute to society more. Here are my arguments : 1 - The top 1 percent pay more in taxes than the entire [bottom 50%](http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data) . They are driving force of our economy and by extension our society. For example if a rich business man drinks and drives, by putting him in jail, you force to close his business and effectively rendering many people jobless and this will in turn hurt many families. His life is worth a lot more, he has contributed more to society than some people will their entire lives. Why are we happily taking his money but treating him the same? 2- Everyone has equal opportunity. Steve Jobs , J K Rowling, Jim Carrey, Oprah Winfrey, John D Rockerfeller are all great examples of how people made it from rags to riches. Wealthy people made their money and it is rightfully theirs why should they bear the burden of the poor without any benefits. 3- Everything we do as adults we are responsible for, if we cannot take care of ourselves we should not be having kids., If you have kids and you do not have the means to give them a proper education you are denying them of a proper shot in the world and it is by extension the parents fault for further burdening the society.

t3_460yat

CMV: Mothers who cause intentional irreversible harm to their unborn babies ought to be punished

Hi there, I believe that any mother who causes irreversible harm to her unborn baby ought to be considered a criminal. This is not a discussion about abortion, but physical harm done to foetuses by their mothers while still in utero. The main example is foetal alcohol syndrome, but can also include genetic manipulation. Specific cases are: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30327893, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch The argument rests on two legs: 1. Harm, especially intentional harm, is a no-no in all common law and almost every major philosophy; there's no reason to exclude foetuses or "pre-persons". 2. Most jurisdictions have laws against providing alcohol to minors. In my state, giving a 16 year-old a glass of wine is punishable by an $5000 fine and/or 6 months in prison. This indicates that the lack of laws protecting foetuses is out of step with current standards. 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: Mothers who cause intentional irreversible harm to their unborn babies ought to be punished. Hi there, I believe that any mother who causes irreversible harm to her unborn baby ought to be considered a criminal. This is not a discussion about abortion, but physical harm done to foetuses by their mothers while still in utero. The main example is foetal alcohol syndrome, but can also include genetic manipulation. Specific cases are: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30327893, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch The argument rests on two legs: 1. Harm, especially intentional harm, is a no-no in all common law and almost every major philosophy; there's no reason to exclude foetuses or "pre-persons". 2. Most jurisdictions have laws against providing alcohol to minors. In my state, giving a 16 year-old a glass of wine is punishable by an $5000 fine and/or 6 months in prison. This indicates that the lack of laws protecting foetuses is out of step with current standards. CMV.

t3_5bny7d

CMV: Voting for Gary Johnson is better than not voting

I am absolutely not considering voting for either of the two major party candidates at all. I could fairly easily be persuaded to write in a vote for a different third party candidate, so if you'd like to bring them to my attention please do. With that said, Gary Johnson seems like a fairly solid candidate at a glance. His economic policy is very well aligned with general plans economist would like to initiate fora better economy ( http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/26/499490275/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform ). He seems to have sensible policies on drugs and abortion. I wish he was more liberal on immigration and LGBT issues, but I wouldn't call him "bad" on either, just not as good as I'd like. As far as I can tell he ranges from being a good candidate, to being an only slightly better than OK candidate at worst, depending on the issue. So if you can convince me that I'm missing something and he's actually a bad candidate, I won't vote for him. But again, I refuse to vote for the other two candidates, so the most likely outcome of that situation is me simply not voting. So convince that not voting is better than voting for Gary Johnson. _____ > *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 Gary Johnson is better than not voting. I am absolutely not considering voting for either of the two major party candidates at all. I could fairly easily be persuaded to write in a vote for a different third party candidate, so if you'd like to bring them to my attention please do. With that said, Gary Johnson seems like a fairly solid candidate at a glance. His economic policy is very well aligned with general plans economist would like to initiate fora better economy ( http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/26/499490275/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform ). He seems to have sensible policies on drugs and abortion. I wish he was more liberal on immigration and LGBT issues, but I wouldn't call him "bad" on either, just not as good as I'd like. As far as I can tell he ranges from being a good candidate, to being an only slightly better than OK candidate at worst, depending on the issue. So if you can convince me that I'm missing something and he's actually a bad candidate, I won't vote for him. But again, I refuse to vote for the other two candidates, so the most likely outcome of that situation is me simply not voting. So convince that not voting is better than voting for Gary Johnson.

t3_1h7o5o

[Mod Post] Announcements, Seeking New Mods, and General Feedback

**This is Mod post 29. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gupjg/mod_post_we_are_looking_for_someone_to_be_the/), or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.** --- Hi, /r/changemyview, we have a couple of announcements to make regarding what's been going on behind the scenes. 1) **New rule.** [Submission rule E](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index#wiki_rule_e) is now being enforced. This rule was brought up [in a mod post nearly a month ago] (http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1faxp1/mod_post_discussion_on_the_possibility_of_adding/), and we've decided to see how it will work out. 2) **New mods.** We've added /u/Amablue and /u/Automoderator to the team. You may have heard of the famous mod bot we've added and just how powerful it is. I'm not going to delve into how exactly we set it up here, but the bot will automatically enforce submission rules C, D, and E. /u/Amablue is also one of our programmers working on Deltabot, so when that project is done we'll announce it in a new mod post. 3) **Updated wiki.** I spent a few hours yesterday and today updating nearly every part of the wiki. Everything except the Popular Topics Wiki is complete as of right now. [Look through our wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index) if you are interested in seeing the history of our sub or more detailed explanations of how we work here! 4) **Community moderation.** Please remember to use the *report* button whenever you see a rule breaking post or comment. Reporting is very helpful for us as it lets us find the rule breaking comments or submissions easily. **However, please remember not to report based on your personal opinions. Controversial opinions by themselves are not report-worthy; they must also be rule-breaking for us to take action.** That's it for the announcements part. --- ~~**Looking for new mods**!~~ ~~* **2 wiki mods** to help our current wiki mod /u/Joined_Today with the Popular Topics Wiki. The sections marked **to-do** are empty and need filling. Also, there are definitely more topics that can be filled in the wiki that I may have forgotten when I organized it this morning. Your main focus will be the wiki, but you will also have posts permission so you can enforce the comment rules when you see any offenses.~~ ~~* **2 regular mods** to help enforce the submission and comment rules, and to respond/check modmail. Since this sub is growing larger and larger by the day, we'll be needing more helping hands to make sure that people don't get too hostile or abuse the delta or break comment rule 1.~~ ~~**If you want to be a mod, please leave a comment in this thread showing your interest.**~~ **Mods have been selected, thanks to everyone who showed interest!** --- **Feedback** Thanks for reading this post. We're also looking for general feedback regarding the newest changes, specifically regarding submission rule E (if you've noticed a difference or you hate it or love it), the wiki (is it useful?), or any concerns about moderation here. Is there anything you want to see implemented? Tell us! - Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

[Mod Post] Announcements, Seeking New Mods, and General Feedback. **This is Mod post 29. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gupjg/mod_post_we_are_looking_for_someone_to_be_the/), or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.** --- Hi, /r/changemyview, we have a couple of announcements to make regarding what's been going on behind the scenes. 1) **New rule.** [Submission rule E](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index#wiki_rule_e) is now being enforced. This rule was brought up [in a mod post nearly a month ago] (http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1faxp1/mod_post_discussion_on_the_possibility_of_adding/), and we've decided to see how it will work out. 2) **New mods.** We've added /u/Amablue and /u/Automoderator to the team. You may have heard of the famous mod bot we've added and just how powerful it is. I'm not going to delve into how exactly we set it up here, but the bot will automatically enforce submission rules C, D, and E. /u/Amablue is also one of our programmers working on Deltabot, so when that project is done we'll announce it in a new mod post. 3) **Updated wiki.** I spent a few hours yesterday and today updating nearly every part of the wiki. Everything except the Popular Topics Wiki is complete as of right now. [Look through our wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index) if you are interested in seeing the history of our sub or more detailed explanations of how we work here! 4) **Community moderation.** Please remember to use the *report* button whenever you see a rule breaking post or comment. Reporting is very helpful for us as it lets us find the rule breaking comments or submissions easily. **However, please remember not to report based on your personal opinions. Controversial opinions by themselves are not report-worthy; they must also be rule-breaking for us to take action.** That's it for the announcements part. --- ~~**Looking for new mods**!~~ ~~* **2 wiki mods** to help our current wiki mod /u/Joined_Today with the Popular Topics Wiki. The sections marked **to-do** are empty and need filling. Also, there are definitely more topics that can be filled in the wiki that I may have forgotten when I organized it this morning. Your main focus will be the wiki, but you will also have posts permission so you can enforce the comment rules when you see any offenses.~~ ~~* **2 regular mods** to help enforce the submission and comment rules, and to respond/check modmail. Since this sub is growing larger and larger by the day, we'll be needing more helping hands to make sure that people don't get too hostile or abuse the delta or break comment rule 1.~~ ~~**If you want to be a mod, please leave a comment in this thread showing your interest.**~~ **Mods have been selected, thanks to everyone who showed interest!** --- **Feedback** Thanks for reading this post. We're also looking for general feedback regarding the newest changes, specifically regarding submission rule E (if you've noticed a difference or you hate it or love it), the wiki (is it useful?), or any concerns about moderation here. Is there anything you want to see implemented? Tell us! - Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

t3_6010d4

CMV: Public transport should be free for non-business use

As said in the title, I believe public transportation should be available for free. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. Less people would feel the need to use cars, making the roads less packed and allowing buses and trains better access. 2. More impoverished individuals wouldn't have to worry about being able to visit a hospital, doctor, or court. 3. Less cars = less car accidents. More people able to get from point A to point B = more efficiency and happier civilians. A tax-funded bus network would be straightforward to implement, as buses are not that expensive to run. Trains may be more difficult, but still manageable. > *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: Public transport should be free for non-business use. As said in the title, I believe public transportation should be available for free. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. Less people would feel the need to use cars, making the roads less packed and allowing buses and trains better access. 2. More impoverished individuals wouldn't have to worry about being able to visit a hospital, doctor, or court. 3. Less cars = less car accidents. More people able to get from point A to point B = more efficiency and happier civilians. A tax-funded bus network would be straightforward to implement, as buses are not that expensive to run. Trains may be more difficult, but still manageable. > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_28ydjm

CMV: Hitler wasn't that evil

DISCLAIMER: Hitler was a terrible person that indirectly killed 10s of millions of people and is a truly awful human being. I am not sympathising/agreeing with him in any way. People often think of Adolf Hitler as the most evilest man to ever exist, but why? In my opinion, Hitler was evil in only 2 ways. 1) He killed about 11 million people he deemed to be physically, ethnically or mentally undesirable. Almost 6 million of these people were Jewish, the rest were a mix of Soviets, Poles, physically/mentally disabled and a few more. This is generally why people think Hitler is super evil, and this is a terrible tragedy. However many dictators believe that they are genetically superior to many other ethnicities in or around their nation, and many commit genocides. So why is Hitler more evil than those dictators? It's not because Hitler hated the Jews more than other rulers hated oppressed minorities, many rulers hated other ethnic groups just as much as Hitler would have, especially during the Colonial era, when anti-semetism was very popular. The only thing that stands out with Hitler's holocaust is the numbers. This doesn't make Hitler more evil because he killed more people, if anything that shows how efficient and determined the Nazi's were. The body count doesn't indicate more or less evilness. 2) The war. While WWII may have been the most catastrophic war ever, that's not entirely Germany's fault. And again, the numbers don't indicate evilness, what matters is intention. Hitler's intention was to expand the borders of Germany, just like 99% of the intentions of other world leaders when they go to war. There was nothing specifically evil about Nazi Germany declaring war other than the standard 'rule the world' type thing. Hitler is like any other leader that cared more about power than human life. Now let's look at the ways Hitler was good. He loved animals and was against animal cruelty, he was even a vegetarian. Hitler was very good with children, being affectionately referred to as 'uncle Adi' by German youths. Hitler also sought of loved his country, in my opinion that's a destructive belief that leads to more harm than good (that's obvious in the case of Germany) but still, he did love his country and most Germans, which counts for something I think. He was also a nice guy according to many accounts. Hitler also rebuilt Germany, turning it from a bankrupt country to a nation that would nearly destroy the world in just a few years. Hitler wasn't really a political genius but he did advance Germany's economic recovery by a lot. There are some more downsides to Hitler, he was a dictator and as soon as he came into power he revealed his dark side (night of the long knives is a good example of this). However there are other rulers out there that were far more evil but weren't given the opportunity to be as effective as Hitler. Just look at Francisco Franco, or Mussolini, or Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, everyones favorite Kim Jong Il and his son. These men are in many ways more evil than Adolf Hitler. Once again I'm not arguing that Hitler was in any way good. He was a terrible person, just not as terrible as everyone believes he is. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Hitler wasn't that evil. DISCLAIMER: Hitler was a terrible person that indirectly killed 10s of millions of people and is a truly awful human being. I am not sympathising/agreeing with him in any way. People often think of Adolf Hitler as the most evilest man to ever exist, but why? In my opinion, Hitler was evil in only 2 ways. 1) He killed about 11 million people he deemed to be physically, ethnically or mentally undesirable. Almost 6 million of these people were Jewish, the rest were a mix of Soviets, Poles, physically/mentally disabled and a few more. This is generally why people think Hitler is super evil, and this is a terrible tragedy. However many dictators believe that they are genetically superior to many other ethnicities in or around their nation, and many commit genocides. So why is Hitler more evil than those dictators? It's not because Hitler hated the Jews more than other rulers hated oppressed minorities, many rulers hated other ethnic groups just as much as Hitler would have, especially during the Colonial era, when anti-semetism was very popular. The only thing that stands out with Hitler's holocaust is the numbers. This doesn't make Hitler more evil because he killed more people, if anything that shows how efficient and determined the Nazi's were. The body count doesn't indicate more or less evilness. 2) The war. While WWII may have been the most catastrophic war ever, that's not entirely Germany's fault. And again, the numbers don't indicate evilness, what matters is intention. Hitler's intention was to expand the borders of Germany, just like 99% of the intentions of other world leaders when they go to war. There was nothing specifically evil about Nazi Germany declaring war other than the standard 'rule the world' type thing. Hitler is like any other leader that cared more about power than human life. Now let's look at the ways Hitler was good. He loved animals and was against animal cruelty, he was even a vegetarian. Hitler was very good with children, being affectionately referred to as 'uncle Adi' by German youths. Hitler also sought of loved his country, in my opinion that's a destructive belief that leads to more harm than good (that's obvious in the case of Germany) but still, he did love his country and most Germans, which counts for something I think. He was also a nice guy according to many accounts. Hitler also rebuilt Germany, turning it from a bankrupt country to a nation that would nearly destroy the world in just a few years. Hitler wasn't really a political genius but he did advance Germany's economic recovery by a lot. There are some more downsides to Hitler, he was a dictator and as soon as he came into power he revealed his dark side (night of the long knives is a good example of this). However there are other rulers out there that were far more evil but weren't given the opportunity to be as effective as Hitler. Just look at Francisco Franco, or Mussolini, or Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, everyones favorite Kim Jong Il and his son. These men are in many ways more evil than Adolf Hitler. Once again I'm not arguing that Hitler was in any way good. He was a terrible person, just not as terrible as everyone believes he is.

t3_6cdcld

CMV: The_Donald is getting unfair treatment on reddit, but it's going ahead because reddit is historically very liberal

All posts happy about The_Donald getting unfair treatment on reddit only have that view because of differing political opinion, but would be horrified if it happened to them. Some posts on political subreddits can obviously be interpreted as offensive to others with differing political opinion. Trump's election caused a polarization of the population perhaps greater than has previously happened, but that doesn't allow freedom of speech to be prevented. Reddit is naturally very liberal and there are posts on r/popular and r/all almost daily regarding "marches against trump" and "things trump has done wrong", yet trump's subreddit is banned from r/all entirely and can't even call out other subs. The admins of reddit have been playing around and changing the contents of the sub, because they don't agree with it. Source: https://www.i4u.com/2016/11/118165/reddit-ceo-has-confessed-editing-insulting-comments The sub is excluded from r/all https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/what-is-rthedonald-donald-trump-subreddit The sub never hits the front page http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/reddit-front-page-changed-donald-trump-all-most-popular-subreddit-news-political-a7583061.html The sub is filtered from being seen by people without an account http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-finally-fixing-its-trump-spam-problem-1792061056 This doesn't really happen to many other subs, at least none at popular as The_Donald and none of these things in succession. It's an infringement on the freedom of speech of the subreddit, and only serves to forward the admins political agenda. Anyway CMV Edit : Excluded for Exempt

CMV: The_Donald is getting unfair treatment on reddit, but it's going ahead because reddit is historically very liberal. All posts happy about The_Donald getting unfair treatment on reddit only have that view because of differing political opinion, but would be horrified if it happened to them. Some posts on political subreddits can obviously be interpreted as offensive to others with differing political opinion. Trump's election caused a polarization of the population perhaps greater than has previously happened, but that doesn't allow freedom of speech to be prevented. Reddit is naturally very liberal and there are posts on r/popular and r/all almost daily regarding "marches against trump" and "things trump has done wrong", yet trump's subreddit is banned from r/all entirely and can't even call out other subs. The admins of reddit have been playing around and changing the contents of the sub, because they don't agree with it. Source: https://www.i4u.com/2016/11/118165/reddit-ceo-has-confessed-editing-insulting-comments The sub is excluded from r/all https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/what-is-rthedonald-donald-trump-subreddit The sub never hits the front page http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/reddit-front-page-changed-donald-trump-all-most-popular-subreddit-news-political-a7583061.html The sub is filtered from being seen by people without an account http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-finally-fixing-its-trump-spam-problem-1792061056 This doesn't really happen to many other subs, at least none at popular as The_Donald and none of these things in succession. It's an infringement on the freedom of speech of the subreddit, and only serves to forward the admins political agenda. Anyway CMV Edit : Excluded for Exempt

t3_1gg9c0

I believe that weight classes in sports create an unnecessary obstacle to the spirit of competition. CMV.

Before someone tries to raise this point, I do believe there should be certain criteria in which we divide different "leagues", but those should be based on skill (Nothing entertaining about watching a professional team smother an amateur one), gender (In most sports, there is a huge biological [and so in my eyes, unfair] advantage of men over women), or age. Bah, I'm just going to ramble. In short: 1.) Additional weight is something that can be acquired and trained for if it's proven to be helpful. If anything, it'd make more sense to divide certain sports (basketball, boxing) by height considering you "can't teach/train tall". 2.) Having weight classes can de-legitamise the victories and titles of those in the lower weight classes. 3.) Especially in the martial sports, the fights between the 150lbers and 300lbers are incredibly entertaining. 4.) There is a double standard where there are no weight classes for marathon runners or tennis players or any sport where being heavier is a disadvantage. We 'expect' them to have bodies built to the best possible form for their sport, but there is no expectation that smaller weightlifters and fighters bulk up to the best possible form for their sport.

I believe that weight classes in sports create an unnecessary obstacle to the spirit of competition. CMV. Before someone tries to raise this point, I do believe there should be certain criteria in which we divide different "leagues", but those should be based on skill (Nothing entertaining about watching a professional team smother an amateur one), gender (In most sports, there is a huge biological [and so in my eyes, unfair] advantage of men over women), or age. Bah, I'm just going to ramble. In short: 1.) Additional weight is something that can be acquired and trained for if it's proven to be helpful. If anything, it'd make more sense to divide certain sports (basketball, boxing) by height considering you "can't teach/train tall". 2.) Having weight classes can de-legitamise the victories and titles of those in the lower weight classes. 3.) Especially in the martial sports, the fights between the 150lbers and 300lbers are incredibly entertaining. 4.) There is a double standard where there are no weight classes for marathon runners or tennis players or any sport where being heavier is a disadvantage. We 'expect' them to have bodies built to the best possible form for their sport, but there is no expectation that smaller weightlifters and fighters bulk up to the best possible form for their sport.

t3_1g9e17

CMV is becoming a circle-jerk of "understanding" and nonsense. CMV.

Or maybe it already has? CMV. Alternative titles: - I believe a lot of the people posting here are only pretending to hold a view and then just pretend to change it upon seeing the first response with any semblance of an argument, no matter how nonsensical it is. CMV. - I believe it's really lame to argue against a sensible view just because that's what the format of this subreddit requires if you want to post a direct response. CMV. - I believe it makes people feel kind of lame to wait for someone to argue against a sensible view just so they could then support the original sensible view without breaking Rule 1. CMV. - I believe your view that iOS looks better than Android does not warrant a CMV post. CMV. - I believe your view that "playing baseball _is requires_ less skill than playing Hockey" does not warrant a CMV post. CMV. - I believe you being confused by being a woman does not warrant a CMV post. CMV. - I believe it's pretty fucking inane to write a lengthy response in an attempt at arguing against an inane CMV post just because you're hoping to get one more token symbol of being the kind of rational dude that's actually capable of changing people's views. CMV. - I believe it's possible that some of these inane CMV posts are made just to provide the poster's friend (or sock-puppet) with the aforementioned accolade. CMV. - I believe it feels kind of silly to adhere to Rule 1 when faced with someone asking to have his sensible view changed. CMV. - I believe that making a CMV post (adhering to the rules and format and all) just to point something out to the CMV community is inane. CMV. - I guess it's inevitable that a community's quality decreases as it gets bigger and bigger. CMV. You get the idea. Now discuss. Or not.. I'm not sure I care. __EDIT:__ Hey, thanks for all the responses, but I'm running out of steam replying to people, and I shouldn't spend all day with this anyway. So, I'll at least take a break now. __EDIT 2: I'm glad I sparked this much discussion, and it's been fun and all, but I'm afraid I have to give up on trying to address replies now. I haven't done much else today.__

CMV is becoming a circle-jerk of "understanding" and nonsense. CMV. Or maybe it already has? CMV. Alternative titles: - I believe a lot of the people posting here are only pretending to hold a view and then just pretend to change it upon seeing the first response with any semblance of an argument, no matter how nonsensical it is. CMV. - I believe it's really lame to argue against a sensible view just because that's what the format of this subreddit requires if you want to post a direct response. CMV. - I believe it makes people feel kind of lame to wait for someone to argue against a sensible view just so they could then support the original sensible view without breaking Rule 1. CMV. - I believe your view that iOS looks better than Android does not warrant a CMV post. CMV. - I believe your view that "playing baseball _is requires_ less skill than playing Hockey" does not warrant a CMV post. CMV. - I believe you being confused by being a woman does not warrant a CMV post. CMV. - I believe it's pretty fucking inane to write a lengthy response in an attempt at arguing against an inane CMV post just because you're hoping to get one more token symbol of being the kind of rational dude that's actually capable of changing people's views. CMV. - I believe it's possible that some of these inane CMV posts are made just to provide the poster's friend (or sock-puppet) with the aforementioned accolade. CMV. - I believe it feels kind of silly to adhere to Rule 1 when faced with someone asking to have his sensible view changed. CMV. - I believe that making a CMV post (adhering to the rules and format and all) just to point something out to the CMV community is inane. CMV. - I guess it's inevitable that a community's quality decreases as it gets bigger and bigger. CMV. You get the idea. Now discuss. Or not.. I'm not sure I care. __EDIT:__ Hey, thanks for all the responses, but I'm running out of steam replying to people, and I shouldn't spend all day with this anyway. So, I'll at least take a break now. __EDIT 2: I'm glad I sparked this much discussion, and it's been fun and all, but I'm afraid I have to give up on trying to address replies now. I haven't done much else today.__

t3_4z6yqv

CMV: If your Instagram account has over 10k followers and you change your name, you should lose your followers.

So many times I've followed a shitty page on Instagram that promises funny videos or cool science experiments or whatnot, but eventually they delete all their posts and change their name, devoting the blog to something else, and I wonder how I ended up following them. I think that if you have a large Instagram account and change your name, you should have to start again from scratch or at least your followers should get a notification learning about the name change. This won't affect smaller accounts like personal accounts who just want to change their name which I wish I could do with my reddit username... 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: If your Instagram account has over 10k followers and you change your name, you should lose your followers. So many times I've followed a shitty page on Instagram that promises funny videos or cool science experiments or whatnot, but eventually they delete all their posts and change their name, devoting the blog to something else, and I wonder how I ended up following them. I think that if you have a large Instagram account and change your name, you should have to start again from scratch or at least your followers should get a notification learning about the name change. This won't affect smaller accounts like personal accounts who just want to change their name which I wish I could do with my reddit username... CMV!

t3_2bex79

CMV: I believe police should step it up in ticketing cyclists

I want to start off by saying I'm aware that there are law abiding cyclists. That said, frequently I encounter cyclists: * Speeding through red lights, intersections, and crosswalks, sometimes almost running into pedestrians. This is graphic, but I've seen a dead cyclist as a result of the cyclist speeding through an intersection without looking to his left to see a trailer truck taking a wide turn. As a pedestrian, I've have had many cyclists get mad at me for making them stop as I was crossing in a crosswalk. I've also have almost been plowed over by speeding cyclists while in the crosswalk. * Not wearing a helmut. This may be a whole other discussion as I'm aware some cyclists do not like to wear helmuts. I personally think it's a matter of life and death and I wouldn't put my trust into the cars around me. * Taking up the whole traffic lane and going 2mph while there's a line of traffic behind them. * Weaving through traffic. I always cringe when I see this because it's like these cyclists expect everyone to see them as they're speeding between cars, trucks and buses. I've seen this done without a helmut and with headphones in (Come on!). I saw one guy in a bus' blind spot race to cut off the bus as the bus was pulling out. With a motorcycle, you can at least hear them and it's easier to spot them. * Not wearing reflective gear at night. * Going against traffic in the road. * Switching between pedestrian crossing and road (pedestrian/vehicle) whenever it's convenient. If the police become more aggressive in ticketing cyclists, more of them will learn the rules of the road and why some maneuvers are dangerous. edit: left not right _____ > *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 police should step it up in ticketing cyclists. I want to start off by saying I'm aware that there are law abiding cyclists. That said, frequently I encounter cyclists: * Speeding through red lights, intersections, and crosswalks, sometimes almost running into pedestrians. This is graphic, but I've seen a dead cyclist as a result of the cyclist speeding through an intersection without looking to his left to see a trailer truck taking a wide turn. As a pedestrian, I've have had many cyclists get mad at me for making them stop as I was crossing in a crosswalk. I've also have almost been plowed over by speeding cyclists while in the crosswalk. * Not wearing a helmut. This may be a whole other discussion as I'm aware some cyclists do not like to wear helmuts. I personally think it's a matter of life and death and I wouldn't put my trust into the cars around me. * Taking up the whole traffic lane and going 2mph while there's a line of traffic behind them. * Weaving through traffic. I always cringe when I see this because it's like these cyclists expect everyone to see them as they're speeding between cars, trucks and buses. I've seen this done without a helmut and with headphones in (Come on!). I saw one guy in a bus' blind spot race to cut off the bus as the bus was pulling out. With a motorcycle, you can at least hear them and it's easier to spot them. * Not wearing reflective gear at night. * Going against traffic in the road. * Switching between pedestrian crossing and road (pedestrian/vehicle) whenever it's convenient. If the police become more aggressive in ticketing cyclists, more of them will learn the rules of the road and why some maneuvers are dangerous. edit: left not right

t3_2a3eii

CMV: I find the Indian practice of cleaning your butt with your hand to be repulsive, disgusting, dirty, and uncivilized

I think that India is a wonderful culture with a rich culture, society, and history. However, I am absolutely disgusted with the lack of hygiene many Indians exhibit, especially when it comes to bathroom practices. In India (and other South Asian and some Middle Eastern countries), toilet paper isn't widespread. As a result, after taking a dump, people "clean themselves" by pouring water down their butts and wiping their butts with their left hand. After that process is done, ideally the person will wash their hands thoroughly with soap. In practice, soap is not always available, and even if it is, there still may be lots of bacteria on the hand. Moreover, the smell often isn't fully eliminated. That is why the left hand is considered "unclean" in India and it's taboo to eat with it. The justification Indians give is that left hand + water is more effective at cleaning the butt than toilet paper, which is generally true. However, considering that most people don't expose their butts and cover it up, is it necessary that it has to be 100% clean, especially when it comes at the expense of the cleanliness of one of your hands? And the butt won't be 100% clean for long: farting, buildup of waste in the anus, etc, will make it dirty again. I think the best of both worlds is using toilet paper and taking a shower afterward, or having a good bidet to clean your butt (here using TP is optional). But I definitely think it's most important to have your hands clean rather instead of your butt. Because Indians tend to clean their butts with their hand, I find this aspect of their culture to be disgusting, repulsive, dirty, and uncivilized: western societies, particularly in Europe (and Japan I guess) have much superior hygiene. Also not really relevant, but I've known many Indian immigrants to America who prefer using their left hand to toilet paper, and I find it repulsive that they are bringing their backward practices with them to America (and possibly influencing their kids).

CMV: I find the Indian practice of cleaning your butt with your hand to be repulsive, disgusting, dirty, and uncivilized. I think that India is a wonderful culture with a rich culture, society, and history. However, I am absolutely disgusted with the lack of hygiene many Indians exhibit, especially when it comes to bathroom practices. In India (and other South Asian and some Middle Eastern countries), toilet paper isn't widespread. As a result, after taking a dump, people "clean themselves" by pouring water down their butts and wiping their butts with their left hand. After that process is done, ideally the person will wash their hands thoroughly with soap. In practice, soap is not always available, and even if it is, there still may be lots of bacteria on the hand. Moreover, the smell often isn't fully eliminated. That is why the left hand is considered "unclean" in India and it's taboo to eat with it. The justification Indians give is that left hand + water is more effective at cleaning the butt than toilet paper, which is generally true. However, considering that most people don't expose their butts and cover it up, is it necessary that it has to be 100% clean, especially when it comes at the expense of the cleanliness of one of your hands? And the butt won't be 100% clean for long: farting, buildup of waste in the anus, etc, will make it dirty again. I think the best of both worlds is using toilet paper and taking a shower afterward, or having a good bidet to clean your butt (here using TP is optional). But I definitely think it's most important to have your hands clean rather instead of your butt. Because Indians tend to clean their butts with their hand, I find this aspect of their culture to be disgusting, repulsive, dirty, and uncivilized: western societies, particularly in Europe (and Japan I guess) have much superior hygiene. Also not really relevant, but I've known many Indian immigrants to America who prefer using their left hand to toilet paper, and I find it repulsive that they are bringing their backward practices with them to America (and possibly influencing their kids).

t3_1wc07w

I believe that women who give a child up for adoption should be legally obligated to pay child support. CMV

A father has an obligation to provide financially for a child whether or not he feels ready for the responsibility, whether he wants the child or not, and whether he decides to be active in the child's life or not. In the spirit of equality, I think that a woman who decides to forgo an active role in the upbringing of her child should share financial responsibility for the care of her child, in the same manner that child support is determined for a father. I would like to be clear that I in no way benefit from this view; I do not have children and am not involved in any legal battle. I hold this view because it seems just to me. Treating someone differently because of their gender is discrimination, and I think that financial equality is just another arena for inequality to be fought in.

I believe that women who give a child up for adoption should be legally obligated to pay child support. CMV. A father has an obligation to provide financially for a child whether or not he feels ready for the responsibility, whether he wants the child or not, and whether he decides to be active in the child's life or not. In the spirit of equality, I think that a woman who decides to forgo an active role in the upbringing of her child should share financial responsibility for the care of her child, in the same manner that child support is determined for a father. I would like to be clear that I in no way benefit from this view; I do not have children and am not involved in any legal battle. I hold this view because it seems just to me. Treating someone differently because of their gender is discrimination, and I think that financial equality is just another arena for inequality to be fought in.

t3_36rs32

CMV: It's fine to depict women as less useful (especially physically) and as victims of violence in fiction.

If historically women were victims of assault (although men are the majority of victims), rape, etc ~ why is it considered a bad thing to depict this in fiction. Especially in fiction were men are also shown to be victims (e.g. GoT kid thrown out of window, implied pedophilia of masters and boys, male genital mutilation). If females historically had little autonomy or ways to prevent something terrible like rape, violence, sexual advances etc., then why is it consider incorrect to depict this (whereas a man might be more trained/capable of defending themselves)? Similarly, most people called to action (with some exceptions of course) are men. Historically male soldiers make up far more of physical roles, and are on average far more physically superior, so does it not make sense that the vast majority of heroes in fiction are male (I imagine the number of female knights in real life is even less than in fictional shows/books)? I am trying not to come across as a /mensrights nut, but I don't understand this particular view that seems to be fairly popular. I should add obviously I am against anything that attempts to glorify violence against women (I can't think of any examples), but it seems like violence against men is often done without any thought (in fact the more effective the character does this, usually the more impressed people are by the character ~ e.g Bronn dispatching of male knights/guards), yet people constantly seem to complain when it is a woman.

CMV: It's fine to depict women as less useful (especially physically) and as victims of violence in fiction. If historically women were victims of assault (although men are the majority of victims), rape, etc ~ why is it considered a bad thing to depict this in fiction. Especially in fiction were men are also shown to be victims (e.g. GoT kid thrown out of window, implied pedophilia of masters and boys, male genital mutilation). If females historically had little autonomy or ways to prevent something terrible like rape, violence, sexual advances etc., then why is it consider incorrect to depict this (whereas a man might be more trained/capable of defending themselves)? Similarly, most people called to action (with some exceptions of course) are men. Historically male soldiers make up far more of physical roles, and are on average far more physically superior, so does it not make sense that the vast majority of heroes in fiction are male (I imagine the number of female knights in real life is even less than in fictional shows/books)? I am trying not to come across as a /mensrights nut, but I don't understand this particular view that seems to be fairly popular. I should add obviously I am against anything that attempts to glorify violence against women (I can't think of any examples), but it seems like violence against men is often done without any thought (in fact the more effective the character does this, usually the more impressed people are by the character ~ e.g Bronn dispatching of male knights/guards), yet people constantly seem to complain when it is a woman.

t3_39hty0

CMV: Illegal immigrants should be deported from the USA, and we should not cater to their needs

I know many of you are not Americans, but a foreign take could still be useful :) I'm liberal, bordering on libertarian on many issues, but the illegal immigrant issue is one that I don't think I've ever really understood, and it bothers me that I agree with the same people who are also trying to take away rights from women, etc, so I'm actually hoping my view gets changed. I know America started as a giant melting pot of immigrants, but even in its adolescent years, there were regulations (not all good) on who was allowed to enter the country and legally become a citizen. Historically, English has been the national language, and if you traveled to America you knew you would have to learn the language and assimilate into the culture. I feel like Spanish-language instructions on government things (public trans, etc) were a waste of money to implement, and would be a waste of money to continue to implement. I believe all people immigrating to the US should learn the language, and the citizenship test should DEFINITELY only be offered in English. Additionally, I believe illegal immigrants should be deported, and here's why: they may be escaping to lead a better life here, and they may be doing jobs nobody else wants to do, but in the end they aren't paying taxes, they are using American public resources, and taking jobs away from Americans. I don't see why anyone in this country without the government's knowledge or consent should be permitted to live here. The initial investment to bring in the federal government to deport these people may be large, but a crackdown on policy would hopefully deter future illegals from crossing the border. I also know that it leads to discrimination against legal Americans of Hispanic descent by government officials, which isn't great, but hopefully within the decade, enough illegal immigration would be stopped to lessen domestic suspicion. Please change my view, I'd love to understand why giving illegal immigrants citizenship would be positive * socially * for our economy * and otherwise Edit: My view has been changed on the economic issue: illegal immigrants apparently do pay taxes, and deportation would be wildly expensive. I still think that illegal immigrants have committed a crime, and therefore the government should not try to cater to their needs, offer them citizenship/amnesty, or healthcare. Edit 2: My view has been further changed, and distilled down to the fact that managing undocumented citizens is costly and takes government resources. Perhaps just granting them citizenship **is** the easiest solution, but my concerns about overpopulation and encouraging further illegal immigration are still in play. In addition, if we grant them citizenship in order to encourage assimilation (through drivers' licenses, etc) and document them for better management, we are also granting them access to social services. _____ > *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: Illegal immigrants should be deported from the USA, and we should not cater to their needs. I know many of you are not Americans, but a foreign take could still be useful :) I'm liberal, bordering on libertarian on many issues, but the illegal immigrant issue is one that I don't think I've ever really understood, and it bothers me that I agree with the same people who are also trying to take away rights from women, etc, so I'm actually hoping my view gets changed. I know America started as a giant melting pot of immigrants, but even in its adolescent years, there were regulations (not all good) on who was allowed to enter the country and legally become a citizen. Historically, English has been the national language, and if you traveled to America you knew you would have to learn the language and assimilate into the culture. I feel like Spanish-language instructions on government things (public trans, etc) were a waste of money to implement, and would be a waste of money to continue to implement. I believe all people immigrating to the US should learn the language, and the citizenship test should DEFINITELY only be offered in English. Additionally, I believe illegal immigrants should be deported, and here's why: they may be escaping to lead a better life here, and they may be doing jobs nobody else wants to do, but in the end they aren't paying taxes, they are using American public resources, and taking jobs away from Americans. I don't see why anyone in this country without the government's knowledge or consent should be permitted to live here. The initial investment to bring in the federal government to deport these people may be large, but a crackdown on policy would hopefully deter future illegals from crossing the border. I also know that it leads to discrimination against legal Americans of Hispanic descent by government officials, which isn't great, but hopefully within the decade, enough illegal immigration would be stopped to lessen domestic suspicion. Please change my view, I'd love to understand why giving illegal immigrants citizenship would be positive * socially * for our economy * and otherwise Edit: My view has been changed on the economic issue: illegal immigrants apparently do pay taxes, and deportation would be wildly expensive. I still think that illegal immigrants have committed a crime, and therefore the government should not try to cater to their needs, offer them citizenship/amnesty, or healthcare. Edit 2: My view has been further changed, and distilled down to the fact that managing undocumented citizens is costly and takes government resources. Perhaps just granting them citizenship **is** the easiest solution, but my concerns about overpopulation and encouraging further illegal immigration are still in play. In addition, if we grant them citizenship in order to encourage assimilation (through drivers' licenses, etc) and document them for better management, we are also granting them access to social services.

t3_5rh49f

CMV: I often don't talk to people because I don't want to bother them.

Whenever I get over my shyness and I decide that I should talk more to people, I still don't, because I don't want to be annoying person. I can't know if I'm not just bothering them and they're too polite to tell me. What makes it even worse is that I know guy who doesn't notice that people don't give shit about what he talks, he walks up to anyone, starts talking something about his hobby, nobody listens to him. I don't want to be like him. Another thing is that I'm more likely to decide to talk to people who helped me with something, talked to me for a while, etc. But they might have done that just out of pity. And now, I'm gonna talk to them when they think it's stupid and they're gonna regret helping me. Another thing is that I don't have to talk much about with the people, so when I share hobby, I don't have anything else to talk about, different than hobby and it might look like I'm "obsessed" about that thing, while they do/like many different things, and that hobby is just one of them. I'd like you to change my view, so I'll believe that my talking won't actually bother people and if it will, I'll know it and stop. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I often don't talk to people because I don't want to bother them. Whenever I get over my shyness and I decide that I should talk more to people, I still don't, because I don't want to be annoying person. I can't know if I'm not just bothering them and they're too polite to tell me. What makes it even worse is that I know guy who doesn't notice that people don't give shit about what he talks, he walks up to anyone, starts talking something about his hobby, nobody listens to him. I don't want to be like him. Another thing is that I'm more likely to decide to talk to people who helped me with something, talked to me for a while, etc. But they might have done that just out of pity. And now, I'm gonna talk to them when they think it's stupid and they're gonna regret helping me. Another thing is that I don't have to talk much about with the people, so when I share hobby, I don't have anything else to talk about, different than hobby and it might look like I'm "obsessed" about that thing, while they do/like many different things, and that hobby is just one of them. I'd like you to change my view, so I'll believe that my talking won't actually bother people and if it will, I'll know it and stop.

t3_4zng6x

CMV: Ministers of the cabinet have jobs which should be allocated to actual professionals in that area.

Okay so I haven't done much research about this, so am fully expecting to have my view changed within the next ten minutes or so. In the UK we elect our politicians to represent a constituency. Of these, a handful are picked out to have certain role. Minister for equalities, minister for health, minister for climate change etc. You can find the full list at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom This is the source of many a scandal. You can have the minister for a particular thing arguing with the professionals of that area because they have no idea how it works. We've had climate change deniers as the minister for science, white men as the minister for equality, people who've had the privilege of learning about the health system from the outside of it. Alternatively, we should have actual scientists, actual people who need equality or an actual medical professional. In recent years, we've had a minister for health changing contracts despite almost every doctor in the country opposing it, a minister for education making changes which almost every teacher in the country is opposed to, a chancellor of the exchequer putting through policies that almost every economist is opposed to. It only makes sense to appoint actual professionals to those roles because they know first-hand the effect of the policies they will implement. Change my view. I'm pretty certain that I'm looking at this from an over simplistic point of view but I can't think of any good reason for us to have inexperienced people dictating to the professionals of that area.

CMV: Ministers of the cabinet have jobs which should be allocated to actual professionals in that area. Okay so I haven't done much research about this, so am fully expecting to have my view changed within the next ten minutes or so. In the UK we elect our politicians to represent a constituency. Of these, a handful are picked out to have certain role. Minister for equalities, minister for health, minister for climate change etc. You can find the full list at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom This is the source of many a scandal. You can have the minister for a particular thing arguing with the professionals of that area because they have no idea how it works. We've had climate change deniers as the minister for science, white men as the minister for equality, people who've had the privilege of learning about the health system from the outside of it. Alternatively, we should have actual scientists, actual people who need equality or an actual medical professional. In recent years, we've had a minister for health changing contracts despite almost every doctor in the country opposing it, a minister for education making changes which almost every teacher in the country is opposed to, a chancellor of the exchequer putting through policies that almost every economist is opposed to. It only makes sense to appoint actual professionals to those roles because they know first-hand the effect of the policies they will implement. Change my view. I'm pretty certain that I'm looking at this from an over simplistic point of view but I can't think of any good reason for us to have inexperienced people dictating to the professionals of that area.

t3_3oy9mq

CMV: Why do I get punished for missing a class I am paying for when the teacher who is getting paid can just cancel class.

Due to a lack of classes but need for a language requirement as a freshman in a public university; I am enrolled in a Chinese class that is simply too easy. The final grade of the class is solely dependent on tests, quizzes, and the final exam; all of which I could pass right now. Yet my teacher has instituted a policy that is more two than absences will result in a final grade drop by a whole letter grade. Instead of being able to last minute study for my math class right after Chinese which I struggle in, or even just sleep in; I have to waste my time sitting for an hour listening to vocabulary I already know. I am the one paying for this class and therefore I should have a little more freedom over my education and be able to make the decision to skip a class that doesn’t benefit my education. It’s not like we get rewarded for attending class, we just get penalized for missing class. To make it more frustrating my teacher who is getting paid to teach the class cancelled two classes for a conference with no regard for the other students who are paying to attend the class. How is this fair at all? In a class, especially one based off test grades, students who are paying for the class should be allowed to skip not the teacher who is getting paid. _____ > *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: Why do I get punished for missing a class I am paying for when the teacher who is getting paid can just cancel class. Due to a lack of classes but need for a language requirement as a freshman in a public university; I am enrolled in a Chinese class that is simply too easy. The final grade of the class is solely dependent on tests, quizzes, and the final exam; all of which I could pass right now. Yet my teacher has instituted a policy that is more two than absences will result in a final grade drop by a whole letter grade. Instead of being able to last minute study for my math class right after Chinese which I struggle in, or even just sleep in; I have to waste my time sitting for an hour listening to vocabulary I already know. I am the one paying for this class and therefore I should have a little more freedom over my education and be able to make the decision to skip a class that doesn’t benefit my education. It’s not like we get rewarded for attending class, we just get penalized for missing class. To make it more frustrating my teacher who is getting paid to teach the class cancelled two classes for a conference with no regard for the other students who are paying to attend the class. How is this fair at all? In a class, especially one based off test grades, students who are paying for the class should be allowed to skip not the teacher who is getting paid.

t3_1lzu4u

CMV - Give me some reasons to believe that homo sapiens aren't going to go extinct in the near future.

I believe that the world is going to end (and humans are going to die out) in the coming generations, and it is impossible to change our current trajectory. There are many reasons: * Unchecked economic growth and unsustainable forms of consumption leading to depletion and destruction of our natural resources * The highest rate of species extinction ever seen in like, the history of earth, rivaling the dieout of the dinosaurs * Fukishuma nuclear fallout, the Gulf oil spill, the fast-disappearing north pole, and many other incidents of habitat destruction which would take forever to fix * Nuclear weapons * World is running out of oil, yet we still rely on it, and countries go to war for it * Populations are stuck in groupthink and seldom question the system I don't really want to get into debating individual points, like whether "global warming" is true or bad, or whether "peak oil" is a myth, or whether capitalism is good for the environment, or anything else like that. I'm more interested in hearing of some positive signs that indicate hope for our survival, or at least scraping by should a bottleneck situation for our species occur.

CMV - Give me some reasons to believe that homo sapiens aren't going to go extinct in the near future. I believe that the world is going to end (and humans are going to die out) in the coming generations, and it is impossible to change our current trajectory. There are many reasons: * Unchecked economic growth and unsustainable forms of consumption leading to depletion and destruction of our natural resources * The highest rate of species extinction ever seen in like, the history of earth, rivaling the dieout of the dinosaurs * Fukishuma nuclear fallout, the Gulf oil spill, the fast-disappearing north pole, and many other incidents of habitat destruction which would take forever to fix * Nuclear weapons * World is running out of oil, yet we still rely on it, and countries go to war for it * Populations are stuck in groupthink and seldom question the system I don't really want to get into debating individual points, like whether "global warming" is true or bad, or whether "peak oil" is a myth, or whether capitalism is good for the environment, or anything else like that. I'm more interested in hearing of some positive signs that indicate hope for our survival, or at least scraping by should a bottleneck situation for our species occur.

t3_2lsnz1

CMV: I believe able-bodied people should have as much access to disabled toilets as disabled people.

As far as I'm aware, disabled toilets are to the vast extent to benefit wheelchair-specific disabilities, people usually fitted for catheters, so waiting on an occupied disabled toilet would not be too much of an issue, assuming having to wait is the main problem with typical people using them. Anyone who does need to go to the bathroom quick surely would be fitted with a catheter, as surely out in public there's not always a disabled toilet near by. Concluding, I think disabled toilets are great for making it easier for disabled people, but can be used as a modified, regular bathroom in general. A normal toilet made disabled friendly. _____ > *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 able-bodied people should have as much access to disabled toilets as disabled people. As far as I'm aware, disabled toilets are to the vast extent to benefit wheelchair-specific disabilities, people usually fitted for catheters, so waiting on an occupied disabled toilet would not be too much of an issue, assuming having to wait is the main problem with typical people using them. Anyone who does need to go to the bathroom quick surely would be fitted with a catheter, as surely out in public there's not always a disabled toilet near by. Concluding, I think disabled toilets are great for making it easier for disabled people, but can be used as a modified, regular bathroom in general. A normal toilet made disabled friendly.

t3_1jygw7

I don't think top Paralympians should be seen as equal to top Olympians. CMV

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely behind having the Paralympics as a secondary event after the Olympics. But I just get quite annoyed, especially here in the UK, when it became almost taboo to see them as anything but totally equal events, and gold medals in each as equal achievements, people calling for Knighthoods if someone had the same number of gold medals as Sir Chris Hoy or Sir Bradley Wiggins (6 & 5). I feel this is wrong for pretty much one reason: the level & volume of competition. There are 2-4 billion able-bodied cyclist in the world, and 100's of 1000's of people who compete in cycling events. Then look at Paralympic cycling, there are quite a few disabled cyclists, but when its broken down into all the classifications, how many no-legged cyclists are there, for example? Maybe dozens, who are looking to compete, maybe 100's tops. Being the best of 100,000 is in a completely different league to being the best out of 100. If you were blinded right now, and started tandem cycling training, as opposed to if you simply started able-bodied track cycling right now, in 5 years, would it be more likely that you could win a Paralympic Gold Medal, or an Olympic Gold Medal? I know both would be unlikely, but as a comparison? A Paralympic medal is still a great achievement, and some of stories are really good, and I know its better than anything I'll ever do, I just don't think its the same as an Olympic medal, like most of the media and the public seem to think. Me and my brother actually quite upset my mum a while back with this argument, am I wrong? CMV (Edit: just some grammar, and the question about the 5 years training)

I don't think top Paralympians should be seen as equal to top Olympians. CMV. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely behind having the Paralympics as a secondary event after the Olympics. But I just get quite annoyed, especially here in the UK, when it became almost taboo to see them as anything but totally equal events, and gold medals in each as equal achievements, people calling for Knighthoods if someone had the same number of gold medals as Sir Chris Hoy or Sir Bradley Wiggins (6 & 5). I feel this is wrong for pretty much one reason: the level & volume of competition. There are 2-4 billion able-bodied cyclist in the world, and 100's of 1000's of people who compete in cycling events. Then look at Paralympic cycling, there are quite a few disabled cyclists, but when its broken down into all the classifications, how many no-legged cyclists are there, for example? Maybe dozens, who are looking to compete, maybe 100's tops. Being the best of 100,000 is in a completely different league to being the best out of 100. If you were blinded right now, and started tandem cycling training, as opposed to if you simply started able-bodied track cycling right now, in 5 years, would it be more likely that you could win a Paralympic Gold Medal, or an Olympic Gold Medal? I know both would be unlikely, but as a comparison? A Paralympic medal is still a great achievement, and some of stories are really good, and I know its better than anything I'll ever do, I just don't think its the same as an Olympic medal, like most of the media and the public seem to think. Me and my brother actually quite upset my mum a while back with this argument, am I wrong? CMV (Edit: just some grammar, and the question about the 5 years training)

t3_1wl1ek

I think that treating the "free market" as though it was the solution to a problem is superstitious nonsense. CMV

People have a tendency to worship things that are too big to be controlled or understood. From love to lightning, there's never been a shortage of romantics looking to impose a pattern over chaos and then claim that they've proven that chaos has a moral compass. I've never seen much difference between the impulse to lassez faire economics and that of a shaman stoning someone for building an irrigation system and thereby usurping Nature's will. I'll give you a shot, though. Explain to me why people doing whatever they want is more likely to generate specific desired outcomes than programs designed to generate those outcomes, or explain why the costs of imposing a system to generate those outcomes outweigh the benefits that those outcomes would provide. If that seems too vague to argue against, as though there are too many things that could fit into the "outcomes" variable slot, please constrain "outcomes" to only include things that the government can do, and only to things that can be done with money. Hopefully that narrows things down. ~~If you don't want to argue that the free market is *always* a solution, but that it should be a solution to most things, could you explain how "the free market" is different from "do nothing" and why doing nothing is more likely to get things done.~~ ~~Edit: Of course the market does stuff. I'm not talking about it from an individual citizen's perspective. I'm asking how is the lassez faire system is different from the government doing nothing.~~ ~~Edit 2: people are arguing against communism and for capitalism, which makes me think that I've gone horribly awry in my choice of words. What I am asking, generally is this:~~ ~~In the mixed command/ supply and demand economy that we currently live in, shit occasionally happens. When that shit happens, and when we all agree that it is shit that we wish would no longer happen, we can either increase government control or decrease government control to solve that problem. There is a segment of the population who believe that decreasing control is **always** the solution. Why do you believe that releasing government control is a sufficiently general solution that it can be used in every case of shit happening?~~ Edit 3: Every response I've gotten so far has been from people telling me that the language in my simplified version can be misinterpreted to make me sound like an idiot. Please respond to the original question.

I think that treating the "free market" as though it was the solution to a problem is superstitious nonsense. CMV. People have a tendency to worship things that are too big to be controlled or understood. From love to lightning, there's never been a shortage of romantics looking to impose a pattern over chaos and then claim that they've proven that chaos has a moral compass. I've never seen much difference between the impulse to lassez faire economics and that of a shaman stoning someone for building an irrigation system and thereby usurping Nature's will. I'll give you a shot, though. Explain to me why people doing whatever they want is more likely to generate specific desired outcomes than programs designed to generate those outcomes, or explain why the costs of imposing a system to generate those outcomes outweigh the benefits that those outcomes would provide. If that seems too vague to argue against, as though there are too many things that could fit into the "outcomes" variable slot, please constrain "outcomes" to only include things that the government can do, and only to things that can be done with money. Hopefully that narrows things down. ~~If you don't want to argue that the free market is *always* a solution, but that it should be a solution to most things, could you explain how "the free market" is different from "do nothing" and why doing nothing is more likely to get things done.~~ ~~Edit: Of course the market does stuff. I'm not talking about it from an individual citizen's perspective. I'm asking how is the lassez faire system is different from the government doing nothing.~~ ~~Edit 2: people are arguing against communism and for capitalism, which makes me think that I've gone horribly awry in my choice of words. What I am asking, generally is this:~~ ~~In the mixed command/ supply and demand economy that we currently live in, shit occasionally happens. When that shit happens, and when we all agree that it is shit that we wish would no longer happen, we can either increase government control or decrease government control to solve that problem. There is a segment of the population who believe that decreasing control is **always** the solution. Why do you believe that releasing government control is a sufficiently general solution that it can be used in every case of shit happening?~~ Edit 3: Every response I've gotten so far has been from people telling me that the language in my simplified version can be misinterpreted to make me sound like an idiot. Please respond to the original question.

t3_1o2syv

I think team logos such as the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians are racially insensitive, and should be changed. CMV

In a time where homophobic slurs are coming under immense fire, I'm shocked that teams like the Redskins and the Indians are still allowed to keep their names and logos. People may say it's a harmless logo, but it encourages things such as [this](http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2013/10/03/Cleveland-Indians-fans-red-face-2_20131003065608201_660_320.JPG). And although there is an argument of tradition, why not start a new tradition? Allow the fans to pick their new logo and name. I am on the fence with teams like the Braves and the Chiefs, although they would ideally change, there is much less controversy with their names, since they aren't actually racial slurs. CMV

I think team logos such as the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians are racially insensitive, and should be changed. CMV. In a time where homophobic slurs are coming under immense fire, I'm shocked that teams like the Redskins and the Indians are still allowed to keep their names and logos. People may say it's a harmless logo, but it encourages things such as [this](http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2013/10/03/Cleveland-Indians-fans-red-face-2_20131003065608201_660_320.JPG). And although there is an argument of tradition, why not start a new tradition? Allow the fans to pick their new logo and name. I am on the fence with teams like the Braves and the Chiefs, although they would ideally change, there is much less controversy with their names, since they aren't actually racial slurs. CMV

t3_4f2br7

CMV: Refusing service to people in North Carolina due to their recent LGBTQ law is a logical fallacy.

Mississippi recently [passed a law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/ ) that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people, and North Carolina passed a similar law restricting towns from enacting civil rights protections for gay people. To begin (this isn't the part I want to discuss, just framing my viewpoint), I don't think people should have the right to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation. In an ideal world I might agree with that right, since I don't think people should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with, and an affected customer would be able to go down the street to the next supermarket to buy their goods. But we don't live in an ideal world, and it's possible that in many towns every supermarket owner would decide to refuse service to gay people, causing serious problems for the LGBTQ citizens of that town. Regardless of my view on the topic, however, I think refusing service to people in an area because you disagree with this view (like [Bruce Springsteen](http://m.brucespringsteen.net/news/2016/a-statement-from-bruce-springsteen-on-north-carolina ) did recently) is completely logically inconsistent. You are blatantly using the very tactic that you are arguing should be outlawed. This has been pointed out by many supporters of the North Carolina law, and so far I agree with them. So go ahead Reddit, CMV.

CMV: Refusing service to people in North Carolina due to their recent LGBTQ law is a logical fallacy. Mississippi recently [passed a law](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/ ) that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people, and North Carolina passed a similar law restricting towns from enacting civil rights protections for gay people. To begin (this isn't the part I want to discuss, just framing my viewpoint), I don't think people should have the right to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation. In an ideal world I might agree with that right, since I don't think people should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with, and an affected customer would be able to go down the street to the next supermarket to buy their goods. But we don't live in an ideal world, and it's possible that in many towns every supermarket owner would decide to refuse service to gay people, causing serious problems for the LGBTQ citizens of that town. Regardless of my view on the topic, however, I think refusing service to people in an area because you disagree with this view (like [Bruce Springsteen](http://m.brucespringsteen.net/news/2016/a-statement-from-bruce-springsteen-on-north-carolina ) did recently) is completely logically inconsistent. You are blatantly using the very tactic that you are arguing should be outlawed. This has been pointed out by many supporters of the North Carolina law, and so far I agree with them. So go ahead Reddit, CMV.

t3_36h7tj

CMV: Islam is incompatible with today's society.

Islam is a religion that spawned from the Quran, a religious text considered to be the Word of God (Allah). This religion began in the Arabian peninsula in the early 600s. Islam is not only out of date, dangerous to today's society and subversive, but it has always been a violent religion. This would be fine if Islam could be reformed. But that's the trouble with Islam. It has not been widely reformed and I'm afraid it cannot be due to its structure. Sure, it has a similar structure The concept of Dar-al-harb/Garb/Kufr (War, War(ottoman),Infidel) and the Dar-al-Islam (Islam/Peace) is one that divides the world into two; nations that follow the law of Islam (Shariah) and those that don't. Before you say that this practice is outdated and out of style, please look at Salafis, the extremist groups in the middle east, and [this fine fellow and other people like him that do not classify as salafis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU). Even if the Quran is not taken literally, Shariah law still applies. I have lived in an Islamic country. You do not need to take the Hadith and Quran literally to be subject to literal Shariah law. Read here: >Looking at the Malaysian legal system as a whole, sharia law plays a relatively small role in defining the laws on the country. It only applies to Muslims. With regards to civil law, the Syariah courts has jurisdiction in personal law matters, for example marriage, inheritance, and apostasy. In some states there are sharia criminal laws, for example there is the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1993. Their jurisdiction is however limited to imposing fines for an amount not more than RM 5000, and imprisonment to not more than 3 years. In August 2007, the then Chief Justice of Malaysia proposed to replace the current common law application in Malaysia with sharia law You can literally go to jail for renouncing Islam. It's far more serious in countries like Saudi Arabia, and 4 in 10 muslims in the UK want to establish Shariah law. In fact, there are 85 shariah law courthouses in the UK which run by court-approval basis. I personally believe that the political stress plus the fact that both parties signed an agreement to be judged by shariah law makes every case a stamp-and-go case. Before you say that both if both parties consent to it, it's alright, please think about the cultural and familial pressure of Islam and their treatment of women. We must not forget Islam's borderline slavery of women. They are covered, silenced, veiled, separated, and treated as commodity. God willing, they at least inherit half the amount a man of the same level of descendence would. I do not say that muslims are bad people and must convert to be part of today's society. I do not say that at all. In fact, I say the opposite. If anything can stop the self-indulgent hedonism of today's society it is Muslims (And Sikhs). I just say that Islam conflicts with today's society, and it cannot be wholly compatible with today's world. I do not approve of Islam. _____ > *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: Islam is incompatible with today's society. Islam is a religion that spawned from the Quran, a religious text considered to be the Word of God (Allah). This religion began in the Arabian peninsula in the early 600s. Islam is not only out of date, dangerous to today's society and subversive, but it has always been a violent religion. This would be fine if Islam could be reformed. But that's the trouble with Islam. It has not been widely reformed and I'm afraid it cannot be due to its structure. Sure, it has a similar structure The concept of Dar-al-harb/Garb/Kufr (War, War(ottoman),Infidel) and the Dar-al-Islam (Islam/Peace) is one that divides the world into two; nations that follow the law of Islam (Shariah) and those that don't. Before you say that this practice is outdated and out of style, please look at Salafis, the extremist groups in the middle east, and [this fine fellow and other people like him that do not classify as salafis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU). Even if the Quran is not taken literally, Shariah law still applies. I have lived in an Islamic country. You do not need to take the Hadith and Quran literally to be subject to literal Shariah law. Read here: >Looking at the Malaysian legal system as a whole, sharia law plays a relatively small role in defining the laws on the country. It only applies to Muslims. With regards to civil law, the Syariah courts has jurisdiction in personal law matters, for example marriage, inheritance, and apostasy. In some states there are sharia criminal laws, for example there is the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment 1993. Their jurisdiction is however limited to imposing fines for an amount not more than RM 5000, and imprisonment to not more than 3 years. In August 2007, the then Chief Justice of Malaysia proposed to replace the current common law application in Malaysia with sharia law You can literally go to jail for renouncing Islam. It's far more serious in countries like Saudi Arabia, and 4 in 10 muslims in the UK want to establish Shariah law. In fact, there are 85 shariah law courthouses in the UK which run by court-approval basis. I personally believe that the political stress plus the fact that both parties signed an agreement to be judged by shariah law makes every case a stamp-and-go case. Before you say that both if both parties consent to it, it's alright, please think about the cultural and familial pressure of Islam and their treatment of women. We must not forget Islam's borderline slavery of women. They are covered, silenced, veiled, separated, and treated as commodity. God willing, they at least inherit half the amount a man of the same level of descendence would. I do not say that muslims are bad people and must convert to be part of today's society. I do not say that at all. In fact, I say the opposite. If anything can stop the self-indulgent hedonism of today's society it is Muslims (And Sikhs). I just say that Islam conflicts with today's society, and it cannot be wholly compatible with today's world. I do not approve of Islam.

t3_4a85sb

CMV: People who cant survive on their own shouldn't be helped

Call me heartless but I believe that those who cant pay for their medicine, food, water shelter etc should be allowed to die, since its part of natural process and by helping them we are only creating more problems with overpopulation, hunger and pollution. In nature those people would die, and as such the human population would self regulate and keep itself in check - it grows too large, there will be famine and population will get back to normal. I didn't always hold this opinion but I accepted it several years ago. Before that I was a socialist, supporting programmes and social security. Later on I realised that we are just delaying the inevitable and creating a greater problem, like leaving a gangrenous arm instead of cutting it off. Is there any logical reason to help those people instead of letting the nature take its course? I will keep an open mind, but I do think that despite how painful and morally abhorrent it might be to people this is the best long term solution. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People who cant survive on their own shouldn't be helped. Call me heartless but I believe that those who cant pay for their medicine, food, water shelter etc should be allowed to die, since its part of natural process and by helping them we are only creating more problems with overpopulation, hunger and pollution. In nature those people would die, and as such the human population would self regulate and keep itself in check - it grows too large, there will be famine and population will get back to normal. I didn't always hold this opinion but I accepted it several years ago. Before that I was a socialist, supporting programmes and social security. Later on I realised that we are just delaying the inevitable and creating a greater problem, like leaving a gangrenous arm instead of cutting it off. Is there any logical reason to help those people instead of letting the nature take its course? I will keep an open mind, but I do think that despite how painful and morally abhorrent it might be to people this is the best long term solution.

t3_3stdad

CMV: You Are Real, Not AI - I Am Not The Center Of Everything

Now, I don't fully believe that I am stuck in a 'Game' of sorts, but it has several times crossed my mind and I want to convince myself that that is ridiculous so I don't go crazy in the future. As I am writing this, I am aware of it. You may say so too, but I can't know that. You could all be programs, coded as an experiment on me. My reasoning is that in my life I have been in so many situations that seem like the odds of them happening are absolutely tiny. I have been in several near death situations, survived all of them believe it or not. I read Memes and I can relate to so many of them. It's frightening how similar some of them are to my life. Am I just a commoner or are they hints by the 'Game' makers that I am not 'Real'. I am for the most part well behaved, kind to those who deserve it and am pretty smart, though not a genius. In primary school I was placed into arguably the best class from our year. We were given a lot more trips and opportunities. Same happened in secondary school where I made friends for life, one of them being an actual genius (tested). I always prided myself for being smart and then comes this guy who is better than me. A way for the 'Game' makers to push me to improve myself? I have also been rather lucky in competitions like draws and the lotto. I haven't won large amounts of money, but have won a little; better than nothing. I also won a bunch of raffles, product competitions etc. What luck. I use to never go out but one Summer I signed up for Summer camp with my genius friend. I met this girl there, liked her but barely talked. A guy who was there, happened to take the same bus home. After the Summer camp finished we were discussing girls like men do and I mentioned the girl that I noted I like earlier on in this paragraph. A week later, she messages me on Facebook. We become best friends. Turns out we are 99% alike. We even started a game where we add 1% every time we agree on something or are alike in any way. We quickly went from 0-100%. A year later, it turns out that guy at the bus stop messaged her and told her to text me on Facebook. What luck that someone so much like me would I meet the first time I leave my home for social activities but not having the guts to talk to her myself, this random guy at a bus stop makes it happen. Luck, luck, luck. So how after all of this am I suppose to believe that anything is real. Seems like a movie to me. Prove me wrong so I can stop being a narcissist. _____ > *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: You Are Real, Not AI - I Am Not The Center Of Everything. Now, I don't fully believe that I am stuck in a 'Game' of sorts, but it has several times crossed my mind and I want to convince myself that that is ridiculous so I don't go crazy in the future. As I am writing this, I am aware of it. You may say so too, but I can't know that. You could all be programs, coded as an experiment on me. My reasoning is that in my life I have been in so many situations that seem like the odds of them happening are absolutely tiny. I have been in several near death situations, survived all of them believe it or not. I read Memes and I can relate to so many of them. It's frightening how similar some of them are to my life. Am I just a commoner or are they hints by the 'Game' makers that I am not 'Real'. I am for the most part well behaved, kind to those who deserve it and am pretty smart, though not a genius. In primary school I was placed into arguably the best class from our year. We were given a lot more trips and opportunities. Same happened in secondary school where I made friends for life, one of them being an actual genius (tested). I always prided myself for being smart and then comes this guy who is better than me. A way for the 'Game' makers to push me to improve myself? I have also been rather lucky in competitions like draws and the lotto. I haven't won large amounts of money, but have won a little; better than nothing. I also won a bunch of raffles, product competitions etc. What luck. I use to never go out but one Summer I signed up for Summer camp with my genius friend. I met this girl there, liked her but barely talked. A guy who was there, happened to take the same bus home. After the Summer camp finished we were discussing girls like men do and I mentioned the girl that I noted I like earlier on in this paragraph. A week later, she messages me on Facebook. We become best friends. Turns out we are 99% alike. We even started a game where we add 1% every time we agree on something or are alike in any way. We quickly went from 0-100%. A year later, it turns out that guy at the bus stop messaged her and told her to text me on Facebook. What luck that someone so much like me would I meet the first time I leave my home for social activities but not having the guts to talk to her myself, this random guy at a bus stop makes it happen. Luck, luck, luck. So how after all of this am I suppose to believe that anything is real. Seems like a movie to me. Prove me wrong so I can stop being a narcissist.

t3_1u0bmc

I do not think that lives of children are more precious than lives of adults especially when it is about numbers. CMV

It seems very strange to me that whenever they talk about catastrophes in the news they always specify how many kids were hurt/killed/gone missing. But why? I think that it does not matter who died: old people, little children, men, women, vegetarians, heterosexuals etc. Every person's life is a tragedy, right? And adults are somebody's kids themselves. If I die in a plane crash tonight (I'm 22, so I'm not a kid), there will be sad people for who it won't matter that I was not a kid. So why are people always so terrified when it comes to kids' deaths?

I do not think that lives of children are more precious than lives of adults especially when it is about numbers. CMV. It seems very strange to me that whenever they talk about catastrophes in the news they always specify how many kids were hurt/killed/gone missing. But why? I think that it does not matter who died: old people, little children, men, women, vegetarians, heterosexuals etc. Every person's life is a tragedy, right? And adults are somebody's kids themselves. If I die in a plane crash tonight (I'm 22, so I'm not a kid), there will be sad people for who it won't matter that I was not a kid. So why are people always so terrified when it comes to kids' deaths?

t3_3mjaet

CMV: If someone admits that they are guilty of a crime that would put them on death row they should immediately be killed.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how the justice system works. But, if a person admits that they are guilty of a crime that would put them on death row, personally I believe that they should be put to death immediately instead of wasting tax dollars keeping them alive. I fully understand the give and take with the death penalty. Maybe they got set up, maybe it was a momentary lapse and a mental hospital can make it right, maybe it was a crime of passion etc... But if someone admits fully that they did something worthy of a death penalty sentence, why not kill them that day?

CMV: If someone admits that they are guilty of a crime that would put them on death row they should immediately be killed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how the justice system works. But, if a person admits that they are guilty of a crime that would put them on death row, personally I believe that they should be put to death immediately instead of wasting tax dollars keeping them alive. I fully understand the give and take with the death penalty. Maybe they got set up, maybe it was a momentary lapse and a mental hospital can make it right, maybe it was a crime of passion etc... But if someone admits fully that they did something worthy of a death penalty sentence, why not kill them that day?

t3_1pswnl

I believe that moderators should have the power to change titles of posts, CMV.

I can understand that letting the user change titles can lead to a variety of problems, getting a good comment, question, etc. up to the front page and then editing it into an advertisement or hateful statement, for example. However, fairly often news articles will end up having to be tagged 'misleading' or 'rumour', though the tag is significantly smaller than the title and *if* you notice it, it's after you've read the statement and it can easily end up slipping your memory that it was just a rumour or misleading, especially if you don't feel like clicking the link and deciphering the truth yourself. I don't see why a mod can't just edit a title rather than tagging it, so that instead of saying "X is Y" it says "X is rumoured to be Y" or "X is Y if Z". Also, the ability to edit obvious spelling mistakes, that would take up a lot of a mods time, so just do it for posts that make it to the front page perhaps?

I believe that moderators should have the power to change titles of posts, CMV. I can understand that letting the user change titles can lead to a variety of problems, getting a good comment, question, etc. up to the front page and then editing it into an advertisement or hateful statement, for example. However, fairly often news articles will end up having to be tagged 'misleading' or 'rumour', though the tag is significantly smaller than the title and *if* you notice it, it's after you've read the statement and it can easily end up slipping your memory that it was just a rumour or misleading, especially if you don't feel like clicking the link and deciphering the truth yourself. I don't see why a mod can't just edit a title rather than tagging it, so that instead of saying "X is Y" it says "X is rumoured to be Y" or "X is Y if Z". Also, the ability to edit obvious spelling mistakes, that would take up a lot of a mods time, so just do it for posts that make it to the front page perhaps?

t3_2eazmi

CMV: Money spent imprisoning non-violent offenders should be comp'd to victims instead

Imagine that someone steals your car, and sells it to a chop shop. Your car was worth $10,000. The thief then spends all that money on cocaine. They get arrested the next day, and the car or money cannot be recovered. Various searches seem to show a prison sentence of 1 to 5 years for a non-violent theft (stolen out of a parking lot). According to Wikipedia, the average cost to imprison someone is $30,600 per year, meaning a range of $30,600 to $153,000 spent putting this person in jail. That same person is very unlikely to steal your car again, and you're out $10 grand while the prison system makes 3 to 15x that amount back. Why shouldn't they just be put on probation/monitoring, and have at least some of that money come back to the victim? As punishment, they could perhaps be garnished their wages at the same time. This would honestly probably be worse for the perpetrator anyways. Obviously this is different for violent crimes. If someone rapes or assaults you, you want that person in jail so they can't harm you or society again.

CMV: Money spent imprisoning non-violent offenders should be comp'd to victims instead. Imagine that someone steals your car, and sells it to a chop shop. Your car was worth $10,000. The thief then spends all that money on cocaine. They get arrested the next day, and the car or money cannot be recovered. Various searches seem to show a prison sentence of 1 to 5 years for a non-violent theft (stolen out of a parking lot). According to Wikipedia, the average cost to imprison someone is $30,600 per year, meaning a range of $30,600 to $153,000 spent putting this person in jail. That same person is very unlikely to steal your car again, and you're out $10 grand while the prison system makes 3 to 15x that amount back. Why shouldn't they just be put on probation/monitoring, and have at least some of that money come back to the victim? As punishment, they could perhaps be garnished their wages at the same time. This would honestly probably be worse for the perpetrator anyways. Obviously this is different for violent crimes. If someone rapes or assaults you, you want that person in jail so they can't harm you or society again.

t3_1nf7wm

I don't think James Bond and David Bowie are a big deal. CMV

These are two of the main things that I've never really understood. I can still respect the James Bond series and David Bowie's work because I know that they have major influences in pop culture. James Bond Explanation: I've seen a few of the James Bond movies (All Sean Connery era) and I'm just not fully 'wowed' by them. They seem so general, so 'normal', there's nothing to really grab my attention about them. I have different reasons to watch different genres. When I watch classic movies, I'm charmed by the age and majesty of them (Casablanca, African Queen, and Gone with the Wind are some examples). For horror, I just like being scared. For comedy, I like when it's clever, not stupid. I'm also a big fan of cult movies, of which I'm drawn to their uniqueness. In that case, sometimes I think I don't like the movies because James Bond is such a 'formula' kind of series. Perhaps maybe it's because I'm not a big fan of action movies? I still LOVE the various parodies of it (Austin Powers, Spy Fox, etc.) but not the original version. David Bowie Explanation: Mostly the same issue. I've listened to his stuff and it sounds so generic. I listen to a lot of British Rock (Rolling Stones, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen) but I just haven't gotten into this guy. I mean, his stuff just doesn't seem to have much of a depth to hang onto. I've listened to 'Ziggy Stardust', 'Rebel Rebel', (the space song, Major Tom) and although I think it's good, it just doesn't grab my attention. It leaves me with a pretty 'meh' sort of feeling. It's not like the bands, where I feel GREAT listening to their stuff. David Bowie was great in Labyrinth and that had a pretty good soundtrack but I'm just not into his big hits. Yes, I haven't fully explored these different areas of entertainment, but I hesitate too since I don't really grasp why they're so entertaining. TL;DR: I respect, but have a generally 'meh' feeling, towards these things. I just can't find something that I like about them.

I don't think James Bond and David Bowie are a big deal. CMV. These are two of the main things that I've never really understood. I can still respect the James Bond series and David Bowie's work because I know that they have major influences in pop culture. James Bond Explanation: I've seen a few of the James Bond movies (All Sean Connery era) and I'm just not fully 'wowed' by them. They seem so general, so 'normal', there's nothing to really grab my attention about them. I have different reasons to watch different genres. When I watch classic movies, I'm charmed by the age and majesty of them (Casablanca, African Queen, and Gone with the Wind are some examples). For horror, I just like being scared. For comedy, I like when it's clever, not stupid. I'm also a big fan of cult movies, of which I'm drawn to their uniqueness. In that case, sometimes I think I don't like the movies because James Bond is such a 'formula' kind of series. Perhaps maybe it's because I'm not a big fan of action movies? I still LOVE the various parodies of it (Austin Powers, Spy Fox, etc.) but not the original version. David Bowie Explanation: Mostly the same issue. I've listened to his stuff and it sounds so generic. I listen to a lot of British Rock (Rolling Stones, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen) but I just haven't gotten into this guy. I mean, his stuff just doesn't seem to have much of a depth to hang onto. I've listened to 'Ziggy Stardust', 'Rebel Rebel', (the space song, Major Tom) and although I think it's good, it just doesn't grab my attention. It leaves me with a pretty 'meh' sort of feeling. It's not like the bands, where I feel GREAT listening to their stuff. David Bowie was great in Labyrinth and that had a pretty good soundtrack but I'm just not into his big hits. Yes, I haven't fully explored these different areas of entertainment, but I hesitate too since I don't really grasp why they're so entertaining. TL;DR: I respect, but have a generally 'meh' feeling, towards these things. I just can't find something that I like about them.

t3_1fysll

I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to raise children. CMV.

Please don't give me "they have the right" or "two people that love each other" pitches, I've heard and understand those. My view on gay marriage does not entirely come from my Christian religion. Maybe 25%. Please don't make this about religion. I have heard that there are case studies showing that children raised by same sex couples are developmentally disadvantaged in several ways. Ex: A child without a father has a high chance of becoming involved in crime and ending up in jail. A child without a mother may lack emotion and empathy. These studies suggest that there is something that both a man and a woman bring to the table and that not having both a mother and father changes a child's development, personality, etc. I'm not an expert and I can't cite these studies. CMV strictly on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I'm not interested in whether or not they should be allowed to marry. EDIT: Some have mentioned the fact that I can't cite the study I referenced above and therefore have posted the below message to them. My father had sent this to me a while ago and I held onto the link. It mentions a couple studies, the ones I referenced, especially one by Mark Regnerus. The article summarizes his findings, but I can't find the actual study. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm

I don't believe gay couples should be allowed to raise children. CMV. Please don't give me "they have the right" or "two people that love each other" pitches, I've heard and understand those. My view on gay marriage does not entirely come from my Christian religion. Maybe 25%. Please don't make this about religion. I have heard that there are case studies showing that children raised by same sex couples are developmentally disadvantaged in several ways. Ex: A child without a father has a high chance of becoming involved in crime and ending up in jail. A child without a mother may lack emotion and empathy. These studies suggest that there is something that both a man and a woman bring to the table and that not having both a mother and father changes a child's development, personality, etc. I'm not an expert and I can't cite these studies. CMV strictly on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I'm not interested in whether or not they should be allowed to marry. EDIT: Some have mentioned the fact that I can't cite the study I referenced above and therefore have posted the below message to them. My father had sent this to me a while ago and I held onto the link. It mentions a couple studies, the ones I referenced, especially one by Mark Regnerus. The article summarizes his findings, but I can't find the actual study. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm

t3_67r7uq

CMV: Caitlyn Jenner is a terrible spokeswoman and role model for Trans people

Cards on the table time, I am an open transgender girl who is currently going through HRT. Her media presence is driving me crazy, she is a wealthy woman and has made some disparaging comments about people who receive public assistance. She has been a supporter of Trump who actively panders to religious crackpots trying to make a moral panic about a non-issue since they have lost the SSM debate they have picked trans people for their latest ego/money trip. Trans people stuggle to find a job in the USA and they can be simply fired for being trans, she doesn't have a real job at all, just gets wheeled out on the media to represent trans people and make a mess of it. She has no idea what every other trans person in the world is going though Then you have the fact that she may have killed someone _____ > *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: Caitlyn Jenner is a terrible spokeswoman and role model for Trans people. Cards on the table time, I am an open transgender girl who is currently going through HRT. Her media presence is driving me crazy, she is a wealthy woman and has made some disparaging comments about people who receive public assistance. She has been a supporter of Trump who actively panders to religious crackpots trying to make a moral panic about a non-issue since they have lost the SSM debate they have picked trans people for their latest ego/money trip. Trans people stuggle to find a job in the USA and they can be simply fired for being trans, she doesn't have a real job at all, just gets wheeled out on the media to represent trans people and make a mess of it. She has no idea what every other trans person in the world is going though Then you have the fact that she may have killed someone

t3_4drw20

CMV: There's nothing wrong with voting for Hillary because she's a woman.

I don't see anything wrong with it. There has been single-issue voting- religious right voting for a candidate because of their stance on abortion rights, liberal left voting for a candidate because of their stance on gay marriage- but this seems to have been emphasized far less. When Obama was running, for example, it was his stance on gay rights and women's rights that was pushed quite often. That being said, I feel like it would be important for a woman to be in the White House. It's 2016 and the US is one of the few countries that has *not* had a female president or equivalent, even Pakistan, an Islamic country, has elected a female prime minister. I think that having a woman president would be inspiring to young (and old) girls everywhere. I believe it would influence more women to believe in themselves, to believe that they *can* do whatever they want and become whomever they desire, because we now have/have had a woman president, the head of our country. I don't see anything wrong with voting for Hillary because she's a woman, as I consider having a woman president to be an important issue, and I don't see how voting for a woman president because she's a woman would be any more controversial than voting for candidate X because they support abortion rights/don't support abortion rights. PS. I voted for Jill Stein last election. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's nothing wrong with voting for Hillary because she's a woman. I don't see anything wrong with it. There has been single-issue voting- religious right voting for a candidate because of their stance on abortion rights, liberal left voting for a candidate because of their stance on gay marriage- but this seems to have been emphasized far less. When Obama was running, for example, it was his stance on gay rights and women's rights that was pushed quite often. That being said, I feel like it would be important for a woman to be in the White House. It's 2016 and the US is one of the few countries that has *not* had a female president or equivalent, even Pakistan, an Islamic country, has elected a female prime minister. I think that having a woman president would be inspiring to young (and old) girls everywhere. I believe it would influence more women to believe in themselves, to believe that they *can* do whatever they want and become whomever they desire, because we now have/have had a woman president, the head of our country. I don't see anything wrong with voting for Hillary because she's a woman, as I consider having a woman president to be an important issue, and I don't see how voting for a woman president because she's a woman would be any more controversial than voting for candidate X because they support abortion rights/don't support abortion rights. PS. I voted for Jill Stein last election. > *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_1tl2sz

I believe severely mentally disabled people are nothing but a burden and a waste of everyone's time. CMV.

My mom is a music therapist who works with kids like these, and my cousin has down syndrome, so I've been around mentally disabled people my whole life. I understand that yes, these are people's children, so of course they will be loved and cared for. Regardless, I can't help but view them as a burden. Most of them will never achieve much, never be able to live on their own, and will have to be cared for their whole entire life. I feel terrible for writing this, but I've seen a select few so severely disabled that their whole entire life will be them doing nothing but drooling and making noises. Someone will have to use their time taking care simply because they exist. They will never be able to provide anything, for anyone (except feelings shared between them and their families/caretakers). I feel like because of this, they are a complete waste of time and energy. And by simply existing, they are a burden to the rest of us. I'm not saying there's anything we can do. I'm not saying there's a better option than them simply becoming someone's burden. I truly feel terrible for people affected by mentally handicapping diseases, and I feel even worse for their family. However, I don't see how they will ever be anything but a burden and a waste of people's time. CMV. Edit: Wow, I just read over what I wrote again. I'm an asshole.

I believe severely mentally disabled people are nothing but a burden and a waste of everyone's time. CMV. My mom is a music therapist who works with kids like these, and my cousin has down syndrome, so I've been around mentally disabled people my whole life. I understand that yes, these are people's children, so of course they will be loved and cared for. Regardless, I can't help but view them as a burden. Most of them will never achieve much, never be able to live on their own, and will have to be cared for their whole entire life. I feel terrible for writing this, but I've seen a select few so severely disabled that their whole entire life will be them doing nothing but drooling and making noises. Someone will have to use their time taking care simply because they exist. They will never be able to provide anything, for anyone (except feelings shared between them and their families/caretakers). I feel like because of this, they are a complete waste of time and energy. And by simply existing, they are a burden to the rest of us. I'm not saying there's anything we can do. I'm not saying there's a better option than them simply becoming someone's burden. I truly feel terrible for people affected by mentally handicapping diseases, and I feel even worse for their family. However, I don't see how they will ever be anything but a burden and a waste of people's time. CMV. Edit: Wow, I just read over what I wrote again. I'm an asshole.

t3_287rnb

CMV: I am almost convinced that western civilization will collapse in the next 30 years.

By the fall of western civilization i'm not specifically talking about Europe nor ami i talking about humanity getting wiped out completely. I guess we can all agree that 'western civilization is a concept hard to define so to clarify: I believe that most or all modernized countries will experience great turmoil compared to what we have today in about 30 years. Why? A) Humans are overfishing vital sources in the Atlantic and pacific oceans. Rainforests are being wiped out in order to expand farmland. The farmland is not being expanded just because of more hungry mouths but also because the soil dries up and becomes useless when it's farmed too intensively so not only are we ruining forests to create farmland, we are also ruining farmland. B) This one is kinda big but you don't really hear about it. Precious and rare metals used in many electronic devices such as smartphones are simply being drained dry. That isn't made any better by the fact that even more precious materials like oil are drying up to the point where people are seriously considering colonizing the arctics with oil rigs and military bases. C) Global warming is real, people disagree on whether the fluctuations in temperature will be extreme or if some aristocrats could move their vineyards up north safely. That however is irrelevant to the fact that many countries around the equator are going to become almost inhabitable, which brings us to... D) The culture conflict will only get worse, immigration(read asians/africans/latin americans fleeing a disastrous climate) will put more strain on countries that themselves will be weakened already due to their dependence on 3rd world agriculture. It will be a huge mess and political radicals of every stripe will find no problem with recruitment. E) Most everyone is still oblivious to these problems. Obesity, legal and illegal drug abuse along with outrageous inequality are still running rampant in the 'West'. People would rather have an aluminium factory built that ruins the local eco-system rather than allow unemployed people who have no real reason to break their backs in this age of automation- to rest while others work. Humans are on average more driven by jealousy as a misplaced sense of justice rather than actually caring about the bigger picture and enlightening themselves. F) Simple, small solutions that would probably help are met with opposition at every step. A: Legalize grass so we can use hemp freely, so then maybe there would be less alcohol consumption thus less need for large scale farming? B: No you silly hippy that would just make people lazy and crazy. A: Make cities more geared towards cycling and walking so that they're more safe for pedestrians, especially now since oil is running out? B: OMG you liberal hippie fascist faggot! You would prevent me from driving my BMW downtown so you can hug more trees? A: Give electric cars to poor people? B: OMG my hard-earned tax dollars?? NO! I'm not saying my solutions are perfect or even good. I'm not an expert on these things but it doesn't take a fire marshall to smell what's cooking.

CMV: I am almost convinced that western civilization will collapse in the next 30 years. By the fall of western civilization i'm not specifically talking about Europe nor ami i talking about humanity getting wiped out completely. I guess we can all agree that 'western civilization is a concept hard to define so to clarify: I believe that most or all modernized countries will experience great turmoil compared to what we have today in about 30 years. Why? A) Humans are overfishing vital sources in the Atlantic and pacific oceans. Rainforests are being wiped out in order to expand farmland. The farmland is not being expanded just because of more hungry mouths but also because the soil dries up and becomes useless when it's farmed too intensively so not only are we ruining forests to create farmland, we are also ruining farmland. B) This one is kinda big but you don't really hear about it. Precious and rare metals used in many electronic devices such as smartphones are simply being drained dry. That isn't made any better by the fact that even more precious materials like oil are drying up to the point where people are seriously considering colonizing the arctics with oil rigs and military bases. C) Global warming is real, people disagree on whether the fluctuations in temperature will be extreme or if some aristocrats could move their vineyards up north safely. That however is irrelevant to the fact that many countries around the equator are going to become almost inhabitable, which brings us to... D) The culture conflict will only get worse, immigration(read asians/africans/latin americans fleeing a disastrous climate) will put more strain on countries that themselves will be weakened already due to their dependence on 3rd world agriculture. It will be a huge mess and political radicals of every stripe will find no problem with recruitment. E) Most everyone is still oblivious to these problems. Obesity, legal and illegal drug abuse along with outrageous inequality are still running rampant in the 'West'. People would rather have an aluminium factory built that ruins the local eco-system rather than allow unemployed people who have no real reason to break their backs in this age of automation- to rest while others work. Humans are on average more driven by jealousy as a misplaced sense of justice rather than actually caring about the bigger picture and enlightening themselves. F) Simple, small solutions that would probably help are met with opposition at every step. A: Legalize grass so we can use hemp freely, so then maybe there would be less alcohol consumption thus less need for large scale farming? B: No you silly hippy that would just make people lazy and crazy. A: Make cities more geared towards cycling and walking so that they're more safe for pedestrians, especially now since oil is running out? B: OMG you liberal hippie fascist faggot! You would prevent me from driving my BMW downtown so you can hug more trees? A: Give electric cars to poor people? B: OMG my hard-earned tax dollars?? NO! I'm not saying my solutions are perfect or even good. I'm not an expert on these things but it doesn't take a fire marshall to smell what's cooking.

t3_3tt780

CMV:As a result of its Independent status, the KPK (translated to: Corruption Eradication Commission) is allowed to much leeway in its operations and is becoming more powerful than the government, and thus actions must be taken to stop this.

Heres a rough image of what the KPK's purpose is: The KPK vision is to free Indonesia from corruption. Its duties include investigating and prosecuting corruption cases and monitoring the governance of the state. It has the authority to request meetings and reports in the course of its investigations. It can also authorise wiretaps, impose travel bans, request financial information about suspects, freeze financial transactions and request the assistance of other law enforcement agencies. It also has the authority to detain suspects, including well-known figures, and frequently does so. (taken from the somewhat outdated english wikipedia page) Basically the KPK are a stand alone commission, separate from the government, formed to monitor and eradicate Corruption in Indonesia. In theory this is a great idea, but in practice various loopholes and legalities have allowed the KPK to turn into a somewhat tyrannical entity. Indonesian law no. 30 from 2002 allows the KPK freedom to operate and, in most cases, allow their own rules and regulations to override that of the governments, even those regarding human rights. Without going into too much detail, this year some internal problems arose, and its chairman and deputy chairman were charged with corruption and were later replaced internally by people who worked under the previous Chairman and Deputy. So this is when things started to get fishy Recently several high profile figures have been caught and trialled, among those figures one caught my eye: OC Kaligis. Mr. Kaligis is a lawyer, and can even be regarded as a celebrity due to his high profile status, and he was charged with of bribery involving lawyers and a court clerk from the Medan State Administrative Court and is set to serve a maximum of 10 years in prison. On the surface it didn't seem that strange, considering bribery of court clerks and judges is almost an unwritten practice in Indonesia but after further research the grounds for such a sentence seem absurd, and I feel he is being profile rather than what he is alleged of doing. Kaligis allegedly violated Law No.31/1999 in reference to Law No.20/2001 on corruption eradication and also the Criminal Code (KUHP). Whereas IMO he should be charged under Article 5 of Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendment of the Act No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, because amongst other things the case for which he allegedly bribed officials for was already over and the clerks asked for gratification money for the result of the case. Secondly, the money allegedly used to bribe these officials were from the personal fund of his client and not state funds. sources: several jakarta post articles [Indonesian law no 20 2001](http://www.hukumonline.com/pusatdata/download/lt4f196975b851e/node/339) [Indonesian law no 30 2002](http://www.kpk.go.id/images/pdf/Undang-undang/uu302002.pdf) > *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:As a result of its Independent status, the KPK (translated to: Corruption Eradication Commission) is allowed to much leeway in its operations and is becoming more powerful than the government, and thus actions must be taken to stop this. Heres a rough image of what the KPK's purpose is: The KPK vision is to free Indonesia from corruption. Its duties include investigating and prosecuting corruption cases and monitoring the governance of the state. It has the authority to request meetings and reports in the course of its investigations. It can also authorise wiretaps, impose travel bans, request financial information about suspects, freeze financial transactions and request the assistance of other law enforcement agencies. It also has the authority to detain suspects, including well-known figures, and frequently does so. (taken from the somewhat outdated english wikipedia page) Basically the KPK are a stand alone commission, separate from the government, formed to monitor and eradicate Corruption in Indonesia. In theory this is a great idea, but in practice various loopholes and legalities have allowed the KPK to turn into a somewhat tyrannical entity. Indonesian law no. 30 from 2002 allows the KPK freedom to operate and, in most cases, allow their own rules and regulations to override that of the governments, even those regarding human rights. Without going into too much detail, this year some internal problems arose, and its chairman and deputy chairman were charged with corruption and were later replaced internally by people who worked under the previous Chairman and Deputy. So this is when things started to get fishy Recently several high profile figures have been caught and trialled, among those figures one caught my eye: OC Kaligis. Mr. Kaligis is a lawyer, and can even be regarded as a celebrity due to his high profile status, and he was charged with of bribery involving lawyers and a court clerk from the Medan State Administrative Court and is set to serve a maximum of 10 years in prison. On the surface it didn't seem that strange, considering bribery of court clerks and judges is almost an unwritten practice in Indonesia but after further research the grounds for such a sentence seem absurd, and I feel he is being profile rather than what he is alleged of doing. Kaligis allegedly violated Law No.31/1999 in reference to Law No.20/2001 on corruption eradication and also the Criminal Code (KUHP). Whereas IMO he should be charged under Article 5 of Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendment of the Act No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, because amongst other things the case for which he allegedly bribed officials for was already over and the clerks asked for gratification money for the result of the case. Secondly, the money allegedly used to bribe these officials were from the personal fund of his client and not state funds. sources: several jakarta post articles [Indonesian law no 20 2001](http://www.hukumonline.com/pusatdata/download/lt4f196975b851e/node/339) [Indonesian law no 30 2002](http://www.kpk.go.id/images/pdf/Undang-undang/uu302002.pdf) > *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_3bk15a

CMV: Anyone who actively opposes same-sex marriage based on religious reasons cannot justify it without admitting hypocricy, and in doing so, are likely damning themselves in the eyes of their lord.

CMV: There is no way someone can say they disagree with same-sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite. Nobody can live their life to the word of the Bible. At least nobody in Western culture in this day and age. To live by the Bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row. So, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow. With same-sex marriage (something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible), people tend to take a few phrases from the Old Testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other. Now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you're also fighting for every other thing in the Bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite. Not only that, but you've chosen a part of the Bible that keeps others from a basic civil right. If your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife (who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful)? I see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it's icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc. and have found a means to combat it. To me, this is exploitation. Exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves. I do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against SSM seems to assume that is a sin, I would have to assume that this is as well..... and in all likelihood a greater one. _____ > *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: Anyone who actively opposes same-sex marriage based on religious reasons cannot justify it without admitting hypocricy, and in doing so, are likely damning themselves in the eyes of their lord. CMV: There is no way someone can say they disagree with same-sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite. Nobody can live their life to the word of the Bible. At least nobody in Western culture in this day and age. To live by the Bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row. So, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow. With same-sex marriage (something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible), people tend to take a few phrases from the Old Testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other. Now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you're also fighting for every other thing in the Bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite. Not only that, but you've chosen a part of the Bible that keeps others from a basic civil right. If your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife (who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful)? I see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it's icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc. and have found a means to combat it. To me, this is exploitation. Exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves. I do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against SSM seems to assume that is a sin, I would have to assume that this is as well..... and in all likelihood a greater one.

t3_1tei4z

I believe remixes ruin the integrity of an album and are nothing but filler. CMV

Although the concept of a "Remix" is nothing new, it seems almost every album or single comes with a slew of "official remixes" nowadays. The biggest culprit is the "deluxe album". I love the idea of getting a few extra songs by buying a deluxe album, but tacking on remixes at the end just to make a few extra bucks is tacky and pointless. Take for instance Artpop by Lady Gaga. Great album from start to finish! Then you buy the Deluxe Edition and you get 4 shitty remixes of Applause. All of them are pointless and unnecessary. They take a great album and throw some extra crap on the end just to make consumers go "I love the single and if I buy the deluxe version I get 5 version of it! WOW!" I do believe there are exceptions to this rule. Ignition Remix by R. Kelly is amazing and adds so much to the song, instead of just putting a generic dance beat behind the exact same vocals. Also Diamonds From Sierra Leone Remix by Kanye West is another example. Great remix! But for every great one, you get 10,00 examples of what you shouldn't do. And then there are the "remix albums", which IMO are just "Greatest Hits Part 2 Just Shittier". So Reddit, am I wrong? If so, Change My View...

I believe remixes ruin the integrity of an album and are nothing but filler. CMV. Although the concept of a "Remix" is nothing new, it seems almost every album or single comes with a slew of "official remixes" nowadays. The biggest culprit is the "deluxe album". I love the idea of getting a few extra songs by buying a deluxe album, but tacking on remixes at the end just to make a few extra bucks is tacky and pointless. Take for instance Artpop by Lady Gaga. Great album from start to finish! Then you buy the Deluxe Edition and you get 4 shitty remixes of Applause. All of them are pointless and unnecessary. They take a great album and throw some extra crap on the end just to make consumers go "I love the single and if I buy the deluxe version I get 5 version of it! WOW!" I do believe there are exceptions to this rule. Ignition Remix by R. Kelly is amazing and adds so much to the song, instead of just putting a generic dance beat behind the exact same vocals. Also Diamonds From Sierra Leone Remix by Kanye West is another example. Great remix! But for every great one, you get 10,00 examples of what you shouldn't do. And then there are the "remix albums", which IMO are just "Greatest Hits Part 2 Just Shittier". So Reddit, am I wrong? If so, Change My View...

t3_2281ua

CMV: Playing the Texas Lottery (and probably other states) is a charitable act.

Here's my argument: (As is often mentioned on the radio commercials,) "The Texas Lotto supports Texas Education". Now, often charities will have some sort of raffle drawing/prize, where you can buy, say, a $50 raffle ticket for a chance to win a $3000 motorcycle. More than 60 people will enter for this, which means that the charity will profit, because they'll make more money off of raffle tickets than they will spend on the motorcycle. Texas education is, in my experience, horribly underfunded. (Not to mention we're near or at last place as far as school quality goes among the states.) So, the Texas lottery is basically a raffle ticket with the "charity" being Texas schools. _____ > *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: Playing the Texas Lottery (and probably other states) is a charitable act. Here's my argument: (As is often mentioned on the radio commercials,) "The Texas Lotto supports Texas Education". Now, often charities will have some sort of raffle drawing/prize, where you can buy, say, a $50 raffle ticket for a chance to win a $3000 motorcycle. More than 60 people will enter for this, which means that the charity will profit, because they'll make more money off of raffle tickets than they will spend on the motorcycle. Texas education is, in my experience, horribly underfunded. (Not to mention we're near or at last place as far as school quality goes among the states.) So, the Texas lottery is basically a raffle ticket with the "charity" being Texas schools.

t3_21hpnl

CMV: All countries/cultures should refer to the "ground floor" as the "first floor" (as it is in N. America)

No one starts counting at zero. We don't say that children are "zero years old," nor do we say that I have "zero cars". Yes, in Europe,, et al., it is referred to as the "ground floor" or "rez de chaussee," etc. However, the ground floor is indeed the first floor in a building, non? Every language has multiple ways of referring to the zero floor, so it would make it simpler for travelers to have a universal reference -- ie, the first floor. Would the average Sri Lankan know what is "rez de chaussee"? Probably not. But s/he would know what is "Floor 1". Furthermore, if you ask how many floors there are in a 10-storey building, the answer is 10. "Hold on, this elevator only goes up to the 9th floor... What about the 10th floor???" "Well, the first floor is called 'planta baja." "Well, why don't you just call it the 'first floor', then?" Possible counter-argument: when buildings have basements or subterranean parking garages (sorry, "car parks"), they are called "-1", "-2", etc, which pre-supposes that there must also be a "zero" floor. However, labeling these floors as -1 is also illogical because I also cannot have -1 cars, -3 shirts, etc. _____ > *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: All countries/cultures should refer to the "ground floor" as the "first floor" (as it is in N. America). No one starts counting at zero. We don't say that children are "zero years old," nor do we say that I have "zero cars". Yes, in Europe,, et al., it is referred to as the "ground floor" or "rez de chaussee," etc. However, the ground floor is indeed the first floor in a building, non? Every language has multiple ways of referring to the zero floor, so it would make it simpler for travelers to have a universal reference -- ie, the first floor. Would the average Sri Lankan know what is "rez de chaussee"? Probably not. But s/he would know what is "Floor 1". Furthermore, if you ask how many floors there are in a 10-storey building, the answer is 10. "Hold on, this elevator only goes up to the 9th floor... What about the 10th floor???" "Well, the first floor is called 'planta baja." "Well, why don't you just call it the 'first floor', then?" Possible counter-argument: when buildings have basements or subterranean parking garages (sorry, "car parks"), they are called "-1", "-2", etc, which pre-supposes that there must also be a "zero" floor. However, labeling these floors as -1 is also illogical because I also cannot have -1 cars, -3 shirts, etc.

t3_34zi9m

CMV: People who don't use bookmarks are missing out. [TT]

Bookmark: A strip of leather, cardboard, or other material used to mark one's place in a book. This CMV does not apply to e-readers, it's only about physical books, magazines, etc. When I read I like to mark my place in a book with one of my bookmarks; I've accumulated a very small collection over the years, though I don't have a leather one yet. Bookmarks are very useful because they let me get back to where I paused very quickly, without the bother of trying to recall what page number I was on from memory. They come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, some are colourful, they may have nice messages on them - I think book lovers are aware of the little aesthetic pleasure of bookmarks. So why do some people not use them? I don't understand it at all. I pick up free bookmarks from the local library (they have the opening hours printed on them - yay!), and I've also used a strip of paper to use as a bookmark when I've needed to. And if I use a strip of white paper as a bookmark I sometimes use it to scribble notes about the book, though if I own the book I'm fine with scribbling in the margins as well. In fact, there was a book I read that required using 3 bookmarks to read efficiently and I loved it all the more for it. So please help me understand the other side. This is a lighthearted topic, and I'm really looking to see whether people make a conscious choice to not use bookmarks. If it is, why? Edit: All right, I've had my view changed. Those who don't use bookmarks have found methods of *getting by* without using them. Though there are no arguments against the aesthetic appeal of having a colourful bookmark, there are certain cases where just having one could lead to a bit of trouble. Thanks for the comments.

CMV: People who don't use bookmarks are missing out. [TT]. Bookmark: A strip of leather, cardboard, or other material used to mark one's place in a book. This CMV does not apply to e-readers, it's only about physical books, magazines, etc. When I read I like to mark my place in a book with one of my bookmarks; I've accumulated a very small collection over the years, though I don't have a leather one yet. Bookmarks are very useful because they let me get back to where I paused very quickly, without the bother of trying to recall what page number I was on from memory. They come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, some are colourful, they may have nice messages on them - I think book lovers are aware of the little aesthetic pleasure of bookmarks. So why do some people not use them? I don't understand it at all. I pick up free bookmarks from the local library (they have the opening hours printed on them - yay!), and I've also used a strip of paper to use as a bookmark when I've needed to. And if I use a strip of white paper as a bookmark I sometimes use it to scribble notes about the book, though if I own the book I'm fine with scribbling in the margins as well. In fact, there was a book I read that required using 3 bookmarks to read efficiently and I loved it all the more for it. So please help me understand the other side. This is a lighthearted topic, and I'm really looking to see whether people make a conscious choice to not use bookmarks. If it is, why? Edit: All right, I've had my view changed. Those who don't use bookmarks have found methods of *getting by* without using them. Though there are no arguments against the aesthetic appeal of having a colourful bookmark, there are certain cases where just having one could lead to a bit of trouble. Thanks for the comments.

t3_1h5rk9

I believe what the majority wants for their country is what should be enacted by their government. CMV

I am talking about if a country's majority population wants to ban homosexuality, they have the right to. If more than 50% of US voted for banning gay marriage, the supreme court doesn't have any right to overturn it. Also, if English people want to remove immigrants, then that should be done, similarly, any country should be run the way its people want it to be. Why are a few things "sacred" and not subject to vote. You might as well say that a party is the best for the country, so you wont be allowed to choose who is in your government. If you don't agree with the majority view, you can leave, or you can just stay there and bear it, because your needs don't outweigh the needs of the majority.

I believe what the majority wants for their country is what should be enacted by their government. CMV. I am talking about if a country's majority population wants to ban homosexuality, they have the right to. If more than 50% of US voted for banning gay marriage, the supreme court doesn't have any right to overturn it. Also, if English people want to remove immigrants, then that should be done, similarly, any country should be run the way its people want it to be. Why are a few things "sacred" and not subject to vote. You might as well say that a party is the best for the country, so you wont be allowed to choose who is in your government. If you don't agree with the majority view, you can leave, or you can just stay there and bear it, because your needs don't outweigh the needs of the majority.

t3_32swqs

CMV: I think every citizen of the world should have their DNA sequenced and in an international database to find criminals, especially rapists.

With DNA sequencing tech being faster and cheaper why not register every single persons DNA in one international database. This would catch the majority of criminals, especially rapists. It might be an infringement on integrity but compared to what you get out of it it's well worth it. Of course insurance companies would like such a database to see who's likely to get sick and likely to die younger. But the police have databases that's not public records so why should this be different. All in all I think the pros strongly outweigh the cons. _____ > *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 every citizen of the world should have their DNA sequenced and in an international database to find criminals, especially rapists. With DNA sequencing tech being faster and cheaper why not register every single persons DNA in one international database. This would catch the majority of criminals, especially rapists. It might be an infringement on integrity but compared to what you get out of it it's well worth it. Of course insurance companies would like such a database to see who's likely to get sick and likely to die younger. But the police have databases that's not public records so why should this be different. All in all I think the pros strongly outweigh the cons.

t3_4qymfb

CMV: Tax deductions for charitable donations are undemocratic, regressive, and thus immoral

Simply put, by removing money from the community pot (pool of taxes), I am deciding for everyone what is best done with their money by getting a tax deduction for a charitable donation, and this power is undemocratic in theory and regressive in practice. Reasoning behind this if it’s not immediately obvious is that gov’t expenses will not change with regards to my tax deduction so everyone’s taxes must go up to cover the difference, thus I am making a decision on behalf of everyone. This is also regressive as most charitable donations (and thus deductions) come from people with more disposable income [and thus lightens the weight of taxes on the wealthy, which in turn increases it on the poor]. That is not to mention that many tax deductible donations could be for immoral causes (depending who you ask) though perhaps that is best addressed in another CMV. [edit] Point of clarification: I am referring to the utilization of such tax deductions being undemocratic in nature, not that we democratically approved there being such tax deductions. _____ > *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: Tax deductions for charitable donations are undemocratic, regressive, and thus immoral. Simply put, by removing money from the community pot (pool of taxes), I am deciding for everyone what is best done with their money by getting a tax deduction for a charitable donation, and this power is undemocratic in theory and regressive in practice. Reasoning behind this if it’s not immediately obvious is that gov’t expenses will not change with regards to my tax deduction so everyone’s taxes must go up to cover the difference, thus I am making a decision on behalf of everyone. This is also regressive as most charitable donations (and thus deductions) come from people with more disposable income [and thus lightens the weight of taxes on the wealthy, which in turn increases it on the poor]. That is not to mention that many tax deductible donations could be for immoral causes (depending who you ask) though perhaps that is best addressed in another CMV. [edit] Point of clarification: I am referring to the utilization of such tax deductions being undemocratic in nature, not that we democratically approved there being such tax deductions.

t3_1nzy2e

I don't believe modern government conspiracies(in the States) or aliens; CMV!

I don't understand why people look so deeply into these things or why the idea of aliens are so appealing to people, which just adds to me not believing any part of it. Why can't we just believe that things are exactly how they seem? Or is that equally conspiratorial? It seems like great material for books and movies, but seems incredibly unrealistic, but then again most of the population here in the States believes in God, which is a different story but equally unrealistic. For example, a lot of people believe that the government is digging gigantic tunnels and living quarters underground for the population to inhabit when aliens come and take over the earth (some people believe that the aliens previously lived here and are just coming back), and the government is in on all of it and is just keeping it secret. So, change my view on aliens and government conspiracies! edit: I'm getting pretty solid with the alien theories now, if someone could touch the government conspiracy side that would be great.

I don't believe modern government conspiracies(in the States) or aliens; CMV!. I don't understand why people look so deeply into these things or why the idea of aliens are so appealing to people, which just adds to me not believing any part of it. Why can't we just believe that things are exactly how they seem? Or is that equally conspiratorial? It seems like great material for books and movies, but seems incredibly unrealistic, but then again most of the population here in the States believes in God, which is a different story but equally unrealistic. For example, a lot of people believe that the government is digging gigantic tunnels and living quarters underground for the population to inhabit when aliens come and take over the earth (some people believe that the aliens previously lived here and are just coming back), and the government is in on all of it and is just keeping it secret. So, change my view on aliens and government conspiracies! edit: I'm getting pretty solid with the alien theories now, if someone could touch the government conspiracy side that would be great.

t3_537flj

CMV: Scientific progress and innovation will die in a post scarcity world.

Some of the greatest achievements of humanity have all been the result of conflict. The use of tools helped humans rise to the top of the food chain, society evolved because of safety in numbers, need for rapid decision making and neutral judgement for inter societal conflict led to primitive governments, search for stronger metals that could withstand combat led to alloys like steel and so on till even the modern age when military research developed aviation, the entire Space Race was spawned by Cold War, nuclear research attracted funding because of the promise of the Bomb and so on. Free economic conflict between private entities has also helped capitalist nations become far more efficient than communist ones, where the Government enjoys monopoly in industry. Now, of course, it could be argued that scarcity will never truly be 'gone' since human want is endless but, in a world where the overwhelming majority feel they have all they need, incentive for development, be it enhancing existing items or development of new technologies will be gone. Governments, being mirrors of their constituents, will reflect this. Even if development of technologies geared towards consumers is made, long term research that cannot show short term achievements that benefit the common man will begin to lose importance. In some part, this can already be seen with the falling funding of NASA. While enormous funds previously utilized by military have been freed up, the NASA budget continues to get reduced. _____ > *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: Scientific progress and innovation will die in a post scarcity world. Some of the greatest achievements of humanity have all been the result of conflict. The use of tools helped humans rise to the top of the food chain, society evolved because of safety in numbers, need for rapid decision making and neutral judgement for inter societal conflict led to primitive governments, search for stronger metals that could withstand combat led to alloys like steel and so on till even the modern age when military research developed aviation, the entire Space Race was spawned by Cold War, nuclear research attracted funding because of the promise of the Bomb and so on. Free economic conflict between private entities has also helped capitalist nations become far more efficient than communist ones, where the Government enjoys monopoly in industry. Now, of course, it could be argued that scarcity will never truly be 'gone' since human want is endless but, in a world where the overwhelming majority feel they have all they need, incentive for development, be it enhancing existing items or development of new technologies will be gone. Governments, being mirrors of their constituents, will reflect this. Even if development of technologies geared towards consumers is made, long term research that cannot show short term achievements that benefit the common man will begin to lose importance. In some part, this can already be seen with the falling funding of NASA. While enormous funds previously utilized by military have been freed up, the NASA budget continues to get reduced.

t3_2cgjlf

CMV: The anger and vitriol towards Unidan is overdramatic

>"Hey, man, I heard you got banned from Reddit?" "Yeah, I got into an argument with some asshole so I made a bunch of accounts and downvoted him, like, four or five times." "Haha!" Alternatively >"Hey, man, I heard you got banned from Reddit?" "Yeah, I posted a topic and I wanted to try and get it visible so I upvoted it with some bots, like, four or five times." "Haha!" Those are the hypothetical conversations I assume we would have with our friends if we found out they got banned from Reddit for the things Unidan did. There's a weird paradoxical thing I'm noticing among people deriding Unidan and it's that "imaginary Internet points don't matter" and "Unidan violated the sanctity of the Reddit voting system." I'm not sure you can be self-righteous about the latter while also believing the former? Now, those who do have a lot of ... feelings ... invested into the Reddit voting system who among them hasn't downvoted someone they disagreed with? I've downvoted someone I've disagreed with. In fact most people I downvote are people who I just really, really disagree with. I, too, have violated the sanctity of Reddit's voting system. Not only that but I believe **all** of you have too. The general all-of-you. As a rule. Should we all throw ourselves on our swords and delete our accounts? Request bans for ourselves? Should we brigade ourselves and downvote all of our own posts? Speaking of brigading ... Unidanx isn't doing so hot karma-wise and I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of his posts. Should all of those downvoters be banned? I'm just having a hard time getting as worked up as some of these other people. The following are real quotes people are making about or towards Unidan. >You benefited. Stop with the whole I didn't make any money. I saw you on CNN or some shit. You have personally benefited through fame and opportunities you would not have had without reddit. Since you were vote manipulating since before your reddit fame, it is possible that your reddit fame happened dishonestly (at least in part). I mean, shit. I wish I'd thought of a way to get famous by downvoting new posts. >Unidan - The dream of reddit >UnidanX - The reality of reddit. That's right. Unidan was the dream of Reddit, but the sober reality is a nightmare. >go away narcissist >You did not just defy the rules of the platform that you use to disseminate your knowledge and opinions, you outrageously abused the democratic spirit of the site. >He didn't wrong Reddit, he wronged science. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The anger and vitriol towards Unidan is overdramatic. >"Hey, man, I heard you got banned from Reddit?" "Yeah, I got into an argument with some asshole so I made a bunch of accounts and downvoted him, like, four or five times." "Haha!" Alternatively >"Hey, man, I heard you got banned from Reddit?" "Yeah, I posted a topic and I wanted to try and get it visible so I upvoted it with some bots, like, four or five times." "Haha!" Those are the hypothetical conversations I assume we would have with our friends if we found out they got banned from Reddit for the things Unidan did. There's a weird paradoxical thing I'm noticing among people deriding Unidan and it's that "imaginary Internet points don't matter" and "Unidan violated the sanctity of the Reddit voting system." I'm not sure you can be self-righteous about the latter while also believing the former? Now, those who do have a lot of ... feelings ... invested into the Reddit voting system who among them hasn't downvoted someone they disagreed with? I've downvoted someone I've disagreed with. In fact most people I downvote are people who I just really, really disagree with. I, too, have violated the sanctity of Reddit's voting system. Not only that but I believe **all** of you have too. The general all-of-you. As a rule. Should we all throw ourselves on our swords and delete our accounts? Request bans for ourselves? Should we brigade ourselves and downvote all of our own posts? Speaking of brigading ... Unidanx isn't doing so hot karma-wise and I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of his posts. Should all of those downvoters be banned? I'm just having a hard time getting as worked up as some of these other people. The following are real quotes people are making about or towards Unidan. >You benefited. Stop with the whole I didn't make any money. I saw you on CNN or some shit. You have personally benefited through fame and opportunities you would not have had without reddit. Since you were vote manipulating since before your reddit fame, it is possible that your reddit fame happened dishonestly (at least in part). I mean, shit. I wish I'd thought of a way to get famous by downvoting new posts. >Unidan - The dream of reddit >UnidanX - The reality of reddit. That's right. Unidan was the dream of Reddit, but the sober reality is a nightmare. >go away narcissist >You did not just defy the rules of the platform that you use to disseminate your knowledge and opinions, you outrageously abused the democratic spirit of the site. >He didn't wrong Reddit, he wronged science. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1m190e

I believe that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. CMV

I'm what most would consider a Classical Liberal. My main influences are Locke, Bassiat, and Hayek, if that gives you a general indication of my views. I think that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for its citizens. Anything outside that scope, IMO, is illegitimate and immoral. Anything outside this basic premise leads to the usurpation of power by government officials, and gives carte blanche to do whatever those in power desire. I believe that the non-aggression principle (IE: no violence is ever legitimate against a non-aggressor) is, for now, the closest to the ultimate standard of human morality that we have for now (I can go more in-depth if anyone has issues with this claim). The best government is one which is most moral towards all individuals. Thus, if my premise of non-aggression is true, the best government is that which does nothing more than protect it's citizens from aggressors. Aggressors, under this definition, are those which would deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. CMV. Edit: Thank you for the replies. I'll get to you as soon as I can, though for now it's my bedtime.

I believe that the ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. CMV. I'm what most would consider a Classical Liberal. My main influences are Locke, Bassiat, and Hayek, if that gives you a general indication of my views. I think that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for its citizens. Anything outside that scope, IMO, is illegitimate and immoral. Anything outside this basic premise leads to the usurpation of power by government officials, and gives carte blanche to do whatever those in power desire. I believe that the non-aggression principle (IE: no violence is ever legitimate against a non-aggressor) is, for now, the closest to the ultimate standard of human morality that we have for now (I can go more in-depth if anyone has issues with this claim). The best government is one which is most moral towards all individuals. Thus, if my premise of non-aggression is true, the best government is that which does nothing more than protect it's citizens from aggressors. Aggressors, under this definition, are those which would deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. CMV. Edit: Thank you for the replies. I'll get to you as soon as I can, though for now it's my bedtime.

t3_25g728

CMV: Climate change is a global issue but I refuse to accept radical change in the western world until nations like China comply

Firstly, I am all about wanting to eliminate pollution and all around live a healthier life along with leaving the environment a better place to future generations. I recycle, don't waste intentionally, etc. I do have issues with politicians flying around the world to make speeches about climate change, as they are emitting more greenhouse gases than most of the world will in a lifetime. So then I look at [Beijing](http://world.time.com/2014/01/17/sunrise-in-smoggy-beijing/) and other [parts of China](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/07/china-cancer-villages-industrial-pollution) and these are all seemingly multitudes worse than anything in the west. I also look at [other nations with areas literally floating in filth due to poor waste management and general disregard to the environment](http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/pollution/?728/indias-massive-waste-problem-gallery) and I wonder why if climate change is a global issue then there are so many other parts of said globe that are causing much more damage to the earth than the west then only the west is bending over backwards to change it. All the while restrictions are being put on various forms of energy in the west which raises the cost of said energy, thus lowering standards of living. How's this for a question: If human-made climate change is such a global disaster in the making, then why hasn't the west declared war on China? TLDR: If tomorrow came and the west magically emitted no carbon at all yet the east continued on it's same path, wouldn't climate change still be happening on a global scale due to the east? If this is the case, then why is the west lowering standards of living through increased energy costs to comply with something that cannot be fixed?

CMV: Climate change is a global issue but I refuse to accept radical change in the western world until nations like China comply. Firstly, I am all about wanting to eliminate pollution and all around live a healthier life along with leaving the environment a better place to future generations. I recycle, don't waste intentionally, etc. I do have issues with politicians flying around the world to make speeches about climate change, as they are emitting more greenhouse gases than most of the world will in a lifetime. So then I look at [Beijing](http://world.time.com/2014/01/17/sunrise-in-smoggy-beijing/) and other [parts of China](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/07/china-cancer-villages-industrial-pollution) and these are all seemingly multitudes worse than anything in the west. I also look at [other nations with areas literally floating in filth due to poor waste management and general disregard to the environment](http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/pollution/?728/indias-massive-waste-problem-gallery) and I wonder why if climate change is a global issue then there are so many other parts of said globe that are causing much more damage to the earth than the west then only the west is bending over backwards to change it. All the while restrictions are being put on various forms of energy in the west which raises the cost of said energy, thus lowering standards of living. How's this for a question: If human-made climate change is such a global disaster in the making, then why hasn't the west declared war on China? TLDR: If tomorrow came and the west magically emitted no carbon at all yet the east continued on it's same path, wouldn't climate change still be happening on a global scale due to the east? If this is the case, then why is the west lowering standards of living through increased energy costs to comply with something that cannot be fixed?

t3_6tfhd8

CMV: political parties are unnecessary and pointless

The way I see it, it's completely silly to say you are democrat or republican. To start, I see it as acting like a sheep to claim you are one. The truth is, no one shares the exact same beliefs so why say your beliefs align one side or another if you may disagree with much of what they say is their belief? Also, just look at American politics, 90% of arguments are just one side blaming the other, watch the news, it's all that happens. It would seem as if they're trying to tell you what to believe. Instead of our two party voting system, we could have a numbered voting system where you pick the order of the candidates you want in order. Through a process of elimination, so removing the one with the least votes, then those who voted for that candidate, have their votes moved to their second choice and so on until there's a winner. End note: before I get called anti-American or commie or whatever, I don't hate our voting system, but it definitely is imperfect.

CMV: political parties are unnecessary and pointless. The way I see it, it's completely silly to say you are democrat or republican. To start, I see it as acting like a sheep to claim you are one. The truth is, no one shares the exact same beliefs so why say your beliefs align one side or another if you may disagree with much of what they say is their belief? Also, just look at American politics, 90% of arguments are just one side blaming the other, watch the news, it's all that happens. It would seem as if they're trying to tell you what to believe. Instead of our two party voting system, we could have a numbered voting system where you pick the order of the candidates you want in order. Through a process of elimination, so removing the one with the least votes, then those who voted for that candidate, have their votes moved to their second choice and so on until there's a winner. End note: before I get called anti-American or commie or whatever, I don't hate our voting system, but it definitely is imperfect.

t3_4w2ual

CMV: I should vote pragmatically, instead of idealistically with possible consequences.

US General Election. You have two major candidates that have the worst negatives in history. I am an independent voter, and I believe myself to be fairly moderate. I will not vote for Trump, I don't believe he is a good person, and I think he is completely unprepared to be president. I believe in the #NeverTrump movement, not as a Republican, but as an independent who thinks that much of what the country stands for will deteriorate, and our/the global economy will be much worse off, despite his business acumen. So my task is to find a way to not let him WIN in November. This is not my CMV, just the context. Here is my personal basic description of the other two candidates which I would vote for: Hillary Clinton has almost every checkbox on her resume, and I think that whether or not her foreign policy has helped or hurt the world, the experience is a huge factor for me. (I'm a firm believer that it is near impossible to objectively and accurately judge the effects of cabinet members'/presidents' actions before 3-5 presidential terms have passed for historical perspective) Some of her domestic policies are not in line with my views, but I could live with it. Gary Johnson has executive experience, and I agree with many of his policies domestically. Although I don't currently believe he has the experience to deal with the complexities of the foreign policy playing field, I think he is more equipped and willing to listen to foreign policy advisers than Trump, so I think we'd be ok. I also agreed with his policies on the support website that's been going around more than any other candidate (by only 3% over Hillary, 87% to 84%). I think these sites create a choice bias because of the wording of the questions and the answers which you can select. There is no way to fully explain your view, and they only let you pick between the ideas of the candidates. I will phrase my dilemma as a question because at the moment I am leaning toward Hillary, but I'm still somewhat undecided: **Am I right to vote for Hillary basically as a pragmatic vote to stop Trump from gold plating the white house? Or should I vote for Gary because I align more with his views, and hope my vote doesn't help Trump get elected?** EDIT: I am from a so-called swing-state in this general election cycle. _____ > *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 should vote pragmatically, instead of idealistically with possible consequences. US General Election. You have two major candidates that have the worst negatives in history. I am an independent voter, and I believe myself to be fairly moderate. I will not vote for Trump, I don't believe he is a good person, and I think he is completely unprepared to be president. I believe in the #NeverTrump movement, not as a Republican, but as an independent who thinks that much of what the country stands for will deteriorate, and our/the global economy will be much worse off, despite his business acumen. So my task is to find a way to not let him WIN in November. This is not my CMV, just the context. Here is my personal basic description of the other two candidates which I would vote for: Hillary Clinton has almost every checkbox on her resume, and I think that whether or not her foreign policy has helped or hurt the world, the experience is a huge factor for me. (I'm a firm believer that it is near impossible to objectively and accurately judge the effects of cabinet members'/presidents' actions before 3-5 presidential terms have passed for historical perspective) Some of her domestic policies are not in line with my views, but I could live with it. Gary Johnson has executive experience, and I agree with many of his policies domestically. Although I don't currently believe he has the experience to deal with the complexities of the foreign policy playing field, I think he is more equipped and willing to listen to foreign policy advisers than Trump, so I think we'd be ok. I also agreed with his policies on the support website that's been going around more than any other candidate (by only 3% over Hillary, 87% to 84%). I think these sites create a choice bias because of the wording of the questions and the answers which you can select. There is no way to fully explain your view, and they only let you pick between the ideas of the candidates. I will phrase my dilemma as a question because at the moment I am leaning toward Hillary, but I'm still somewhat undecided: **Am I right to vote for Hillary basically as a pragmatic vote to stop Trump from gold plating the white house? Or should I vote for Gary because I align more with his views, and hope my vote doesn't help Trump get elected?** EDIT: I am from a so-called swing-state in this general election cycle.

t3_3ra91y

CMV: There's no need (or good use) for mouthwash if I already brush and floss my teeth

I brush. I floss. Should I also be using mouthwash? I think not. In the interest of optimal oral hygiene I'd like to be proven wrong. I did like the minty taste of mouthwash when I tried to use it last year but I'd rather just brush my teeth again or rinse my mouth with some minty toothpaste than buy bottles of mouthwash when I don't need to. To change my view you'd need to show me that using mouthwash is beneficial when one is already practising good oral hygiene. I'd prefer evidence over anecdotes if possible. ********** Edit #1: ∆ to /u/NOAHA202 for their help in finding some good reasons to use mouthwash. Edit #2: ∆ to /u/PepperoniFire for the point about social etiquette. Edit #3: ∆ to /u/aint_frontin_whi_chu for explaining a minor benefit. View changed. Thanks everyone. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's no need (or good use) for mouthwash if I already brush and floss my teeth. I brush. I floss. Should I also be using mouthwash? I think not. In the interest of optimal oral hygiene I'd like to be proven wrong. I did like the minty taste of mouthwash when I tried to use it last year but I'd rather just brush my teeth again or rinse my mouth with some minty toothpaste than buy bottles of mouthwash when I don't need to. To change my view you'd need to show me that using mouthwash is beneficial when one is already practising good oral hygiene. I'd prefer evidence over anecdotes if possible. ********** Edit #1: ∆ to /u/NOAHA202 for their help in finding some good reasons to use mouthwash. Edit #2: ∆ to /u/PepperoniFire for the point about social etiquette. Edit #3: ∆ to /u/aint_frontin_whi_chu for explaining a minor benefit. View changed. Thanks everyone.

t3_6k5vzf

CMV: The generation gap between left-wing and right-wing is closing, not widening.

I've read some articles state that it's become more of a chasm but that couldn't be further from the truth. Division of ideology is not as clear cut by generation. The internet has really shifted and changed how people respond and adopt to ideas. The exchange of ideas and growth of communities for almost anything imaginable actually gives once-dying ideas another lifeline. And the truth is, as far as politics go, many millennials hate other millennials. Just as conservative baby boomers hate hippies, despite being born in the same span of time. Although there is a shift towards more progressive ideologies, it's actually making the distribution of political affiliation more evened out. This new "alt right" movement (not the original alt-right which was produced by white supremacists) are mostly made up of a new generation of people, in their teens to 20's. They're not stodgy old, technologically illiterate men. They skew younger, are just as politically aware and much more precocious when it comes to using the internet. They can drive movements and carry pro-right brigades to make themselves heard. The counter-movement against leftist PC culture has passed the torch to a lot of younger people, and knows no generational bounds. And I very much doubt that the average /pol/ visitor is a baby boomer. So, see if you can change my view. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The generation gap between left-wing and right-wing is closing, not widening. I've read some articles state that it's become more of a chasm but that couldn't be further from the truth. Division of ideology is not as clear cut by generation. The internet has really shifted and changed how people respond and adopt to ideas. The exchange of ideas and growth of communities for almost anything imaginable actually gives once-dying ideas another lifeline. And the truth is, as far as politics go, many millennials hate other millennials. Just as conservative baby boomers hate hippies, despite being born in the same span of time. Although there is a shift towards more progressive ideologies, it's actually making the distribution of political affiliation more evened out. This new "alt right" movement (not the original alt-right which was produced by white supremacists) are mostly made up of a new generation of people, in their teens to 20's. They're not stodgy old, technologically illiterate men. They skew younger, are just as politically aware and much more precocious when it comes to using the internet. They can drive movements and carry pro-right brigades to make themselves heard. The counter-movement against leftist PC culture has passed the torch to a lot of younger people, and knows no generational bounds. And I very much doubt that the average /pol/ visitor is a baby boomer. So, see if you can change my view. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post.

t3_5i24tu

CMV: Private entities are required to secure their own systems. As such, Russia hacking of DNC (and RNC) computer systems is not a matter of national intelligence and we should not be investing resources into it.

Over the past couple of days there have been calls to investigate alleged Russian involvement and influence in the US election. To be clear, I fully support investigating any tampering with voting systems or government computer systems. However, we should not commit national intelligence resources and time to investigate security issues for which the private entities themselves should be held accountable. I'll address two common counterarguments below: One common argument is that international law has been broken: "any activities that attempt, directly or indirectly, to interfere in the free development of national electoral processes or that are intended to sway the results of such processes, violate the spirit and letter of the principles established in the Charter and in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." I am not convinced that public release of private documents reaches the threshold of interfering with the development of electoral processes. Again, if voting systems were hacked and votes were falsified this would of course be a violation, but simply providing the electorate with more information, if anything, only enhances the electoral process. Others have argued that because the release was somehow unequal that this was an "unfair" release. Though it may be true that release of documents favored one candidate over another, so do many other things throughout the course of a campaign. The leaking of private documents has been a factor for years, and the protection of private data should be in the hands of the private entity. The DNC does not deserve special government security status as a private entity over any other private computer systems. If Joe Exotic's personal computer was to be hacked and posted to Wikileaks it would be a non event. Edit1: I would like to clarify that classified information such as weapon technology stored on companies that contract with the government should be protected. Political campaign communication does not fall in this category, and if there is classified information contained in these communications then the private entity should be held accountable for ensuring its security, rather than be protected by our institutions when they fail to secure 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: Private entities are required to secure their own systems. As such, Russia hacking of DNC (and RNC) computer systems is not a matter of national intelligence and we should not be investing resources into it. Over the past couple of days there have been calls to investigate alleged Russian involvement and influence in the US election. To be clear, I fully support investigating any tampering with voting systems or government computer systems. However, we should not commit national intelligence resources and time to investigate security issues for which the private entities themselves should be held accountable. I'll address two common counterarguments below: One common argument is that international law has been broken: "any activities that attempt, directly or indirectly, to interfere in the free development of national electoral processes or that are intended to sway the results of such processes, violate the spirit and letter of the principles established in the Charter and in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." I am not convinced that public release of private documents reaches the threshold of interfering with the development of electoral processes. Again, if voting systems were hacked and votes were falsified this would of course be a violation, but simply providing the electorate with more information, if anything, only enhances the electoral process. Others have argued that because the release was somehow unequal that this was an "unfair" release. Though it may be true that release of documents favored one candidate over another, so do many other things throughout the course of a campaign. The leaking of private documents has been a factor for years, and the protection of private data should be in the hands of the private entity. The DNC does not deserve special government security status as a private entity over any other private computer systems. If Joe Exotic's personal computer was to be hacked and posted to Wikileaks it would be a non event. Edit1: I would like to clarify that classified information such as weapon technology stored on companies that contract with the government should be protected. Political campaign communication does not fall in this category, and if there is classified information contained in these communications then the private entity should be held accountable for ensuring its security, rather than be protected by our institutions when they fail to secure it.

t3_72x5w7

CMV: Prenups are never a bad thing.

I believe it's a good idea for couples getting married to get a prenup. Even if neither party enters a marriage with substantial savings, assets, or debt, clearly outlining what each person is entitled to in the event of a divorce seems like a sensible idea. It's especially reasonable given the statistical incidence of divorce and the fact that many divorces are painful and drawn out due to disagreements over what each person is entitled to receive. A prenup, to some extent, would alleviate this problem, though it's by no means a complete solution. Some people say prenups presume failure in marriage. Others argue that we purchase auto insurance, life insurance, flood insurance, home insurance, etc... They say that we purchase insurance *just in case* something happens, that the insurance doesn't *presume* failure, but rather *prepares* for the possibility. Yet others say that marriage is between people - it's not an inanimate or amorphous entity to be considered in a cold way, and so the logic applied to insurance shouldn't have merit when applied to people. But in our dealings with others, haven't we all experienced the temporariness of strong passion? Haven't we all been angry, or held a grudge, etc...and come to reflect later on the situation, on the feelings, only to come to a more intelligent, informed point of view. Though we may "love each other SO MUCH", isn't it still reasonable and appropriate to get a prenup, which protects us even from our own inability to accept the potential temporariness of our emotions? I find it extremely challenging to conceive of a reason, rooted in rationality, to **not** get a prenup. 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: Prenups are never a bad thing. I believe it's a good idea for couples getting married to get a prenup. Even if neither party enters a marriage with substantial savings, assets, or debt, clearly outlining what each person is entitled to in the event of a divorce seems like a sensible idea. It's especially reasonable given the statistical incidence of divorce and the fact that many divorces are painful and drawn out due to disagreements over what each person is entitled to receive. A prenup, to some extent, would alleviate this problem, though it's by no means a complete solution. Some people say prenups presume failure in marriage. Others argue that we purchase auto insurance, life insurance, flood insurance, home insurance, etc... They say that we purchase insurance *just in case* something happens, that the insurance doesn't *presume* failure, but rather *prepares* for the possibility. Yet others say that marriage is between people - it's not an inanimate or amorphous entity to be considered in a cold way, and so the logic applied to insurance shouldn't have merit when applied to people. But in our dealings with others, haven't we all experienced the temporariness of strong passion? Haven't we all been angry, or held a grudge, etc...and come to reflect later on the situation, on the feelings, only to come to a more intelligent, informed point of view. Though we may "love each other SO MUCH", isn't it still reasonable and appropriate to get a prenup, which protects us even from our own inability to accept the potential temporariness of our emotions? I find it extremely challenging to conceive of a reason, rooted in rationality, to **not** get a prenup. CMV.

t3_6vmuv9

CMV: The death penalty is right to be banned and I feel it is inhumane

I'm from the U.K and personally I'm happy that he don't have the death penalty. I don't believe that it is justified within any instance. I understand that there are people out there who commit such heinous crimes that it is right to believe that they won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be released on the streets; but in my mind this doesn't justify execution. I'm interested to hear particularly from anyone who is from an area where the death penalty is allowed. In my view, no matter whether the prisoner is executed or spends the rest of their life miserably in a cell, there is no such thing as 'true justice'

CMV: The death penalty is right to be banned and I feel it is inhumane. I'm from the U.K and personally I'm happy that he don't have the death penalty. I don't believe that it is justified within any instance. I understand that there are people out there who commit such heinous crimes that it is right to believe that they won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be released on the streets; but in my mind this doesn't justify execution. I'm interested to hear particularly from anyone who is from an area where the death penalty is allowed. In my view, no matter whether the prisoner is executed or spends the rest of their life miserably in a cell, there is no such thing as 'true justice'

t3_1datac

I never tip in restaurants, delivery, etc. CMV

I think the idea that you work for less than minimum wage under the expectation of tips is stupid. Why do you hate me for not tipping, when in reality you should hate the system that propagates this expectation. Don't hate the player, hate the game as they say. It's an archaic social custom that needs to be abolished. Some states in the United States pay their employees minimum wage regardless of tips, maybe we should look into that, rather than expecting the person you serve to make up for it. It's not a matter of me being cheap, I just don't believe tipping should be some standard social etiquette. Edit: Tipping in itself is *okay* but the system we have now of *expecting* tips is what bugs me the most.

I never tip in restaurants, delivery, etc. CMV. I think the idea that you work for less than minimum wage under the expectation of tips is stupid. Why do you hate me for not tipping, when in reality you should hate the system that propagates this expectation. Don't hate the player, hate the game as they say. It's an archaic social custom that needs to be abolished. Some states in the United States pay their employees minimum wage regardless of tips, maybe we should look into that, rather than expecting the person you serve to make up for it. It's not a matter of me being cheap, I just don't believe tipping should be some standard social etiquette. Edit: Tipping in itself is *okay* but the system we have now of *expecting* tips is what bugs me the most.

t3_1qs7jg

I hate moms - CMV

Edit: I've been asked to change this to specify that I hate a "large majority of mothers that I meet" as opposed to all moms for clarity reasons. I am a new mom with a four month old and recently I have been subjected to the culture of modern mothering. I have discovered that the majority of moms that I meet are the most self righteous, judgmental, ignorant people I've ever met. It has gotten to the point where I refuse to join “mommy groups” because I have an incredibly hard time staying polite when a mom makes negative comments about a mother formula feeding her baby. They proudly display and push their parenting techniques and when you question the concept these ideals are based on (working moms, anti vaccine, co-sleeping, etc.) you are a bully. I recently told a mother that informed me I was "poisoning my child with vaccines" that she was being an idiot on a Facebook mom group. Instantly I was banned from the group and my message inbox was flooding with messages from other mothers informing me that I needed to "stick up for other mothers" and not to be "destructive to my own kind". One even went so far as to call me an “asshole mom”, which I found ironic. Moms are quick to cry fowl when someone questions their beliefs and refuse to listen to opposing views maturely. I believe mothers attempt to find something wrong with their babies (autism, gluten allergies, etc.) as a form of sympathetic acceptance and are in large part to blame for the popularity of fad diseases. I believe this vulture like culture of moms only happens in upper middle class white women who have the free time to spend on caring how others raise their children and attempting to change their views on parenting aspects. I also don't believe being a stay at home mom is a "real job". I greatly dislike mothers who drop lines such as "I don't get a weekend off" or "I don't get paid for working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!" If you want to consider it a job, you should consider it the easiest job in the whole world and be lucky that you’ve been granted it. I think it shows an incredible amount of entitlement when statements like that are made to people who work or to mothers who do both. A lot of my friends who have had babies now refuse to leave the house because they “don’t want to drive on the highway” or “don’t want the baby to get cold” so I am alone a lot of the day which leaves me open to the rhetoric on Facebook regarding how not co-sleeping with your child is destroying our society. I refuse to have my life stop when we had a child. We take her everywhere and she is a wonderful baby who rarely cries. I just don’t understand why as soon as you become a mom you have to forget about your old self and dreams and not focus all your energy onto making others parent the way you think is best. Please help me change my view.

I hate moms - CMV. Edit: I've been asked to change this to specify that I hate a "large majority of mothers that I meet" as opposed to all moms for clarity reasons. I am a new mom with a four month old and recently I have been subjected to the culture of modern mothering. I have discovered that the majority of moms that I meet are the most self righteous, judgmental, ignorant people I've ever met. It has gotten to the point where I refuse to join “mommy groups” because I have an incredibly hard time staying polite when a mom makes negative comments about a mother formula feeding her baby. They proudly display and push their parenting techniques and when you question the concept these ideals are based on (working moms, anti vaccine, co-sleeping, etc.) you are a bully. I recently told a mother that informed me I was "poisoning my child with vaccines" that she was being an idiot on a Facebook mom group. Instantly I was banned from the group and my message inbox was flooding with messages from other mothers informing me that I needed to "stick up for other mothers" and not to be "destructive to my own kind". One even went so far as to call me an “asshole mom”, which I found ironic. Moms are quick to cry fowl when someone questions their beliefs and refuse to listen to opposing views maturely. I believe mothers attempt to find something wrong with their babies (autism, gluten allergies, etc.) as a form of sympathetic acceptance and are in large part to blame for the popularity of fad diseases. I believe this vulture like culture of moms only happens in upper middle class white women who have the free time to spend on caring how others raise their children and attempting to change their views on parenting aspects. I also don't believe being a stay at home mom is a "real job". I greatly dislike mothers who drop lines such as "I don't get a weekend off" or "I don't get paid for working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!" If you want to consider it a job, you should consider it the easiest job in the whole world and be lucky that you’ve been granted it. I think it shows an incredible amount of entitlement when statements like that are made to people who work or to mothers who do both. A lot of my friends who have had babies now refuse to leave the house because they “don’t want to drive on the highway” or “don’t want the baby to get cold” so I am alone a lot of the day which leaves me open to the rhetoric on Facebook regarding how not co-sleeping with your child is destroying our society. I refuse to have my life stop when we had a child. We take her everywhere and she is a wonderful baby who rarely cries. I just don’t understand why as soon as you become a mom you have to forget about your old self and dreams and not focus all your energy onto making others parent the way you think is best. Please help me change my view.

t3_246np5

CMV: I think rap music hurts blacks in America.

[This image is a gross oversimplification of my thoughts on the issue.](http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/9/2/9/1/9/3/black-50s-vs-now-89424292497.jpeg) Granted, I wasn't around during the period between the 1920's and 1970's so I have no direct experience with blacks during that time period, but it seems that once rap reared it's head in the 90's black culture seems entirely too focused on drugs, sex and violence. When my ex-wife taught school in Baltimore City a major insult between students was teasing that you were "acting white" when trying to learn and behave, which then reinforced students to "act more black" which essentially emulated rap and hip-hop culture (talking about and performing sex acts, cursing, drugs, bad behavior, etc...). Mind you, these were 13 year olds whose role models were almost exclusively rap artists. This is what my wife at the time told me when she came home from work crying, so this is my evidence for this belief. Personally, I feel that rap/hip-hop music, more often than not, sets an extremely bad example for youth (of any people, but primarily blacks). I think a lot of black ills in America come directly from the violent, lackadaisical, sex & drugs oriented nature present in rap music as it glorifies horrible behavior and poor role models. "Thug life" should not be a "cool" thing. _____ > *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 rap music hurts blacks in America. [This image is a gross oversimplification of my thoughts on the issue.](http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/9/2/9/1/9/3/black-50s-vs-now-89424292497.jpeg) Granted, I wasn't around during the period between the 1920's and 1970's so I have no direct experience with blacks during that time period, but it seems that once rap reared it's head in the 90's black culture seems entirely too focused on drugs, sex and violence. When my ex-wife taught school in Baltimore City a major insult between students was teasing that you were "acting white" when trying to learn and behave, which then reinforced students to "act more black" which essentially emulated rap and hip-hop culture (talking about and performing sex acts, cursing, drugs, bad behavior, etc...). Mind you, these were 13 year olds whose role models were almost exclusively rap artists. This is what my wife at the time told me when she came home from work crying, so this is my evidence for this belief. Personally, I feel that rap/hip-hop music, more often than not, sets an extremely bad example for youth (of any people, but primarily blacks). I think a lot of black ills in America come directly from the violent, lackadaisical, sex & drugs oriented nature present in rap music as it glorifies horrible behavior and poor role models. "Thug life" should not be a "cool" thing.

t3_2dpeqk

CMV: I think the term 'slut' is only derogatory to make ugly people fell better about themselves.

This is slightly anecdotal but the only people who use the word 'slut' very often ugly people. These are the people who have a more difficult time dating and eventually becoming intimate, so jealously drives them to come up with a derogatory term to try to even the score with attractive people. I am a heterosexual male so I do view this as a bit of an outsider. I do respect women and their decisions, who to have sex with being one of them. I do have the assumption it is far easier for girls to have sex than guys. I don't think that sex in inherently immoral, it can be abused, but so can everything else in the universe. Unsafe sex is dangerous. If a girl is dating a guy and cheats on him, that is clearly wrong, it is a violation of trust, but that is not what I am talking about. If a girl has had a lot of boyfriends, or casual hookups this should not be viewed as something horrible. Just because something is easier it does not mean that it is worse. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think the term 'slut' is only derogatory to make ugly people fell better about themselves. This is slightly anecdotal but the only people who use the word 'slut' very often ugly people. These are the people who have a more difficult time dating and eventually becoming intimate, so jealously drives them to come up with a derogatory term to try to even the score with attractive people. I am a heterosexual male so I do view this as a bit of an outsider. I do respect women and their decisions, who to have sex with being one of them. I do have the assumption it is far easier for girls to have sex than guys. I don't think that sex in inherently immoral, it can be abused, but so can everything else in the universe. Unsafe sex is dangerous. If a girl is dating a guy and cheats on him, that is clearly wrong, it is a violation of trust, but that is not what I am talking about. If a girl has had a lot of boyfriends, or casual hookups this should not be viewed as something horrible. Just because something is easier it does not mean that it is worse. Change my view.

t3_47sjhv

CMV: Ross and Rachel *were* on a break, but Ross was still in the wrong

I've always sided with Rachel in the break up debate. Not to say that Rachel takes *no* fault, because they definitely both made mistakes that night. But ultimately, Ross was in the wrong and Rachel was right to break up with him. 1) They never defined what "taking a break" meant. Yes, they *were* on a break. But clearly Rachel thinks this means something different from a "break up" because during their fight Ross says "I thought we were broken up" and Rachel says "we were on a break!" clearly implying that being on a break isn't the same thing as being broken up. 2) A break would imply spending some time apart for self reflection and personal space. The ultimate goal would be reconciliation, and during this time I would think it fair to assume that both parties should remain faithful to one another. Much like taking a vacation from work (let's assume you have a non-compete agreement); you aren't actively working for the company that week but you also can't do contracting work for the competitor down the road, either. 3) If reconciliation is the goal, remaining faithful is an obvious way to show your partner you're committed to working things out between you. Ross recognizes that what he did was wrong, as he spends so much effort making sure that Rachel didn't find out what happened. 4) There was no final "we're broken up" one way or the other. Ross walks out of the room during their initial argument, and later when they are in the process of making up over the phone, he hangs up on her without giving her a chance to explain. It was presumptuous for him to assume to they were broken up, and therefor no longer committed to each other. In fact, it is my firm belief that he didn't think they were broken up. Rather, he assumed the worst when he heard Mark's voice, assumed Rachel was going to sleep with him, and proceeded to sleep with the copy girl as revenge. 5) Ultimately, Ross is in the wrong because he only decides he was in the right *after* Rachel ended the relationship for good. At first he is ridden with guilt, feels awful for what did, and is clearly remorseful. When Rachel doesn't forgive him, his pride kicks in. He's angry and bitter at *himself* for screwing up his relationship with Rachel, and projects that anger towards Rachel in an attempt to make himself not seem like the bad guy. He's simply incapable of accepting fault, and this is the equivalent of a grown man's temper tantrum when his parents won't buy him a new ice cream because he threw the first one on the floor in anger. _____ > *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: Ross and Rachel *were* on a break, but Ross was still in the wrong. I've always sided with Rachel in the break up debate. Not to say that Rachel takes *no* fault, because they definitely both made mistakes that night. But ultimately, Ross was in the wrong and Rachel was right to break up with him. 1) They never defined what "taking a break" meant. Yes, they *were* on a break. But clearly Rachel thinks this means something different from a "break up" because during their fight Ross says "I thought we were broken up" and Rachel says "we were on a break!" clearly implying that being on a break isn't the same thing as being broken up. 2) A break would imply spending some time apart for self reflection and personal space. The ultimate goal would be reconciliation, and during this time I would think it fair to assume that both parties should remain faithful to one another. Much like taking a vacation from work (let's assume you have a non-compete agreement); you aren't actively working for the company that week but you also can't do contracting work for the competitor down the road, either. 3) If reconciliation is the goal, remaining faithful is an obvious way to show your partner you're committed to working things out between you. Ross recognizes that what he did was wrong, as he spends so much effort making sure that Rachel didn't find out what happened. 4) There was no final "we're broken up" one way or the other. Ross walks out of the room during their initial argument, and later when they are in the process of making up over the phone, he hangs up on her without giving her a chance to explain. It was presumptuous for him to assume to they were broken up, and therefor no longer committed to each other. In fact, it is my firm belief that he didn't think they were broken up. Rather, he assumed the worst when he heard Mark's voice, assumed Rachel was going to sleep with him, and proceeded to sleep with the copy girl as revenge. 5) Ultimately, Ross is in the wrong because he only decides he was in the right *after* Rachel ended the relationship for good. At first he is ridden with guilt, feels awful for what did, and is clearly remorseful. When Rachel doesn't forgive him, his pride kicks in. He's angry and bitter at *himself* for screwing up his relationship with Rachel, and projects that anger towards Rachel in an attempt to make himself not seem like the bad guy. He's simply incapable of accepting fault, and this is the equivalent of a grown man's temper tantrum when his parents won't buy him a new ice cream because he threw the first one on the floor in anger.

t3_65zoaw

CMV: Piracy isn't significantly damaging, especially to large companies

"All piracy is lost sales!" This is objectively wrong. From what I understand, a sizeable portion of the piraters weren't going to buy the game anyways, so a lot of these purported "lost sales" were never sales to begin with. Also, some people use pirating as a means of demoing the game before deciding whether or not they want to buy it. So, ironically, it's not out of the question that you can *lose* sales by fitting your game with the latest anti-cracking software. Look what CD Projekt Red did. They made Witcher 3 super easy to pirate (you don't even have to go to a torrent site!), and they still pulled a good profit. That's because they're not focused on fighting the pirates, they're focused on convincing the pirates to not pirate by gaining their trust. Projekt Red has proven that if you have earned a solid reputation and a loyal customer base, pirates become a minuscule threat. Bigger companies like Ubisoft or EA don't get this luxury, because their less-than-glowing track records have made their names something almost akin to curse words. People don't trust them, and some will pirate their games out of spite or contempt. Throwing Denuvo on your game is the bad way of stopping piracy. The better way is to not be a shitty developer. Edit: I do realize that I sort of trailed off the topic at the end. My bad. Edit 2: I've been at this for an hour. Might get back to this when I feel like 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: Piracy isn't significantly damaging, especially to large companies. "All piracy is lost sales!" This is objectively wrong. From what I understand, a sizeable portion of the piraters weren't going to buy the game anyways, so a lot of these purported "lost sales" were never sales to begin with. Also, some people use pirating as a means of demoing the game before deciding whether or not they want to buy it. So, ironically, it's not out of the question that you can *lose* sales by fitting your game with the latest anti-cracking software. Look what CD Projekt Red did. They made Witcher 3 super easy to pirate (you don't even have to go to a torrent site!), and they still pulled a good profit. That's because they're not focused on fighting the pirates, they're focused on convincing the pirates to not pirate by gaining their trust. Projekt Red has proven that if you have earned a solid reputation and a loyal customer base, pirates become a minuscule threat. Bigger companies like Ubisoft or EA don't get this luxury, because their less-than-glowing track records have made their names something almost akin to curse words. People don't trust them, and some will pirate their games out of spite or contempt. Throwing Denuvo on your game is the bad way of stopping piracy. The better way is to not be a shitty developer. Edit: I do realize that I sort of trailed off the topic at the end. My bad. Edit 2: I've been at this for an hour. Might get back to this when I feel like it.

t3_3ikck6

CMV: The McWhopper is an attempt by BK to put a smaller burger with lettuce shreds and a square of cheese on top of the thick tomato, onion, and pickles of the wider Whopper.

I've heard people mentioning that McD is way bigger than BK, especially globally. They are trying to get the big dog to give a minor competitor some free advertising, like how ICP disses Eminem. This is true, but when you make the described McWhopper, the Mc looks more like a prick, and the Whopper is the big bopper. Exhibit A: A picture of [the two burgers, and the proposed McWhopper](http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_35/750596/mcwhopper-tease-today-150826_47784d907f6915cdba5beac1575aeefa.today-inline-large.jpg). Notice the lettuce and other vegetables of the Whopper look far superior to the Mac's stringy lettuce and square of cheese. The BK paddy is bigger and more appetizing, even though the Big Mac has two (but the McWhopper has one of each!) Exhibit B: A 1988 BK commercial that claims [3 out of 4 people prefer the Whopper to the Big Mac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOf4234t2ho), emphasizing size and cooking style. I found a lot more, BK has been using comparative advertising for a while. Exhibit C: A Dutch commercial from BK about how [Whopper är godast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkw8aGHTixw), which I think means Whopper is better/best. Anyway, notice how the fresh lettuce, tomato, and onions are shown off with splashing water like a Bon Jovi video. Exhibit D: An embarrassingly lame "rap" commercial again hitting the [superior, sexy vegetables](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDN1oxtw6GA), flame-grilled patty, and the "have it your way" slogan that began in opposition to Mcd's original policy of "eat it the way we make it" (that has since changed). So ultimately, BK has succeeded because they've convinced a bunch of people to buy a Big Mac and Whopper (the Whopper costs more) and put the less sexy one on top of the supposed King of burgers and take a picture for Tumblr or whatnot. The blip in sales and advertising is a bigger deal for the King than the Clown. By the way, I prefer Taco Bell.

CMV: The McWhopper is an attempt by BK to put a smaller burger with lettuce shreds and a square of cheese on top of the thick tomato, onion, and pickles of the wider Whopper. I've heard people mentioning that McD is way bigger than BK, especially globally. They are trying to get the big dog to give a minor competitor some free advertising, like how ICP disses Eminem. This is true, but when you make the described McWhopper, the Mc looks more like a prick, and the Whopper is the big bopper. Exhibit A: A picture of [the two burgers, and the proposed McWhopper](http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_35/750596/mcwhopper-tease-today-150826_47784d907f6915cdba5beac1575aeefa.today-inline-large.jpg). Notice the lettuce and other vegetables of the Whopper look far superior to the Mac's stringy lettuce and square of cheese. The BK paddy is bigger and more appetizing, even though the Big Mac has two (but the McWhopper has one of each!) Exhibit B: A 1988 BK commercial that claims [3 out of 4 people prefer the Whopper to the Big Mac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOf4234t2ho), emphasizing size and cooking style. I found a lot more, BK has been using comparative advertising for a while. Exhibit C: A Dutch commercial from BK about how [Whopper är godast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkw8aGHTixw), which I think means Whopper is better/best. Anyway, notice how the fresh lettuce, tomato, and onions are shown off with splashing water like a Bon Jovi video. Exhibit D: An embarrassingly lame "rap" commercial again hitting the [superior, sexy vegetables](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDN1oxtw6GA), flame-grilled patty, and the "have it your way" slogan that began in opposition to Mcd's original policy of "eat it the way we make it" (that has since changed). So ultimately, BK has succeeded because they've convinced a bunch of people to buy a Big Mac and Whopper (the Whopper costs more) and put the less sexy one on top of the supposed King of burgers and take a picture for Tumblr or whatnot. The blip in sales and advertising is a bigger deal for the King than the Clown. By the way, I prefer Taco Bell.

t3_3yscv0

CMV: The word Afro-American is discriminating and shouldn't be used

Disclaimer: I am not black. Even in the best case scenario I'm arguing for the sake of others here, not my own. We don't say Caucasian-American when we're talking about people of European descent. I've barely heard the word Asian-American, if ever. So why do we use the word Afro-American? Often cited in News or Television, we refer to black people as Afro-Americans, because somehow we don't want to call them that, black. But the word creates a rift between communities, or at least it does in my opinion, because, for whatever reason it has to be pointed out that this person is of African descent, even if he or she isn't, and his or her family has been living in America for generations. Isn't that person just as American as you are? And then the crazy notion that a person, just at hand of their skin colour, belongs to a certain group, even if they're not even American in the first place. I think words shape our society. And I also believe that calling someone else an Afro-American aids in seperating said man or woman from our culture. If skin colour or race belongs relevant to the discussion, mention it, but otherwise what do you have to gain by making the gap between different subgroups bigger every single time you open your mouth? With all that being said, I'd be really interested to read as to what other people have to say about this topic. _____ > *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 word Afro-American is discriminating and shouldn't be used. Disclaimer: I am not black. Even in the best case scenario I'm arguing for the sake of others here, not my own. We don't say Caucasian-American when we're talking about people of European descent. I've barely heard the word Asian-American, if ever. So why do we use the word Afro-American? Often cited in News or Television, we refer to black people as Afro-Americans, because somehow we don't want to call them that, black. But the word creates a rift between communities, or at least it does in my opinion, because, for whatever reason it has to be pointed out that this person is of African descent, even if he or she isn't, and his or her family has been living in America for generations. Isn't that person just as American as you are? And then the crazy notion that a person, just at hand of their skin colour, belongs to a certain group, even if they're not even American in the first place. I think words shape our society. And I also believe that calling someone else an Afro-American aids in seperating said man or woman from our culture. If skin colour or race belongs relevant to the discussion, mention it, but otherwise what do you have to gain by making the gap between different subgroups bigger every single time you open your mouth? With all that being said, I'd be really interested to read as to what other people have to say about this topic. _____ > *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_1kfjnl

I believe that the current design of the European Union is flawed, and furthermore that there is no viable solution - it will crumble or disband. CMV

The current state of the European Union: Currently, the EU is in an economic spiral. Greece, Italy, Spain, and others are economically stagnant, sovereign banks have required bail-outs to no real effect, and the EU just posted their first quarter with GDP growth in the last year and a half (the growth was trivially above 0%). Greek and Spanish unemployment rates are about 25%, Ireland’s is 14%, and the unemployment rate for people under 24 in Spain is over 50%. Perhaps more importantly, [Germany has been outstripping the rest of the Eurozone economically]( http://dareconomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/industrial-production-eurozone.jpg) , and it is reflected in European implicit price deflators for GDP – essentially, German production has rendered every other economy in mainland Europe uncompetitive, as anything Germany produces is cheaper. Normally, this would not be a problem; if the US price deflator rose faster than the UK’s, (substituting the UK for Germany and the US for another Eurozone economy), the burden of adjustment would be placed on the exchange rate, and the dollar would fall in value relative to the pound, so the US would stay economically relevant with regard to trade. But, as the entire Eurozone is on the Euro, there is no exchange rate to rebalance. Therefore, I believe that the EU’s current structure is failing, and cannot be saved. It is only a question of whether or not it disbands before the system collapses and the Eurozone entirely falls out of economic relevancy. Change my view.

I believe that the current design of the European Union is flawed, and furthermore that there is no viable solution - it will crumble or disband. CMV. The current state of the European Union: Currently, the EU is in an economic spiral. Greece, Italy, Spain, and others are economically stagnant, sovereign banks have required bail-outs to no real effect, and the EU just posted their first quarter with GDP growth in the last year and a half (the growth was trivially above 0%). Greek and Spanish unemployment rates are about 25%, Ireland’s is 14%, and the unemployment rate for people under 24 in Spain is over 50%. Perhaps more importantly, [Germany has been outstripping the rest of the Eurozone economically]( http://dareconomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/industrial-production-eurozone.jpg) , and it is reflected in European implicit price deflators for GDP – essentially, German production has rendered every other economy in mainland Europe uncompetitive, as anything Germany produces is cheaper. Normally, this would not be a problem; if the US price deflator rose faster than the UK’s, (substituting the UK for Germany and the US for another Eurozone economy), the burden of adjustment would be placed on the exchange rate, and the dollar would fall in value relative to the pound, so the US would stay economically relevant with regard to trade. But, as the entire Eurozone is on the Euro, there is no exchange rate to rebalance. Therefore, I believe that the EU’s current structure is failing, and cannot be saved. It is only a question of whether or not it disbands before the system collapses and the Eurozone entirely falls out of economic relevancy. Change my view.

t3_2pmym2

CMV: The normalizing of relations with Cuba is a good thing.

I believe that the normalizing of relations with Cuba is a good thing and am hopeful that this will lead to an end of the 50+ year embargo we've had against the country. I believe that the embargo has done more harm to the citizens of Cuba in blocking them from accessing western goods and has given the Castro regime a platform to maintain their power on by garnering approval by "fighting against the oppressive capitalist United States." I believe that the United States exercising its soft power can convince Cubans that democracy and capitalism can improve their lives and will allow for reforms to be instituted within the country. EDIT: To help clarify, I'm arguing that the normalizing of relations to Cuba and the hopeful lifting of the embargo will benefit both the United States and Cubans. For more of my reasoning and thoughts on this, please see my comment below to /u/stevegcook _____ I've seen Marco Rubio's take on this issue and I honestly have not been able to take him seriously, but if someone can cite me more info that backs up his claims then I will be able to take his points much more seriously. I'm looking for counter points to my view and possible info that back ups claims like Marco Rubio's. I'll also be the first to admit, if you haven't picked up on it already, that I do tend to have a liberal bias. EDIT: If you're curious here is an interview with Rubio were he expresses his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygusDVeya9U _____ 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[1] . 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[2] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki[3] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us[4] . Happy CMVing!

CMV: The normalizing of relations with Cuba is a good thing. I believe that the normalizing of relations with Cuba is a good thing and am hopeful that this will lead to an end of the 50+ year embargo we've had against the country. I believe that the embargo has done more harm to the citizens of Cuba in blocking them from accessing western goods and has given the Castro regime a platform to maintain their power on by garnering approval by "fighting against the oppressive capitalist United States." I believe that the United States exercising its soft power can convince Cubans that democracy and capitalism can improve their lives and will allow for reforms to be instituted within the country. EDIT: To help clarify, I'm arguing that the normalizing of relations to Cuba and the hopeful lifting of the embargo will benefit both the United States and Cubans. For more of my reasoning and thoughts on this, please see my comment below to /u/stevegcook EDIT: If you're curious here is an interview with Rubio were he expresses his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygusDVeya9U _____ 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[1] . 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[2] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki[3] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us[4] . Happy CMVing!

t3_25orwm

CMV: The future of humanity is damned.

Day to day, I've been living with this belief that the world that we live in is about to be dammed. When I say damned, I mean that the quality of life on a global scale will severely decrease, not just humanity becomg extinct. We've seen the news that the quality of life, on average, has been steadily increasing, with lower violence rates, higher rates of living, lower rates of death at birth, etc. But despite all of this improvement I've been seeing more corruption and harm; for example, the [increase in incarcerations](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/05/punitive-damages/). Add in news of increasing privatization of basic goods and services, such as water and (arguably) the Internet, and not just the increasing of global pollution but also powers protecting actions that lead to this (e.g. government subsidies of alternate energy vs. fossil fuels), I think the future looks bleak. Maybe I just have a very narrow view. Maybe I'm just a pessimistic cynic. But it'd be nice to hear if the future won't be this bad. Thanks for reading. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The future of humanity is damned. Day to day, I've been living with this belief that the world that we live in is about to be dammed. When I say damned, I mean that the quality of life on a global scale will severely decrease, not just humanity becomg extinct. We've seen the news that the quality of life, on average, has been steadily increasing, with lower violence rates, higher rates of living, lower rates of death at birth, etc. But despite all of this improvement I've been seeing more corruption and harm; for example, the [increase in incarcerations](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/05/punitive-damages/). Add in news of increasing privatization of basic goods and services, such as water and (arguably) the Internet, and not just the increasing of global pollution but also powers protecting actions that lead to this (e.g. government subsidies of alternate energy vs. fossil fuels), I think the future looks bleak. Maybe I just have a very narrow view. Maybe I'm just a pessimistic cynic. But it'd be nice to hear if the future won't be this bad. Thanks for reading. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1vfavu

I think its wrong to lie about being a virgin in order to obtain a marriage. CMV

My belief is based on two threads from two subreddits where a man who was a virgin, married a woman who he believed to be, and claimed to be a virgin, only to find out years later and after they had a child, that she had lied to him about being a virgin. The people of /r/relationships and /r/sex tore into him like you wouldnt believe, trying to shame, guilt and blame him for his wife lying to him, all the while ignoring that the issues of trust he had with his wife were due to her lying about something that she knew was very important about him. http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1urmvz/wife24f_lied_to_me26m_and_had_me_believing_we/ http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/1ur6q1/wife_lied_to_me_about_her_virginity_i_feel_as_if/ Now, Change My View.

I think its wrong to lie about being a virgin in order to obtain a marriage. CMV. My belief is based on two threads from two subreddits where a man who was a virgin, married a woman who he believed to be, and claimed to be a virgin, only to find out years later and after they had a child, that she had lied to him about being a virgin. The people of /r/relationships and /r/sex tore into him like you wouldnt believe, trying to shame, guilt and blame him for his wife lying to him, all the while ignoring that the issues of trust he had with his wife were due to her lying about something that she knew was very important about him. http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1urmvz/wife24f_lied_to_me26m_and_had_me_believing_we/ http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/1ur6q1/wife_lied_to_me_about_her_virginity_i_feel_as_if/ Now, Change My View.

t3_1kz9bl

I don't think that shoplifting from big department stores is wrong. CMV?

I feel like shoplifting is justified by the fact that my family doesn't make a lot of money, and we can only buy essentials. I live in New Jersey and i am 16. I shoplift clothes and jewelry from only the big department stores because i feel like they have a lot of money anyways. I will stay away from small businesses because i know they don't make as much. I think that these big businesses like Walmart, Macy's, Sears aren't going to miss these items and are financially secure enough do without my money. Change my view?

I don't think that shoplifting from big department stores is wrong. CMV?. I feel like shoplifting is justified by the fact that my family doesn't make a lot of money, and we can only buy essentials. I live in New Jersey and i am 16. I shoplift clothes and jewelry from only the big department stores because i feel like they have a lot of money anyways. I will stay away from small businesses because i know they don't make as much. I think that these big businesses like Walmart, Macy's, Sears aren't going to miss these items and are financially secure enough do without my money. Change my view?

t3_6sp45z

CMV: Romantic relationships being based on personality should not be viewed as any fairer than them being based on looks.

In both cases, it is something uncontrollable that is being used as the basis for saying that someone is worthy of love. I think that personality may even be less controllable than looks since physical appearance can be changed through things such as working out whereas there is no way to change one's personality if it is bad. I don't see a reason why judging something less controllable that is intangible is any better than judging on something that is tangible and not very controllable. I think that some people try to claim that they have good personalities just because it is difficult to disprove their claims and they actually have bad personalities. ____ > *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: Romantic relationships being based on personality should not be viewed as any fairer than them being based on looks. In both cases, it is something uncontrollable that is being used as the basis for saying that someone is worthy of love. I think that personality may even be less controllable than looks since physical appearance can be changed through things such as working out whereas there is no way to change one's personality if it is bad. I don't see a reason why judging something less controllable that is intangible is any better than judging on something that is tangible and not very controllable. I think that some people try to claim that they have good personalities just because it is difficult to disprove their claims and they actually have bad personalities. ____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_2lclza

CMV:If you care about animals, you achieve more by eating the meat of those that were ethically raised, rather than by being a vegetarian.

First, I am coming from a pov that animal rights are absolutely important, and talking about people who have that in their interest. Personally, I am becoming a vegetarian for moral reasons, so this cmv isn't really an attack on vegetarians but something I am genuinely unsure of myself. We need to accept two things - universal vegetarianism isn't going to happen soon, and if it happens in the future it will probably be due to good quality lab meet, or some other fundamental changes in society. Second, an individual not eating meat makes zero difference, almost. Unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved. By the time you reject a burger, your rejection pretty much only affects you. However that doesn't mean there is no reason to be a vegetarian or to care. One reason is, if you are personally so disturbed by knowing what you are eating that you genuinely don't want meat. That is great, but we can agree that is a personal reason that might help better you as an individual but won't help the world. Only remaining reason would be contributing to a trend. If restaurants keep getting vegetarian requests they might actually start ordering less meat, and that will culminate and the difference might be felt. However, it is more likely that while they will develop a better vegetatarian offer, the need for meat will only keep increasing with the growing number of population, and contributing to the trend of not eating meat at all won't do any difference. However, there is a different trend that many meat eaters are getting behind as well, and that is caring about where your meat is from and whether the animals were ethically treated. Many people aren't able to give up meat, but they do care about animals. If you go behind this trend, you might contribute to making a difference. A restaurant that would otherwise just leave their meat as it is and make a vegetarian option, after hearing enough people ask about where the meat is from, might totally change their meat suppliers. That is a big difference. The trend would push farms to be more humane if selling otherwise becomes difficult. For a local place, being the fifth regular who cares about this could even be enough to make a difference. It just seems like the next realistic goal is getting behind demanding better treatment for animals, and that can be achieved if the intended consumers of the meat make these demands. As a vegetarian, you are not the consumer and therefore you are not of interest to them. You are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable. By being a meat consumer, your preferences become relevant.

CMV:If you care about animals, you achieve more by eating the meat of those that were ethically raised, rather than by being a vegetarian. First, I am coming from a pov that animal rights are absolutely important, and talking about people who have that in their interest. Personally, I am becoming a vegetarian for moral reasons, so this cmv isn't really an attack on vegetarians but something I am genuinely unsure of myself. We need to accept two things - universal vegetarianism isn't going to happen soon, and if it happens in the future it will probably be due to good quality lab meet, or some other fundamental changes in society. Second, an individual not eating meat makes zero difference, almost. Unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved. By the time you reject a burger, your rejection pretty much only affects you. However that doesn't mean there is no reason to be a vegetarian or to care. One reason is, if you are personally so disturbed by knowing what you are eating that you genuinely don't want meat. That is great, but we can agree that is a personal reason that might help better you as an individual but won't help the world. Only remaining reason would be contributing to a trend. If restaurants keep getting vegetarian requests they might actually start ordering less meat, and that will culminate and the difference might be felt. However, it is more likely that while they will develop a better vegetatarian offer, the need for meat will only keep increasing with the growing number of population, and contributing to the trend of not eating meat at all won't do any difference. However, there is a different trend that many meat eaters are getting behind as well, and that is caring about where your meat is from and whether the animals were ethically treated. Many people aren't able to give up meat, but they do care about animals. If you go behind this trend, you might contribute to making a difference. A restaurant that would otherwise just leave their meat as it is and make a vegetarian option, after hearing enough people ask about where the meat is from, might totally change their meat suppliers. That is a big difference. The trend would push farms to be more humane if selling otherwise becomes difficult. For a local place, being the fifth regular who cares about this could even be enough to make a difference. It just seems like the next realistic goal is getting behind demanding better treatment for animals, and that can be achieved if the intended consumers of the meat make these demands. As a vegetarian, you are not the consumer and therefore you are not of interest to them. You are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable. By being a meat consumer, your preferences become relevant.

t3_6yoq0b

CMV: Tax cuts should go the middle and lower-upper classes over any other group

Looking at the US economy, we're primarily a consumption based economy with a unique small business oriented production aspect. In this regard, wouldn't an idea tax reform be to maximize benefits to 1) The middle class and lower upper class, ie people with the largest marginal rate of consumption. This would correspond to income brackets 25, 28, 33, 36 and 2) Corporate tax breaks to smaller firms? By focusing on maybe collapsing the 36 & 33% brackets to 30, while changing 25 and 28 to 20 and 25 respectively in exchange for fragmenting and creating higher level tax brackets, it seems like we could grow our economy faster by helping the people who do the most to grow it. Can someone CMV as to why our tax cuts (or increases) should be universal

CMV: Tax cuts should go the middle and lower-upper classes over any other group. Looking at the US economy, we're primarily a consumption based economy with a unique small business oriented production aspect. In this regard, wouldn't an idea tax reform be to maximize benefits to 1) The middle class and lower upper class, ie people with the largest marginal rate of consumption. This would correspond to income brackets 25, 28, 33, 36 and 2) Corporate tax breaks to smaller firms? By focusing on maybe collapsing the 36 & 33% brackets to 30, while changing 25 and 28 to 20 and 25 respectively in exchange for fragmenting and creating higher level tax brackets, it seems like we could grow our economy faster by helping the people who do the most to grow it. Can someone CMV as to why our tax cuts (or increases) should be universal

t3_1noh7f

I believe in the child-told rhetoric that you can be whatever you want to be. CMV

I honestly believe that through hard-work there are no limits to how a person may rise in socio-economic status, wealth, and/or status, regardless of geographic location or economy. There are some exceptions to this of course, such as those with mental disability and those who are oppressed by threat of death (such as in a warring country). I do not believe that it is by chance that those who are successful remain that way. I add the qualifier "remain" because those who inherit wealth and squander it will end up without. I understand that it's not fair for all, but I do believe that there are equal opportunities for all, including those in third world countries (where it is not punishable by death to leave). **CMV that people are forced into their lot in life by external rather than internal forces.** *Edit - I've ceded on the point of limits to immigration, but can we discuss those who have the opportunity to live in a developed country, but do not achieve their goals?

I believe in the child-told rhetoric that you can be whatever you want to be. CMV. I honestly believe that through hard-work there are no limits to how a person may rise in socio-economic status, wealth, and/or status, regardless of geographic location or economy. There are some exceptions to this of course, such as those with mental disability and those who are oppressed by threat of death (such as in a warring country). I do not believe that it is by chance that those who are successful remain that way. I add the qualifier "remain" because those who inherit wealth and squander it will end up without. I understand that it's not fair for all, but I do believe that there are equal opportunities for all, including those in third world countries (where it is not punishable by death to leave). **CMV that people are forced into their lot in life by external rather than internal forces.** *Edit - I've ceded on the point of limits to immigration, but can we discuss those who have the opportunity to live in a developed country, but do not achieve their goals?

t3_1q01e8

I don't think smoke breaks should be allowed at work, CMV

I am a smoker myself, but I never smoke on the clock. Hell, I don't even bring my cigarettes to work. I don't think it's fair that people who don't smoke have to work while people who do smoke (an addiction brought on by themselves) get to leave work for the 5 minutes it takes to go smoke a cigarette a few times during their shift. Three of co-workers take smoke breaks at least 4 or 5 times during a shift and I continue to work. I can't really take a break myself because I don't really have a reason to take a short break (because I don't bring my cigs to work). Smoke breaks have been a very common thing amongst most of the jobs I've had. So I figured there might be a good legitimate reason behind it, so I'd like to have a discussion about it. CMV. EDIT: [This reply](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1q01e8/i_dont_think_smoke_breaks_should_be_allowed_at/cd7t14x) changed my view. If someone feels the need to smoke, they'll get frustrated when they don't smoke and become less productive. To keep them productive and happy workers, they'll let them smoke to keep everything going smoothly.

I don't think smoke breaks should be allowed at work, CMV. I am a smoker myself, but I never smoke on the clock. Hell, I don't even bring my cigarettes to work. I don't think it's fair that people who don't smoke have to work while people who do smoke (an addiction brought on by themselves) get to leave work for the 5 minutes it takes to go smoke a cigarette a few times during their shift. Three of co-workers take smoke breaks at least 4 or 5 times during a shift and I continue to work. I can't really take a break myself because I don't really have a reason to take a short break (because I don't bring my cigs to work). Smoke breaks have been a very common thing amongst most of the jobs I've had. So I figured there might be a good legitimate reason behind it, so I'd like to have a discussion about it. CMV. EDIT: [This reply](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1q01e8/i_dont_think_smoke_breaks_should_be_allowed_at/cd7t14x) changed my view. If someone feels the need to smoke, they'll get frustrated when they don't smoke and become less productive. To keep them productive and happy workers, they'll let them smoke to keep everything going smoothly.

t3_1sdbvd

I believe anti-depressants change who you are as a person rather than fix you to the way you should be. CMV.

submitted 3 minutes ago* by ArizonaBlood I've taken anti-depressants before, but I don't feel like they made my brain work the way it's 'supposed' to. I think however my brain works naturally, without the use of medications, is its REAL natural state. When I took anti-depressants, it changed the way I looked at the people in my life, the way I see how things work, even some of my opinions! I didn't feel like the ME I've been my whole life. But when I went off again, though I was depressed, I felt like myself again. Since this experience, I've been unable to believe that depressants make you the way you're SUPPOSED to be. I feel that your natural state is acquired without the use of any medications. I'm a little old fashioned I suppose. Change my vieeeew?

I believe anti-depressants change who you are as a person rather than fix you to the way you should be. CMV. submitted 3 minutes ago* by ArizonaBlood I've taken anti-depressants before, but I don't feel like they made my brain work the way it's 'supposed' to. I think however my brain works naturally, without the use of medications, is its REAL natural state. When I took anti-depressants, it changed the way I looked at the people in my life, the way I see how things work, even some of my opinions! I didn't feel like the ME I've been my whole life. But when I went off again, though I was depressed, I felt like myself again. Since this experience, I've been unable to believe that depressants make you the way you're SUPPOSED to be. I feel that your natural state is acquired without the use of any medications. I'm a little old fashioned I suppose. Change my vieeeew?

t3_56y5w1

CMV: In The Road, Charlize Theron was right and Viggo Mortenson was wrong

So yeah, pretty straightforward and simple. MASSIVE SPOILERS for the film The Road ahead: There is an apocalyptic event, and Viggo and Charlize are a married couple trapped in their house without power (their characters are never named, so we will refer to them as Viggo and Charlize to keep it simple). She is pregnant, and after her water breaks, she tries to avoid giving birth but succumbs, obviously. Years later, as things are not better, and they are presumably living within their house, the two of them have a conversation about how to continue with their young son. Charlize's view: We should have killed ourselves long ago (she wishes they had more than two bullets with their pistol). Cannibals and rapists are coming, society is gone, the world is falling apart, there is no point in us living and subjecting ourselves to pain with little to no hope of survival. Viggo: Insistent that she doesn't speak that way, doesn't want to use the gun, and insists that they should do whatever they can to survive their current predicament (the film follows him and his son attempting to survive in the post-apocalyptic world) So basically, given the events of the film, I would safely and confidently say that Charlize is correct and Viggo is incorrect. She was right, the world was falling apart, conditions were not liveable anywhere, and there was a massive threat of being murdered, eaten, dismembered, imprisoned, raped, etc. To go out quickly and painlessly via the bullet to the head, in the world that resulted from the non-specific cataclysm is the smartest move. Viggo, while noble and passionate enough to pursue life and survival, is dangerously naive in the situation, and his outlook. Yes, his strive to survive with his son drives the film, and it's a great story to witness, but it's ultimately futile as the plot is bleak and outlook following the ending is bleak as well. The deaths, in my opinion, and Charlize's, would be mercy. For those who may say Viggo's perspective is the reason the Boy lives and possibly finds a safe family to live with later, doesn't change the fact that there was numerous risk and opportunity for unimaginable pain and horror to befall his son. It's a risk vs reward situation. Despite how the film actually concludes, I still believe that it was not worth the risk of the above-mentioned dangers, when shooting oneself is guaranteed instant death, and a guarantor of no more pain. Change my view please. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: In The Road, Charlize Theron was right and Viggo Mortenson was wrong. So yeah, pretty straightforward and simple. MASSIVE SPOILERS for the film The Road ahead: There is an apocalyptic event, and Viggo and Charlize are a married couple trapped in their house without power (their characters are never named, so we will refer to them as Viggo and Charlize to keep it simple). She is pregnant, and after her water breaks, she tries to avoid giving birth but succumbs, obviously. Years later, as things are not better, and they are presumably living within their house, the two of them have a conversation about how to continue with their young son. Charlize's view: We should have killed ourselves long ago (she wishes they had more than two bullets with their pistol). Cannibals and rapists are coming, society is gone, the world is falling apart, there is no point in us living and subjecting ourselves to pain with little to no hope of survival. Viggo: Insistent that she doesn't speak that way, doesn't want to use the gun, and insists that they should do whatever they can to survive their current predicament (the film follows him and his son attempting to survive in the post-apocalyptic world) So basically, given the events of the film, I would safely and confidently say that Charlize is correct and Viggo is incorrect. She was right, the world was falling apart, conditions were not liveable anywhere, and there was a massive threat of being murdered, eaten, dismembered, imprisoned, raped, etc. To go out quickly and painlessly via the bullet to the head, in the world that resulted from the non-specific cataclysm is the smartest move. Viggo, while noble and passionate enough to pursue life and survival, is dangerously naive in the situation, and his outlook. Yes, his strive to survive with his son drives the film, and it's a great story to witness, but it's ultimately futile as the plot is bleak and outlook following the ending is bleak as well. The deaths, in my opinion, and Charlize's, would be mercy. For those who may say Viggo's perspective is the reason the Boy lives and possibly finds a safe family to live with later, doesn't change the fact that there was numerous risk and opportunity for unimaginable pain and horror to befall his son. It's a risk vs reward situation. Despite how the film actually concludes, I still believe that it was not worth the risk of the above-mentioned dangers, when shooting oneself is guaranteed instant death, and a guarantor of no more pain. Change my view please.

t3_1mepbo

I believe people who have tattoos that were clearly acquired as a result of impulsive decision making deserve all the ridicule and disdain that society normally reserves for people with tattoos in general. Please CMV!

[1] Tattoos are expensive. [2] Tattoos are painful. [3] Tattoos are permanent to semi-permanent investments. -I think these three facts alone should make the decision to get one a significant choice in life. In short, if you have a tattoo, you better have a large explanation for people who ask about it. This especially applies to people who don't go back to the artist to keep up its appearance.

I believe people who have tattoos that were clearly acquired as a result of impulsive decision making deserve all the ridicule and disdain that society normally reserves for people with tattoos in general. Please CMV!. [1] Tattoos are expensive. [2] Tattoos are painful. [3] Tattoos are permanent to semi-permanent investments. -I think these three facts alone should make the decision to get one a significant choice in life. In short, if you have a tattoo, you better have a large explanation for people who ask about it. This especially applies to people who don't go back to the artist to keep up its appearance.

t3_2k49mm

CMV: Mocking people for poor writing on a public forum is perfectly acceptable, and often leads to positive development of a person's knowledge-base through negative reinforcement.

As above. The way I see it, a person's writing and grammar skills are the data equivalent of their speaking and oratory skills in a face-to-face setting. Much as we mock, cajole, or otherwise poke fun at people when they misspeak, we insult, deride, and tease those who wrt lik dis cuz why shud i bother i mean u unrstnd rite? Speak like a idiot in public, and people will harass you about it until you fix the habit. I understand that some may feel that it's unnecessarily cruel or mean to "hurt people's feelings" over something as simple as their writing style, but I feel quite the opposite. As a species that puts great stock in our intelligence and our ability to communicate, we should harangue those who are unable to accurately communicate. TLDR: CMV that an inability to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and choose the most appropriate words for the meaning you wish to convey is something you should be ridiculed for until you stop making these mistakes. Edit: [View changed!](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2k49mm/cmv_mocking_people_for_poor_writing_on_a_public/clhusz2) _____ > *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: Mocking people for poor writing on a public forum is perfectly acceptable, and often leads to positive development of a person's knowledge-base through negative reinforcement. As above. The way I see it, a person's writing and grammar skills are the data equivalent of their speaking and oratory skills in a face-to-face setting. Much as we mock, cajole, or otherwise poke fun at people when they misspeak, we insult, deride, and tease those who wrt lik dis cuz why shud i bother i mean u unrstnd rite? Speak like a idiot in public, and people will harass you about it until you fix the habit. I understand that some may feel that it's unnecessarily cruel or mean to "hurt people's feelings" over something as simple as their writing style, but I feel quite the opposite. As a species that puts great stock in our intelligence and our ability to communicate, we should harangue those who are unable to accurately communicate. TLDR: CMV that an inability to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and choose the most appropriate words for the meaning you wish to convey is something you should be ridiculed for until you stop making these mistakes. Edit: [View changed!](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2k49mm/cmv_mocking_people_for_poor_writing_on_a_public/clhusz2)

t3_4wvszm

CMV: Left-handed children should be taught to write top-to-bottom, right-to-left with characters (and paper) rotated clockwise 90 degrees.

Because (western) written languages are ***read*** horizontally from left-to-right, writing tends to be taught horizontally from left-to-right. This makes sense for a right-handed person, because their writing hand never covers the written words. This is not the case for left-handed folks. Lefties tend to have horrible penmanship and often have difficulty writing in notebooks, (especially small, wire-bound notebooks). Even on flat paper on a desk, lefties tend to skooch there knuckles across the paper and smear ink or pencil. In an equivalent 'mirror image' world, lefties would read and write horizontally from right-to-left and make their characters backwards. [Leonardo da Vinci use to write this way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#/media/File:Studies_of_the_Arm_showing_the_Movements_made_by_the_Biceps.jpg) But this is generally not practical. My view is that left-hand children should be taught the same alphabet characters as right-handed children, but they should be taught to write in a different style so that their hands never cover the written text. School work would still be read and graded on legibility from left-to-right, only the method on producing the document would be tailored for lefties. While I acknowledge that is is a fairly trivial matter, it would be simple to implement and would represent a marginal improvement over the current state of affairs. CMV.

CMV: Left-handed children should be taught to write top-to-bottom, right-to-left with characters (and paper) rotated clockwise 90 degrees. Because (western) written languages are ***read*** horizontally from left-to-right, writing tends to be taught horizontally from left-to-right. This makes sense for a right-handed person, because their writing hand never covers the written words. This is not the case for left-handed folks. Lefties tend to have horrible penmanship and often have difficulty writing in notebooks, (especially small, wire-bound notebooks). Even on flat paper on a desk, lefties tend to skooch there knuckles across the paper and smear ink or pencil. In an equivalent 'mirror image' world, lefties would read and write horizontally from right-to-left and make their characters backwards. [Leonardo da Vinci use to write this way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#/media/File:Studies_of_the_Arm_showing_the_Movements_made_by_the_Biceps.jpg) But this is generally not practical. My view is that left-hand children should be taught the same alphabet characters as right-handed children, but they should be taught to write in a different style so that their hands never cover the written text. School work would still be read and graded on legibility from left-to-right, only the method on producing the document would be tailored for lefties. While I acknowledge that is is a fairly trivial matter, it would be simple to implement and would represent a marginal improvement over the current state of affairs. CMV.

t3_1qhuww

I think that there is no such thing as video game addiction CMV

I honestly believe that there is no such thing as a "Video game addiction." In my mind, video game addiction is just another excuse for anti video game haters to attack our hobby. Because what really is the difference between excessive gaming and excessive reading? Not much. But for whatever reason society seems to praise the excessive reader for being productive and his activity is seen as healthy. But if a gamer spends the same amount of time playing video games people assume he's an idiot and an addict and "wasting his time". This can also apply to other pastimes as well such as watching television, and the internet.

I think that there is no such thing as video game addiction CMV. I honestly believe that there is no such thing as a "Video game addiction." In my mind, video game addiction is just another excuse for anti video game haters to attack our hobby. Because what really is the difference between excessive gaming and excessive reading? Not much. But for whatever reason society seems to praise the excessive reader for being productive and his activity is seen as healthy. But if a gamer spends the same amount of time playing video games people assume he's an idiot and an addict and "wasting his time". This can also apply to other pastimes as well such as watching television, and the internet.

t3_1thau8

I believe that in general and biologically speaking, men are better than women. CMV.

In practically all sports, world records - and the general levels of achievement - held by men are higher than those held by women. An average man is taller and stronger than an average woman, and a woman capable of physically overpowering a man is always an unusual freak case. Men have it easier when it comes to reproduction, as if a woman wanted 15 children, it would take her a lifetime of effort, while a man could do the same within a year and not even know it. Being stuck with the resulting spawn can doubtfully be considered a benefit. Men's capability to reproduce also doesn't diminish with age. While it can be argued that there are skills and capabilities that men and women are *equal* in, the skills that women are supposed to be better at are fewer than those of men, and in general society almost completely useless, such as better colour vision. Though equal societies have existed, there has never been a civilisation in which women would have been the dominant sex. And while I don't condone wiping out 52% of the species, I believe that being a female human is a hinderance. A handicap that doesn't give you special parking. Change my view.

I believe that in general and biologically speaking, men are better than women. CMV. In practically all sports, world records - and the general levels of achievement - held by men are higher than those held by women. An average man is taller and stronger than an average woman, and a woman capable of physically overpowering a man is always an unusual freak case. Men have it easier when it comes to reproduction, as if a woman wanted 15 children, it would take her a lifetime of effort, while a man could do the same within a year and not even know it. Being stuck with the resulting spawn can doubtfully be considered a benefit. Men's capability to reproduce also doesn't diminish with age. While it can be argued that there are skills and capabilities that men and women are *equal* in, the skills that women are supposed to be better at are fewer than those of men, and in general society almost completely useless, such as better colour vision. Though equal societies have existed, there has never been a civilisation in which women would have been the dominant sex. And while I don't condone wiping out 52% of the species, I believe that being a female human is a hinderance. A handicap that doesn't give you special parking. Change my view.

t3_1ktvia

I believe special forces units should only accept females if they can perform to the same physical fitness standards as males, CMV.

[This article](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/25/pentagon-mulling-separate-combat-training-men-wome/) suggests the pentagon is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations. My problem with this is all of these roles are quite strongly correlated with physical fitness, and if the training and selection is gender varied then when in a combat situation the NCO, Commanding Officer, or whoever is commanding would not know the capabilities of their squad etc. as they would be physically inconsistent. I believe these changes would cost lives and should not be implemented, CMV.

I believe special forces units should only accept females if they can perform to the same physical fitness standards as males, CMV. [This article](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/25/pentagon-mulling-separate-combat-training-men-wome/) suggests the pentagon is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations. My problem with this is all of these roles are quite strongly correlated with physical fitness, and if the training and selection is gender varied then when in a combat situation the NCO, Commanding Officer, or whoever is commanding would not know the capabilities of their squad etc. as they would be physically inconsistent. I believe these changes would cost lives and should not be implemented, CMV.

t3_4uyfdb

CMV: People shouldn't have children just because they can, it would be beneficial to society if it was regulated.

The planet is full, we're over populated, people are breeding, and to no real purpose except *"Aww tiny socks how cute*" or "*Family names*" which serve no real importance. Personally I feel like you should apply to have children. If you can't afford it, without the government supporting you, you don't get permission. Obviously a vast majority would be getting permissions, but I still feel like we need to get rid of the "*Everyone should have children*" mentality. One child policy perhaps? _____ > *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 shouldn't have children just because they can, it would be beneficial to society if it was regulated. The planet is full, we're over populated, people are breeding, and to no real purpose except *"Aww tiny socks how cute*" or "*Family names*" which serve no real importance. Personally I feel like you should apply to have children. If you can't afford it, without the government supporting you, you don't get permission. Obviously a vast majority would be getting permissions, but I still feel like we need to get rid of the "*Everyone should have children*" mentality. One child policy perhaps?

t3_1fy05t

I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists.

I dont think giving a life term sentence for such criminals is just in today's level of human rights protection. Prisons in Norway or anywhere in Western Europe can be compared to 3-star hotels with full boarding basis involving gyms and recreation of which most of the people outside cannot afford. It is not a justice when criminal while commiting serious crime dont give any sh*t about humanity, but we while judging this kind of people should be pussies. If the allegations could be proven 100% with irrefutable facts and evidences, nothing should stop us to execute them. Or let them suffer as they've done onto others. It should be done in a civilised way with a court makig just verdict. CMV.

I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. I dont think giving a life term sentence for such criminals is just in today's level of human rights protection. Prisons in Norway or anywhere in Western Europe can be compared to 3-star hotels with full boarding basis involving gyms and recreation of which most of the people outside cannot afford. It is not a justice when criminal while commiting serious crime dont give any sh*t about humanity, but we while judging this kind of people should be pussies. If the allegations could be proven 100% with irrefutable facts and evidences, nothing should stop us to execute them. Or let them suffer as they've done onto others. It should be done in a civilised way with a court makig just verdict. CMV.

t3_2uid44

CMV:I think Google is the most powerful company in the world.

IMHO Google is the most powerful company in the world.The data in its repositories can pretty much affect the world if they press delete button or like publish all the usernames and passwords they have of any account in any of their service.Google has a lot of accounts of people and if the details are published bank accounts of lot of people can be affected.Important documents are shared using google services which would be directly affect a lot of individuals or firms,which might have the ability to shake the world drastically. _____ > *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 Google is the most powerful company in the world. IMHO Google is the most powerful company in the world.The data in its repositories can pretty much affect the world if they press delete button or like publish all the usernames and passwords they have of any account in any of their service.Google has a lot of accounts of people and if the details are published bank accounts of lot of people can be affected.Important documents are shared using google services which would be directly affect a lot of individuals or firms,which might have the ability to shake the world drastically.

t3_1vs5b0

CMV: Global "gender equality" oriented organizations frame arguments such that girls & women are unjustly seen to be the group in most need of assistance.

Example 1: [Unicef's admission](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vr2wa/as_far_as_we_can_tell_amongst_the_worlds_poor/cev1ez6?context=2) that they reframed the global poverty statistics in order to get their desired results Example 2: the World Economic Forum's [Global Gender Gap](http://www.reddit.com/r/Equality/comments/1s6xal/the_global_gender_gap_report_it_aint_about/) report suggests policies for "equality" but in fact ranked nations higher where women had high statistical advantages over men. [pdf](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf) Example 3: [Rape](http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/legitimate-rape-advocacy-and-censorship/) is defined by the CDC, and formerly by the [FBI](http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape) as something that requires penetration, thus excluding a large proportion of males as victims. Example 4: the [United Nations](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xgfvj/the_un_has_neglected_sexual_violence_against_men/) avoided recognizing males as victims of sexual war crimes. Note : (example by way of quotation regarding human trafficking ) from a [sociology professor](http://www.alternet.org/gender/demystifying-commercial-sexual-exploitation-boys-our-forgotten-victims) at George Washington U : >“NGOs have figured out that they can appeal to the public, donors and funders if they emphasize sex trafficking of girls. These organizations have a vested interest in defining the problem in one way over the other. Using the term women and girls frequently has a very clear purpose in attracting government funding, public and media attention but boys who are victimized are being ignored because most of the resources are devoted to girls,” Weitzer said.

CMV: Global "gender equality" oriented organizations frame arguments such that girls & women are unjustly seen to be the group in most need of assistance. Example 1: [Unicef's admission](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vr2wa/as_far_as_we_can_tell_amongst_the_worlds_poor/cev1ez6?context=2) that they reframed the global poverty statistics in order to get their desired results Example 2: the World Economic Forum's [Global Gender Gap](http://www.reddit.com/r/Equality/comments/1s6xal/the_global_gender_gap_report_it_aint_about/) report suggests policies for "equality" but in fact ranked nations higher where women had high statistical advantages over men. [pdf](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf) Example 3: [Rape](http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/legitimate-rape-advocacy-and-censorship/) is defined by the CDC, and formerly by the [FBI](http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape) as something that requires penetration, thus excluding a large proportion of males as victims. Example 4: the [United Nations](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xgfvj/the_un_has_neglected_sexual_violence_against_men/) avoided recognizing males as victims of sexual war crimes. Note : (example by way of quotation regarding human trafficking ) from a [sociology professor](http://www.alternet.org/gender/demystifying-commercial-sexual-exploitation-boys-our-forgotten-victims) at George Washington U : >“NGOs have figured out that they can appeal to the public, donors and funders if they emphasize sex trafficking of girls. These organizations have a vested interest in defining the problem in one way over the other. Using the term women and girls frequently has a very clear purpose in attracting government funding, public and media attention but boys who are victimized are being ignored because most of the resources are devoted to girls,” Weitzer said.

t3_2hdl9q

CMV: Expecting Muslims to protest against ISIS, is a double standard steeped in prejudice

First off, I want to say that I understand the general sentiment. The media is bombarding us on a daily basis with news of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam... My point is: Statistically, you are probably a citizen of a country whose govt has been supporting oil rigging/child labor/despotic regimes in south america/africa/asia with very poor environmental/ethical/moral standards.... The environment suffers greatly as well as tens of thousands of people die / get sick/ lead shitty lives because of it. Have you taken time off from your job, wife/ husband and kids to show your disapproval of whats done in your name, with your tax dollars? Yes ISIS is pure garbage, maybe if a local protest was organized id go.... maybe not... but why burden this high standard/responsibility on a billion people when we don't hold the same standard ourselves? From my personal perspective: Canada is responsible for awful human/environmental tragedies overseas related to mine exploitation. .. i think it would be unfair for me to hold all my fellow Canadians in shame because not enough of them protested against it. Likewise, it would be unfair to negatively view/judge all Muslims because my personal standard of what should be enough outrage, is not exhibited. Here is another good one: Invasion of Iraq 2003, the whole world (almost literally) thought it was an awful idea, was unjustified and would only result in a bad outcome (ISIS!?) Should we collectively scorn all Americans citizens and their whole political system for this action, or blame the bad apples that used the US system, rhetoric, laws, to pursue their ownpersonal, selfish goals? Link: http://www.amnesty.ca/category/issue/business-and-human-rights/mining-and-indigenous-rights-in-guatemala ** ***************EDIT************ I find a good way to be as objective/unbiased as possible in life is to imagine the same situation but with different people/groups/variables in it. With this in mind: U/RibsnGibs explains my point way more simply/logically:** Put more simply: if Person A belongs to group X, and if group X does something person A doesn't like, person A should protest. This covers why an American (person A) might protest if the US (group X) does something bad. But if person A who happens to have belief B, and group X also claims to have belief B, I don't think there's any expectation for person A to protest if group X does anything bad. This is why I don't think it should be expected that random Muslim guy A should have any more interest than any other person that ISIS (group X) happens to do something wrong simply because they both claim to have the same Islamic faith. ** Another example would be if we expect random Christian guy Joe to have any more interest than a Jewish or Atheist or Muslim guy if an extremist Christian group bombs an abortion clinic. Christian guy Joe doesn't belong to the group that blew up the abortion clinic - they just both claim to be Christian. **

CMV: Expecting Muslims to protest against ISIS, is a double standard steeped in prejudice. First off, I want to say that I understand the general sentiment. The media is bombarding us on a daily basis with news of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam... My point is: Statistically, you are probably a citizen of a country whose govt has been supporting oil rigging/child labor/despotic regimes in south america/africa/asia with very poor environmental/ethical/moral standards.... The environment suffers greatly as well as tens of thousands of people die / get sick/ lead shitty lives because of it. Have you taken time off from your job, wife/ husband and kids to show your disapproval of whats done in your name, with your tax dollars? Yes ISIS is pure garbage, maybe if a local protest was organized id go.... maybe not... but why burden this high standard/responsibility on a billion people when we don't hold the same standard ourselves? From my personal perspective: Canada is responsible for awful human/environmental tragedies overseas related to mine exploitation. .. i think it would be unfair for me to hold all my fellow Canadians in shame because not enough of them protested against it. Likewise, it would be unfair to negatively view/judge all Muslims because my personal standard of what should be enough outrage, is not exhibited. Here is another good one: Invasion of Iraq 2003, the whole world (almost literally) thought it was an awful idea, was unjustified and would only result in a bad outcome (ISIS!?) Should we collectively scorn all Americans citizens and their whole political system for this action, or blame the bad apples that used the US system, rhetoric, laws, to pursue their ownpersonal, selfish goals? Link: http://www.amnesty.ca/category/issue/business-and-human-rights/mining-and-indigenous-rights-in-guatemala ** ***************EDIT************ I find a good way to be as objective/unbiased as possible in life is to imagine the same situation but with different people/groups/variables in it. With this in mind: U/RibsnGibs explains my point way more simply/logically:** Put more simply: if Person A belongs to group X, and if group X does something person A doesn't like, person A should protest. This covers why an American (person A) might protest if the US (group X) does something bad. But if person A who happens to have belief B, and group X also claims to have belief B, I don't think there's any expectation for person A to protest if group X does anything bad. This is why I don't think it should be expected that random Muslim guy A should have any more interest than any other person that ISIS (group X) happens to do something wrong simply because they both claim to have the same Islamic faith. ** Another example would be if we expect random Christian guy Joe to have any more interest than a Jewish or Atheist or Muslim guy if an extremist Christian group bombs an abortion clinic. Christian guy Joe doesn't belong to the group that blew up the abortion clinic - they just both claim to be Christian. **

t3_2v11g2

CMV: Imperialism is the best form of foreign policy

My view is looking over history, places that performed imperialism setup governments in various countries, and in a sense brought about peace. It was subjugated for sure, but the amount of violence and corruption was less. This has lead me to believe our current form of foreign policy of "freeing" a country is misguided. New tribes come in right after, power struggles, etc. So I think that the best way to achieve peace, say in the middle east is to do something similar to what the Romans did, you take over the country and make it part of yours. Give them a state / congressmen, etc. in your own government. With imperialism, then the small country will have a military to back it, profits will flow into the parent country, investments will pour into the new country, and the new country can have oversight to ensure that rights are not abused (such as in Egypt when the new government wrote laws favoring them). Am I missing something? I look at various countries that were occupied via imperialism and the majority turned out rather well. South Africa, Australia, India, all are on the world stage now doing very well, but were all occupied areas. Of course some failed such as in Rwanda, but that was when imperialism left. Before, even with human rights violations in Rwanda, it was nothing compared to the slaughter that happened the moment they left. Again I feel that supports my view, that once Rwanda was no longer being occupied, they killed so many. So why is imperialism wrong? Or what is a better method for helping nations that are being ravaged by tribal warfare? P.S. I am making the assumption that doing nothing is not an option. By not doing anything, people die and things are not getting better. While it would be great to see a people rise up, I fear that is simply not possible. So please refrain from arguments of "do nothing!"

CMV: Imperialism is the best form of foreign policy. My view is looking over history, places that performed imperialism setup governments in various countries, and in a sense brought about peace. It was subjugated for sure, but the amount of violence and corruption was less. This has lead me to believe our current form of foreign policy of "freeing" a country is misguided. New tribes come in right after, power struggles, etc. So I think that the best way to achieve peace, say in the middle east is to do something similar to what the Romans did, you take over the country and make it part of yours. Give them a state / congressmen, etc. in your own government. With imperialism, then the small country will have a military to back it, profits will flow into the parent country, investments will pour into the new country, and the new country can have oversight to ensure that rights are not abused (such as in Egypt when the new government wrote laws favoring them). Am I missing something? I look at various countries that were occupied via imperialism and the majority turned out rather well. South Africa, Australia, India, all are on the world stage now doing very well, but were all occupied areas. Of course some failed such as in Rwanda, but that was when imperialism left. Before, even with human rights violations in Rwanda, it was nothing compared to the slaughter that happened the moment they left. Again I feel that supports my view, that once Rwanda was no longer being occupied, they killed so many. So why is imperialism wrong? Or what is a better method for helping nations that are being ravaged by tribal warfare? P.S. I am making the assumption that doing nothing is not an option. By not doing anything, people die and things are not getting better. While it would be great to see a people rise up, I fear that is simply not possible. So please refrain from arguments of "do nothing!"

t3_3iwrei

CMV: The number of seats which a state has in the House of Representatives should be determined by the number of eligible voters in that state.

If a state has 18 million people, with only 10 million eligible to vote. Than that state's house seats should only reflect the 10 million people rather than the 18 million people. While representatives claim to be serving all people in their district, they really only care about those who can vote. This is why no politicians care about prisons or orphans. The only reason why politicians care about public schools is because the parents of public school children can vote. This is also why the drinking age has not been lowered. Politicians do not care about those under 18, and those over 18 will soon be able to drink legally and thus once they turn 21 do not care about lowering the drinking age. Until politicians start listening to those who cannot vote, they should not be awarded seats which include those members of the population who cannot vote. To change my view, you must provide clear examples of politicians listening to those who cannot vote, and really taking their ideas into consideration. _____ > *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 number of seats which a state has in the House of Representatives should be determined by the number of eligible voters in that state. If a state has 18 million people, with only 10 million eligible to vote. Than that state's house seats should only reflect the 10 million people rather than the 18 million people. While representatives claim to be serving all people in their district, they really only care about those who can vote. This is why no politicians care about prisons or orphans. The only reason why politicians care about public schools is because the parents of public school children can vote. This is also why the drinking age has not been lowered. Politicians do not care about those under 18, and those over 18 will soon be able to drink legally and thus once they turn 21 do not care about lowering the drinking age. Until politicians start listening to those who cannot vote, they should not be awarded seats which include those members of the population who cannot vote. To change my view, you must provide clear examples of politicians listening to those who cannot vote, and really taking their ideas into consideration.

t3_2fy7ac

CMV: The Golden Rule should be changed to read: "Treat others the way THEY would like to be treated"

The Golden Rule states "treat others the way you would like to be treated" and is frequently espoused by people as a guiding principle to live your life. However, this rule completely disregards the fairly obvious fact that different people have different needs. For example, say I am in a relationship and I value alone time when I get stressed. My significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed. These are incompatible views, and by following the Golden Rule, I would have a built-in excuse for not spending time with her when she gets stressed ("but I don't ask YOU to do xyz when I get stressed!"). Using the logic of the current Golden Rule, I am in the clear. My newly proposed Golden Rule stresses empathy and recognizes that individuals have different needs. The focus is on understanding these needs and attempting to meet them, rather than focusing inward ("how would I like to be treated in this scenario?"). Of course, my rule only applies to reasonable situations - if my SO requests that I drive across 5 states to see her every time she has a bad day, the rule does not apply. I would like to hear an argument for why the original Golden Rule is superior to my revised version. _____ > *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 Golden Rule should be changed to read: "Treat others the way THEY would like to be treated". The Golden Rule states "treat others the way you would like to be treated" and is frequently espoused by people as a guiding principle to live your life. However, this rule completely disregards the fairly obvious fact that different people have different needs. For example, say I am in a relationship and I value alone time when I get stressed. My significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed. These are incompatible views, and by following the Golden Rule, I would have a built-in excuse for not spending time with her when she gets stressed ("but I don't ask YOU to do xyz when I get stressed!"). Using the logic of the current Golden Rule, I am in the clear. My newly proposed Golden Rule stresses empathy and recognizes that individuals have different needs. The focus is on understanding these needs and attempting to meet them, rather than focusing inward ("how would I like to be treated in this scenario?"). Of course, my rule only applies to reasonable situations - if my SO requests that I drive across 5 states to see her every time she has a bad day, the rule does not apply. I would like to hear an argument for why the original Golden Rule is superior to my revised version.

t3_68i18k

CMV: Bipartisan politics is an outdated and largely worthless concept.

First, I'm aware other parties exist, but functionally the US government is bipartisan. This is a problem. For example, compare Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They are about as close to polar opposites as you can find within our government. However, I believe they (along every other bipartisan politician) hold many functional assumptions about government that limit the range of potential political discussions. In short, bipartisan government restricts free competition of ideas. Please no counter arguments along these lines: 1. Reformation is impossible/impractical. 2. Third party candidates are a viable alternative, if only people would vote for them. I strongly disagree with both of the above counter-points, but am not looking to have those views changed at this time. Will go into further detail in the comments if somebody wants clarification. _____ > *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: Bipartisan politics is an outdated and largely worthless concept. First, I'm aware other parties exist, but functionally the US government is bipartisan. This is a problem. For example, compare Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They are about as close to polar opposites as you can find within our government. However, I believe they (along every other bipartisan politician) hold many functional assumptions about government that limit the range of potential political discussions. In short, bipartisan government restricts free competition of ideas. Please no counter arguments along these lines: 1. Reformation is impossible/impractical. 2. Third party candidates are a viable alternative, if only people would vote for them. I strongly disagree with both of the above counter-points, but am not looking to have those views changed at this time. Will go into further detail in the comments if somebody wants clarification.

t3_1h51vx

I believe that the pro-life stance is not mysogynistic. CMV.

I have no idea how common this feeling is, but i've seen a lot of people call anyone opposed to 'my body my choice' as being misogynistic/ against women. I think the thing that pro-life and pro-choice people disagree with is whether abortion is infanticide, and this is a valid debate to have and argue about, but calling everyone who disagrees with your view on that topic a misogynist is not productive. My personal stance is that contraception and sex education are good, that terminating an emryo a few weeks after conception is fine, but that the longer you wait the more wrong it is, and at some point (possibly before 20 weeks, still not decided on that) it basically becomes infanticide. I'm still not sure where the line should be drawn, but I don't think it's just 'when can it survive by itself if it was prematurely born right now'. I'm not sure if i count as pro-life or not. either way, i used to definitely be pro-life, and i find it very disingenuous for the pro-choice advocates to start calling the other side misogynists and treating it like it's completely obvious that it should be fine and anyone who disagrees is crazy. The question of when you should count as a person/ when it is okay to kill is not a scientific question, it's a philosophical/ moral/ ethical question. Sure science can be used to help inform your decision, but you shouldn't treat it like it can answer it by itself. There's nothing that science can say that shows it's objectively wrong to kill ANYONE, or do ANYTHING. EDIT: added some details to my view and changed 'murder' to 'infanticide' since people are saying it has murder has a very specific legal meaning.

I believe that the pro-life stance is not mysogynistic. CMV. I have no idea how common this feeling is, but i've seen a lot of people call anyone opposed to 'my body my choice' as being misogynistic/ against women. I think the thing that pro-life and pro-choice people disagree with is whether abortion is infanticide, and this is a valid debate to have and argue about, but calling everyone who disagrees with your view on that topic a misogynist is not productive. My personal stance is that contraception and sex education are good, that terminating an emryo a few weeks after conception is fine, but that the longer you wait the more wrong it is, and at some point (possibly before 20 weeks, still not decided on that) it basically becomes infanticide. I'm still not sure where the line should be drawn, but I don't think it's just 'when can it survive by itself if it was prematurely born right now'. I'm not sure if i count as pro-life or not. either way, i used to definitely be pro-life, and i find it very disingenuous for the pro-choice advocates to start calling the other side misogynists and treating it like it's completely obvious that it should be fine and anyone who disagrees is crazy. The question of when you should count as a person/ when it is okay to kill is not a scientific question, it's a philosophical/ moral/ ethical question. Sure science can be used to help inform your decision, but you shouldn't treat it like it can answer it by itself. There's nothing that science can say that shows it's objectively wrong to kill ANYONE, or do ANYTHING. EDIT: added some details to my view and changed 'murder' to 'infanticide' since people are saying it has murder has a very specific legal meaning.

t3_4cc5es

CMV: If you decide not to vaccinate your kids with the recommended schedule, you should pay extra for insurance.

By not vaccinating your kid you are putting them at higher risk for expensive hospital visits. Additionally, you are also increasing the potential liability cost in case your kid gets another kid sick or kills them. Since many are uncomfortable with the government forcing vaccinations, why not increase their insurance premiums to encourage vaccination? I also think that if you don't wear a seatbelt you should pay more in insurance, or if you don't vaccinate your dog against rabies you should pay more in insurance. You are more than welcome to live a more risky life, but you need the insurance to cover 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: If you decide not to vaccinate your kids with the recommended schedule, you should pay extra for insurance. By not vaccinating your kid you are putting them at higher risk for expensive hospital visits. Additionally, you are also increasing the potential liability cost in case your kid gets another kid sick or kills them. Since many are uncomfortable with the government forcing vaccinations, why not increase their insurance premiums to encourage vaccination? I also think that if you don't wear a seatbelt you should pay more in insurance, or if you don't vaccinate your dog against rabies you should pay more in insurance. You are more than welcome to live a more risky life, but you need the insurance to cover it.

t3_1xhicb

I believe man would live a better life without any institutions CMV

I believe each individual man would live a better and more fulfilling life if no government existed. If people could not rule over other people. If everyone worked together for the survival of their community, without a set ruling group. Or, each man could live his own life the way he wanted, without the threat of state interference. If no government or institution existed than no one could really claim power over another man. Therefore, the man would be completely free to live however they choose to live. What would be an argument against this? Why would this not be more beneficial to the individual man?

I believe man would live a better life without any institutions CMV. I believe each individual man would live a better and more fulfilling life if no government existed. If people could not rule over other people. If everyone worked together for the survival of their community, without a set ruling group. Or, each man could live his own life the way he wanted, without the threat of state interference. If no government or institution existed than no one could really claim power over another man. Therefore, the man would be completely free to live however they choose to live. What would be an argument against this? Why would this not be more beneficial to the individual man?

t3_2wz6d4

CMV: Philantropy should be mandatory for every elected official.

1. There are people living in sub humane conditions. 2. A significant part of people living in sub humane conditions live like that through no fault of their own: born into poverty, lack of opportunities, education, bad luck. 3. Most people live under a government 3. The main objective of a government should be to ensure that everyone gets a fair opportunity 4. Government generates power 5. Power generates corruption 6. Government power can often corrupt elected officials 7. Government is often unable to provide basic opportunities for all due to (among others) corruption 8. Philantrophy is an alternative to helping people have good opportunities 9. Philantrophic associations are often seem as more efficient than government when it comes to helping people get a fair opportunity 10. Philantropy, if well executed, means putting people over money 12. If you put people over money, you're less likely to be corrupt 11. People who put people over money and prove it through philantrophy are less likely to be corrupt people 10. Elected officials should be forced to engage in philantropy 15. An elected official that engages in philatrophy (from his own money) is more likely to put people over money, hence less likely to be corrupt. 16. More money spent on philantrophy = less money paid in taxes + more efficient use of the money. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Philantropy should be mandatory for every elected official. 1. There are people living in sub humane conditions. 2. A significant part of people living in sub humane conditions live like that through no fault of their own: born into poverty, lack of opportunities, education, bad luck. 3. Most people live under a government 3. The main objective of a government should be to ensure that everyone gets a fair opportunity 4. Government generates power 5. Power generates corruption 6. Government power can often corrupt elected officials 7. Government is often unable to provide basic opportunities for all due to (among others) corruption 8. Philantrophy is an alternative to helping people have good opportunities 9. Philantrophic associations are often seem as more efficient than government when it comes to helping people get a fair opportunity 10. Philantropy, if well executed, means putting people over money 12. If you put people over money, you're less likely to be corrupt 11. People who put people over money and prove it through philantrophy are less likely to be corrupt people 10. Elected officials should be forced to engage in philantropy 15. An elected official that engages in philatrophy (from his own money) is more likely to put people over money, hence less likely to be corrupt. 16. More money spent on philantrophy = less money paid in taxes + more efficient use of the money. Change my view.

t3_29m3by

CMV: Scientific efforts should be more valued in our society than entertainment and art

Recently over the past few years, I have been grappling with an issues of priorities. I feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music. There is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature. The only reason I believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and don't understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations. Agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed? EDIT: I appreciate all of the feedback. After I post this edit I probably won't respond to any more rebuttals (partially because my perspective has shifted and I also feel I have done a good enough job to expand upon my arguments). I recognize that my controversial opinion may have more shades of gray than I initially thought. _____ > *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: Scientific efforts should be more valued in our society than entertainment and art. Recently over the past few years, I have been grappling with an issues of priorities. I feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music. There is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature. The only reason I believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and don't understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations. Agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed? EDIT: I appreciate all of the feedback. After I post this edit I probably won't respond to any more rebuttals (partially because my perspective has shifted and I also feel I have done a good enough job to expand upon my arguments). I recognize that my controversial opinion may have more shades of gray than I initially thought.

t3_1jyqg5

I believe college student athletes should get paid. CMV

Many major universities profit handsomely from their sports franchises. Ticket sales, merchandise sales, championship winnings ( I.e. BCS Bowls and their take.). Yet the student athletes who are core to the success of the program (including financial) get zero. Yes, they get a free "education". However, if you divide the scholarship value by number of hours worked for the benefit of the school's athletic program, their wage is not that attractive. Further, there are many students who get a full ride for academic purposes and don't have to train extensively while trying to perform at school (this puts the athletes at a competitive disadvantage if they actually had to find a job). And lastly, these kids sacrifice their bodies and in most cases don't get a degree that could actually earn them a living if they were to get injured or not make it in the big leagues. In effect, the schools take advantage of these starry eyed athletes who think they will go pro (most do not) by profiting handsomely (in many cases) while churning out poorly educated athlete graduates with crappy degrees. CMV.

I believe college student athletes should get paid. CMV. Many major universities profit handsomely from their sports franchises. Ticket sales, merchandise sales, championship winnings ( I.e. BCS Bowls and their take.). Yet the student athletes who are core to the success of the program (including financial) get zero. Yes, they get a free "education". However, if you divide the scholarship value by number of hours worked for the benefit of the school's athletic program, their wage is not that attractive. Further, there are many students who get a full ride for academic purposes and don't have to train extensively while trying to perform at school (this puts the athletes at a competitive disadvantage if they actually had to find a job). And lastly, these kids sacrifice their bodies and in most cases don't get a degree that could actually earn them a living if they were to get injured or not make it in the big leagues. In effect, the schools take advantage of these starry eyed athletes who think they will go pro (most do not) by profiting handsomely (in many cases) while churning out poorly educated athlete graduates with crappy degrees. CMV.