Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_3cm19f

CMV: Ta-Nehisi Coates is wrong about the American Dream.

Ta-Nehisi Coates published a great [open letter to his son](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/tanehisi-coates-between-the-world-and-me/397619/) that is well worth reading. However, he says "I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you." He goes on to say "There is no them without you, and without the right to break you they must necessarily fall from the mountain, lose their divinity, and tumble out of the Dream. And then they would have to determine how to build their suburbs on something other than human bones, how to angle their jails toward something other than a human stockyard, how to erect a democracy independent of cannibalism." Coates is right about so much in this letter. He is right that whiteness is an illusion people create for themselves. He is right that our history has been built on oppression and murder. He is right that the problem of police oppression of black communities is not a matter of "a few bad apples" but is structural. But I don't think he is right that this American Dream rests necessarily on oppression. My belief is that most Dreamers want black Americans to share those same cookouts, have those lawns, and join the cub scouts. They may not be making that happen (indeed, some may be standing in the way of that happening), but there is nothing about the Dream that cannot survive in a more just society. CMV. Explain to me why Coates rejects the idea of hope so absolutely. I don't think I understand.

CMV: Ta-Nehisi Coates is wrong about the American Dream. Ta-Nehisi Coates published a great [open letter to his son](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/tanehisi-coates-between-the-world-and-me/397619/) that is well worth reading. However, he says "I have seen that dream all my life. It is perfect houses with nice lawns. It is Memorial Day cookouts, block associations, and driveways. The Dream is tree houses and the Cub Scouts. And for so long I have wanted to escape into the Dream, to fold my country over my head like a blanket. But this has never been an option, because the Dream rests on our backs, the bedding made from our bodies. And knowing this, knowing that the Dream persists by warring with the known world, I was sad for the host, I was sad for all those families, I was sad for my country, but above all, in that moment, I was sad for you." He goes on to say "There is no them without you, and without the right to break you they must necessarily fall from the mountain, lose their divinity, and tumble out of the Dream. And then they would have to determine how to build their suburbs on something other than human bones, how to angle their jails toward something other than a human stockyard, how to erect a democracy independent of cannibalism." Coates is right about so much in this letter. He is right that whiteness is an illusion people create for themselves. He is right that our history has been built on oppression and murder. He is right that the problem of police oppression of black communities is not a matter of "a few bad apples" but is structural. But I don't think he is right that this American Dream rests necessarily on oppression. My belief is that most Dreamers want black Americans to share those same cookouts, have those lawns, and join the cub scouts. They may not be making that happen (indeed, some may be standing in the way of that happening), but there is nothing about the Dream that cannot survive in a more just society. CMV. Explain to me why Coates rejects the idea of hope so absolutely. I don't think I understand.

t3_1hnrv5

I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world. CMV

I believe that this countries very foundation was based on violating human rights (western expansion and manifest destiny) and we continue to do so to this very day. I believe there was small window during WW2 where we were all united and prosperous but since that time has passed we've begun degenerating as a country and I fear that Americans pigheadedness and constant 'murrica circlejerk is going to blind us to the very real condition of our country where wall street robs the little man blind and a tiny majority of the populous controls a vast majority of the wealth. The average duration of unemployment in this country is at an all time high of 39 weeks, while 5.5 million Americans are unemployed and NOT receiving any benefits. Low income jobs account for 41% of all jobs in the US and a good majority of manufacturing jobs are being shipped away to foreign countries. Our education system is abysmal, tuition for higher education is going no where but up, driving many students deep into debt that they fear might never get payed off, delaying the big life events such as marriage, children and owning a home. In primary education, our country is ranked 25th in Math performance, 21st in Science, and 15th overall. This is among just a fraction of issues we face as Americans, to say that we're the greatest country on earth is arrogant and ignorant. CMV.

I believe that The United States has no right to claim that it's the greatest country in the world. CMV. I believe that this countries very foundation was based on violating human rights (western expansion and manifest destiny) and we continue to do so to this very day. I believe there was small window during WW2 where we were all united and prosperous but since that time has passed we've begun degenerating as a country and I fear that Americans pigheadedness and constant 'murrica circlejerk is going to blind us to the very real condition of our country where wall street robs the little man blind and a tiny majority of the populous controls a vast majority of the wealth. The average duration of unemployment in this country is at an all time high of 39 weeks, while 5.5 million Americans are unemployed and NOT receiving any benefits. Low income jobs account for 41% of all jobs in the US and a good majority of manufacturing jobs are being shipped away to foreign countries. Our education system is abysmal, tuition for higher education is going no where but up, driving many students deep into debt that they fear might never get payed off, delaying the big life events such as marriage, children and owning a home. In primary education, our country is ranked 25th in Math performance, 21st in Science, and 15th overall. This is among just a fraction of issues we face as Americans, to say that we're the greatest country on earth is arrogant and ignorant. CMV.

t3_24oipo

CMV: Sub-Reddits designed for discussion should force you to reply, upvote a reply or report the post alongside every downvote.

Reddit wide people seem to downvote things based on nothing more than a whim. Ideally downvotes are used primarily to remove spam or mindless/pointless/stupid/useless posts that do not contribute. These posts are reportable and bannable and having them handled/removed would improve reddit. If someone is downvoting because they personally disagree or consider a post to not be contributing to reddit then they should be forced to give a reason to the poster, so that they can improve their future contributions. If a reason has already been given and they agree with it, then a simple upvote of that post is effective enough. Overall I think this would greatly improve reddit contributions and spawn more constructive discussions. TL;DR: Downvotes should be given ONLY with reason, and that reason should be supplied by the downvoter. _____ > *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: Sub-Reddits designed for discussion should force you to reply, upvote a reply or report the post alongside every downvote. Reddit wide people seem to downvote things based on nothing more than a whim. Ideally downvotes are used primarily to remove spam or mindless/pointless/stupid/useless posts that do not contribute. These posts are reportable and bannable and having them handled/removed would improve reddit. If someone is downvoting because they personally disagree or consider a post to not be contributing to reddit then they should be forced to give a reason to the poster, so that they can improve their future contributions. If a reason has already been given and they agree with it, then a simple upvote of that post is effective enough. Overall I think this would greatly improve reddit contributions and spawn more constructive discussions. TL;DR: Downvotes should be given ONLY with reason, and that reason should be supplied by the downvoter.

t3_1lvryo

I think that diagnosing children with ADD or ADHD because of high energy levels, and giving them medications like Ritalin daily is very, VERY WRONG. CMV

I think that when a child i hyper, it begins with the lack of stimulus at home and at school. If they can not sit still, teachers and parents need to take into consideration of their age, their environment and the amount of stimulus they are receiving on a daily basis. I think that people need to realize that we demand so much at such an early age in school, that a lot of children struggle with the high demand, and need a way to release that energy, more than a short recess break. They need to teach their children as the individuals they are, and develop and IEP so that they can incorporate such things like, being able to sit and bounce on a ball during desk time at school, and being able to stand up if they need to. people argue that other children will become distracted, yes that could happen, but children are entirely adaptable to new situations, and when those situations are explained to them, they are more willing to ignore it. I feel that when people force their children, which the age gap seems to get younger and younger each year, to take all these pills, they are changing the way their brain develops naturally, and could even lead to future drug use and addictions. When a teacher or parent has a child who is hyper, they need to find out how to stimulate their specific needs, just like any parent or teacher would with any child with a special need. Kinesthetic learning (also known as tactile learning) is a learning style in which learning takes place by the student carrying out a physical activity, rather than listening to a lecture or watching a demonstration. People with a preference for kinesthetic learning are also commonly known as "do-ers" Parents and teachers whom decide that a child is too hyper for their tolerance is just too lazy to give that child the extra love and care they need, in order to help them learn and develop to the best of their advantages. i challenge you to, Change my view.

I think that diagnosing children with ADD or ADHD because of high energy levels, and giving them medications like Ritalin daily is very, VERY WRONG. CMV. I think that when a child i hyper, it begins with the lack of stimulus at home and at school. If they can not sit still, teachers and parents need to take into consideration of their age, their environment and the amount of stimulus they are receiving on a daily basis. I think that people need to realize that we demand so much at such an early age in school, that a lot of children struggle with the high demand, and need a way to release that energy, more than a short recess break. They need to teach their children as the individuals they are, and develop and IEP so that they can incorporate such things like, being able to sit and bounce on a ball during desk time at school, and being able to stand up if they need to. people argue that other children will become distracted, yes that could happen, but children are entirely adaptable to new situations, and when those situations are explained to them, they are more willing to ignore it. I feel that when people force their children, which the age gap seems to get younger and younger each year, to take all these pills, they are changing the way their brain develops naturally, and could even lead to future drug use and addictions. When a teacher or parent has a child who is hyper, they need to find out how to stimulate their specific needs, just like any parent or teacher would with any child with a special need. Kinesthetic learning (also known as tactile learning) is a learning style in which learning takes place by the student carrying out a physical activity, rather than listening to a lecture or watching a demonstration. People with a preference for kinesthetic learning are also commonly known as "do-ers" Parents and teachers whom decide that a child is too hyper for their tolerance is just too lazy to give that child the extra love and care they need, in order to help them learn and develop to the best of their advantages. i challenge you to, Change my view.

t3_27egb8

CMV:I don't believe it should be possible to purchase recorded music

Before the late 1800s/early 1900s, there wasn't such a thing as buying pre-recorded music. You could buy sheet music but that was it (including piano rolls, which is what player pianos use.) For the most part, musicians were viewed as providing a service, not as creating a product. With the invention of record players, then tape players and CD players this changed. Copies of recorded music on physical media are products, establishing the view that musicians create products. The internet has changed this in a fundamental way. Napster made people realize that music can be acquired easily for free, and the fact that many official channels (Youtube/VEVO, Spotify, Pandora) allow people to listen to music for free (with certain restrictions) just reinforces this feeling. This part of my opinion is more unsupported: the idea of recorded music that is purchased is fading, and will fade into nothing but niche markets (people who buy records/CDs out of nostalgia as much as anything.) People will view music as a service and not a product once more. Musicians hoping to make a living will have to do so by performing, an experience that cannot (yet?) be easily replicated. This is logical and for the best. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I don't believe it should be possible to purchase recorded music. Before the late 1800s/early 1900s, there wasn't such a thing as buying pre-recorded music. You could buy sheet music but that was it (including piano rolls, which is what player pianos use.) For the most part, musicians were viewed as providing a service, not as creating a product. With the invention of record players, then tape players and CD players this changed. Copies of recorded music on physical media are products, establishing the view that musicians create products. The internet has changed this in a fundamental way. Napster made people realize that music can be acquired easily for free, and the fact that many official channels (Youtube/VEVO, Spotify, Pandora) allow people to listen to music for free (with certain restrictions) just reinforces this feeling. This part of my opinion is more unsupported: the idea of recorded music that is purchased is fading, and will fade into nothing but niche markets (people who buy records/CDs out of nostalgia as much as anything.) People will view music as a service and not a product once more. Musicians hoping to make a living will have to do so by performing, an experience that cannot (yet?) be easily replicated. This is logical and for the best.

t3_24txly

CMV: There is nothing wrong with polyamory.

Polyamory has been popping up in the media a lot recently and I tend to read the comments on these articles. They do not tend to be, on the whole, positive, with people just tending towards "Nope" or "Ick" type comments. I'm in a polyamorous relationship with two men, so I've got a dog in this fight. We live together. They're not in a sexual relationship with each other. We are happy, healthy, stable and long-term. Tell me, what is objectively wrong about my relationships? And yes, yes, I know it's not for everyone; that's not an argument in itself.

CMV: There is nothing wrong with polyamory. Polyamory has been popping up in the media a lot recently and I tend to read the comments on these articles. They do not tend to be, on the whole, positive, with people just tending towards "Nope" or "Ick" type comments. I'm in a polyamorous relationship with two men, so I've got a dog in this fight. We live together. They're not in a sexual relationship with each other. We are happy, healthy, stable and long-term. Tell me, what is objectively wrong about my relationships? And yes, yes, I know it's not for everyone; that's not an argument in itself.

t3_1hc0ko

I'm a strong believer that all over the counter medication is complete BS and it's all placebo.CMV.

I tried many over the counter medications for any ailments I have. When I have the flu I took over the counter medication for it and it never works. I tried different brands but it doesn't make me feel any better. Same thing goes with over the counter pain killers. I once twisted my ankle after I came back running and I took some Advil and it didn't take the edge off the pain. I twisted my ankle many times over the years but no brand works. The only medication that works for me is the ones doctors prescribe to me. I think drug stores as far as over the counter medication goes is just a scam to take your money.

I'm a strong believer that all over the counter medication is complete BS and it's all placebo.CMV. I tried many over the counter medications for any ailments I have. When I have the flu I took over the counter medication for it and it never works. I tried different brands but it doesn't make me feel any better. Same thing goes with over the counter pain killers. I once twisted my ankle after I came back running and I took some Advil and it didn't take the edge off the pain. I twisted my ankle many times over the years but no brand works. The only medication that works for me is the ones doctors prescribe to me. I think drug stores as far as over the counter medication goes is just a scam to take your money.

t3_2doaru

CMV: Cable channels should be unbundled and bandwidth from failed channels given to internet

Inspired by /r/cordcutters http://www.reddit.com/r/cordcutters/comments/2dn3s3/i_watched_some_cable_tv_this_week_at_a_friends/ Firstly, consumers should only have to pay for the services they want. C̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶c̶i̶p̶l̶e̶ UPDATE: The lack of competition gives consumers no bargaining power with the incumbent cable company. I advocate government intervention to force companies to also offer channels a la carte. http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-teams-with-mccain-as-lead-democratic-co-sponsor-of-a-la-carte-cable-bill Possible counterargument: "Bundling content subsidizes specialized channels that otherwise could not survive." Of course. But for the reason stated above, these channels should be allowed to die. This is where the re-appropriation of bandwidth comes in. When specialized channels leave the spectrum, this opens up bandwidth for internet service. Specialty channels can then distribute over the internet without having to take up 6 Mhz of bandwidth constantly. There will be fixed costs to deal with by switching to internet distribution. But the consumer, and small-time channels, will ultimately enjoy lower costs in cable tv and internet. UPDATE: if the OP is getting too flooded with clarifications, the conversation in the comments might not make sense to newcomers to the thread. Don't know what I can do in this regard. _____ > *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: Cable channels should be unbundled and bandwidth from failed channels given to internet. Inspired by /r/cordcutters http://www.reddit.com/r/cordcutters/comments/2dn3s3/i_watched_some_cable_tv_this_week_at_a_friends/ Firstly, consumers should only have to pay for the services they want. C̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶c̶i̶p̶l̶e̶ UPDATE: The lack of competition gives consumers no bargaining power with the incumbent cable company. I advocate government intervention to force companies to also offer channels a la carte. http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-teams-with-mccain-as-lead-democratic-co-sponsor-of-a-la-carte-cable-bill Possible counterargument: "Bundling content subsidizes specialized channels that otherwise could not survive." Of course. But for the reason stated above, these channels should be allowed to die. This is where the re-appropriation of bandwidth comes in. When specialized channels leave the spectrum, this opens up bandwidth for internet service. Specialty channels can then distribute over the internet without having to take up 6 Mhz of bandwidth constantly. There will be fixed costs to deal with by switching to internet distribution. But the consumer, and small-time channels, will ultimately enjoy lower costs in cable tv and internet. UPDATE: if the OP is getting too flooded with clarifications, the conversation in the comments might not make sense to newcomers to the thread. Don't know what I can do in this regard.

t3_6oaq0j

CMV:Drugs should be legal and regulated.

The primary reason why I believe drugs should be legal is because I think the state should not have a say in what any person does with their own body. I believe suicide, euthanasia, prostitution, abortion, etc should be legal, and the same applies to drugs, which is what I've come here to debate. I've got other reasons that make me feel like this is the best choice. 1) The narco business would pretty much die out, and a lot of people that suffer because of it (such as people forced to be drug mules, people caught in narco gang fights' crossfire, etc) would no longer have to deal with any of that. 2) There would no longer be so many cases of people dying from drug misrepresentation. If you buy acid, you know you are taking acid. If you buy ecstasy, you know you are taking ecstasy. We can all forget about the fentanyl problem immediately. 3) Increased tax revenue just like we've seen in states that legalized recreational cannabis. 4) It would reduce the discrimination towards drug users. People would no longer be forced to break the law and face so much stigmatization for using drugs recreationally. 5) It would probably lead to schools and the government more comfortably approaching drug use with harm reduction in mind instead of using scare tactics and stigmatization. When my teachers told me that taking ecstasy was like deep frying your brain I stopped listening immediately. It's like if your parents told you having sex would likely lead to 10 STDs and ruin your life. Once you find out it's not like that you may just disregard their advice on that topic altogether. A more honest approach would be best, in my opinion. I would appreciate if you refuted any of those 5 claims, but to change my mind about the original claim you would have to convince me that the state should in fact be able to forbid people from doing things it considers are not healthy. _____ > *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:Drugs should be legal and regulated. The primary reason why I believe drugs should be legal is because I think the state should not have a say in what any person does with their own body. I believe suicide, euthanasia, prostitution, abortion, etc should be legal, and the same applies to drugs, which is what I've come here to debate. I've got other reasons that make me feel like this is the best choice. 1) The narco business would pretty much die out, and a lot of people that suffer because of it (such as people forced to be drug mules, people caught in narco gang fights' crossfire, etc) would no longer have to deal with any of that. 2) There would no longer be so many cases of people dying from drug misrepresentation. If you buy acid, you know you are taking acid. If you buy ecstasy, you know you are taking ecstasy. We can all forget about the fentanyl problem immediately. 3) Increased tax revenue just like we've seen in states that legalized recreational cannabis. 4) It would reduce the discrimination towards drug users. People would no longer be forced to break the law and face so much stigmatization for using drugs recreationally. 5) It would probably lead to schools and the government more comfortably approaching drug use with harm reduction in mind instead of using scare tactics and stigmatization. When my teachers told me that taking ecstasy was like deep frying your brain I stopped listening immediately. It's like if your parents told you having sex would likely lead to 10 STDs and ruin your life. Once you find out it's not like that you may just disregard their advice on that topic altogether. A more honest approach would be best, in my opinion. I would appreciate if you refuted any of those 5 claims, but to change my mind about the original claim you would have to convince me that the state should in fact be able to forbid people from doing things it considers are not healthy.

t3_6io8jq

CMV: One of the most widely accepted scientific perspectives at many points of time in the past was that the world was flat. Once a human truly learns that the world is not flat, that human will never again believe that the world is flat.

I believe that once you gain a piece of knowledge that is superior to a piece of knowledge you gained earlier, you will never choose to revert your beliefs. This relies on the assumption that you fully understood and learned both perspectives, which is a whole other discussion. Every example that I can think of confirms my perspective. I don't believe that it is possible to fully grasp two perspectives and choose one that has been scientifically debunked. I am not assuming that when you have a perspective at any given time that it is your final conclusion. Also - this does not include habit adopting and shedding, only beliefs. Edit: excludes humans under extreme duress. Edit: MY VIEW HAS BEEN CHANGED. Here is my new view using my title example once again: I do not know that the world is flat, but I also do not know that the world is not flat. I cannot know that the world is flat as fact because I have not learned it myself as truth. I can also not know that the world is not flat because I have never fully learned the physical properties to prove that it is not flat. I can only know truth if I have sought it myself. I *choose to trust the knowledge* of the scientists that have learned that the world is not flat as truth, and I *choose not to trust the knowledge* of individuals that believe the world is flat, because no one has ever proven it for themselves, that I know of. Now I'm starting to really wonder what views I know as truth. Shit. My brain hurts. _____ > *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: One of the most widely accepted scientific perspectives at many points of time in the past was that the world was flat. Once a human truly learns that the world is not flat, that human will never again believe that the world is flat. I believe that once you gain a piece of knowledge that is superior to a piece of knowledge you gained earlier, you will never choose to revert your beliefs. This relies on the assumption that you fully understood and learned both perspectives, which is a whole other discussion. Every example that I can think of confirms my perspective. I don't believe that it is possible to fully grasp two perspectives and choose one that has been scientifically debunked. I am not assuming that when you have a perspective at any given time that it is your final conclusion. Also - this does not include habit adopting and shedding, only beliefs. Edit: excludes humans under extreme duress. Edit: MY VIEW HAS BEEN CHANGED. Here is my new view using my title example once again: I do not know that the world is flat, but I also do not know that the world is not flat. I cannot know that the world is flat as fact because I have not learned it myself as truth. I can also not know that the world is not flat because I have never fully learned the physical properties to prove that it is not flat. I can only know truth if I have sought it myself. I *choose to trust the knowledge* of the scientists that have learned that the world is not flat as truth, and I *choose not to trust the knowledge* of individuals that believe the world is flat, because no one has ever proven it for themselves, that I know of. Now I'm starting to really wonder what views I know as truth. Shit. My brain hurts.

t3_278t95

CMV: There is basically no justification for trying a minor "as an adult".

If the laws are in place because minors are incapable of understanding the full consequences of their actions, or because the minor should be treated differently than an adult, then it makes no sense to alter that from the other direction by trying them in a court of law as an adult. Certainly minors are capable of horrendous crimes. There is clearly historical and modern precedent for that happening. It is just as clear however that minors do things without the same consideration and knowledge that is expected of an adult. Therefore, either we need to get rid of the laws that treat minors differently in general, or remove the ability to try some crimes as if the minor were an adult. Please, CMV. This could be done by giving me a different justification than I've list above, or provide a more sensible way for the delineation between kids doing stupid things and adults doing stupid things to be deduced than I'm able to understand from news articles. Thanks! Edit: typo Edit 2: You guys are making some inroads in changing my mind, but before I go further, perhaps the problem is in terminology? Should not be youth court versus adult court, but some other names that better specify the severity of the crimes, or rehabilitation versus punishment court, or something? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is basically no justification for trying a minor "as an adult". If the laws are in place because minors are incapable of understanding the full consequences of their actions, or because the minor should be treated differently than an adult, then it makes no sense to alter that from the other direction by trying them in a court of law as an adult. Certainly minors are capable of horrendous crimes. There is clearly historical and modern precedent for that happening. It is just as clear however that minors do things without the same consideration and knowledge that is expected of an adult. Therefore, either we need to get rid of the laws that treat minors differently in general, or remove the ability to try some crimes as if the minor were an adult. Please, CMV. This could be done by giving me a different justification than I've list above, or provide a more sensible way for the delineation between kids doing stupid things and adults doing stupid things to be deduced than I'm able to understand from news articles. Thanks! Edit: typo Edit 2: You guys are making some inroads in changing my mind, but before I go further, perhaps the problem is in terminology? Should not be youth court versus adult court, but some other names that better specify the severity of the crimes, or rehabilitation versus punishment court, or something?

t3_1k0qw2

Depression isn't a chemical condition to be treated with medicine. CMV?

Thus far, I haven't been able to convince myself that mental illnesses like depression should be treated with medicines similar to physical ailments. While I fully acknowledge the serious nature of mental illness and how severely it can affect the ability to function normally, I am in complete denial of modern/accepted practices to treatment plans. I believe most of this originates from lack of comprehensive, impartial knowledge about the subject. Throughout my own life, I have refused to be tested/treated/examined for very likely causes of my nervous habits and anxiety attacks because I cannot come to the conclusion that mainstream treatment plans have anything to offer me. To past intakes and counselors, I've lied through my teeth to avoid treatment, and I continually feel the toll it takes on ~~What I Could Be~~. Yet, what I think would be more helpful than a set of reasons why ~~Overcoming My Fear of The Man Suppressing My Natural Self with Whatever Mental Ailments Come Attached~~ (which would be appreciated, but which I've confronted myself with many-a-time before) would be some data or tangible support (that I therefore can't debate back around in my head on bad days) about the way that mental illness precisely fits the category of a "chemical imbalance" as the phrase goes. ... But I'll take what I can get. Thanks

Depression isn't a chemical condition to be treated with medicine. CMV?. Thus far, I haven't been able to convince myself that mental illnesses like depression should be treated with medicines similar to physical ailments. While I fully acknowledge the serious nature of mental illness and how severely it can affect the ability to function normally, I am in complete denial of modern/accepted practices to treatment plans. I believe most of this originates from lack of comprehensive, impartial knowledge about the subject. Throughout my own life, I have refused to be tested/treated/examined for very likely causes of my nervous habits and anxiety attacks because I cannot come to the conclusion that mainstream treatment plans have anything to offer me. To past intakes and counselors, I've lied through my teeth to avoid treatment, and I continually feel the toll it takes on ~~What I Could Be~~. Yet, what I think would be more helpful than a set of reasons why ~~Overcoming My Fear of The Man Suppressing My Natural Self with Whatever Mental Ailments Come Attached~~ (which would be appreciated, but which I've confronted myself with many-a-time before) would be some data or tangible support (that I therefore can't debate back around in my head on bad days) about the way that mental illness precisely fits the category of a "chemical imbalance" as the phrase goes. ... But I'll take what I can get. Thanks

t3_3pychg

CMV: Both legally and socially, jaywalking should be more unacceptable and taken much more seriously

**Context:** - I work in Seattle. There is a specific situation that is annoying me every day and driving this view. - I'm not talking about a person looking both ways, not seeing any cars, and "Illegally" crossing the street. **Specific Scenario (made up street names):** I am on a one-way, one lane street travelling west (X avenue), and need to take a right turn on to a one-way, multiple lane street (Y street) going North that is extremely congested with both cars and people. There is a "no turn on red" sign on my street (something not uncommon in Seattle). This should be a simple thing. I simply wait there, and when the light turns green I wait for the pedestrians to finish crossing, then take my right turn. Here is what actually happens though: My light turns green, and a steady stream of pedestrians starts going both ways across Y street. The pedestrian light starts flashing red and the count down timer starts (15 seconds). The pedestrians don't stop crossing at all; Despite it flashing red they just continue to cross. Even when it is down to 1 second, or has just stopped, pedestrians are STILL "running" across the street. By the time the pedestrians have finished, my light has already been red for a few seconds and the cars on Y street already have a green light. There is no legal way for me to make my right turn without having to literally wait about 90 minutes for the congestion to slow down. What I have to do is block the intersection with my vehicle so that I can make an illegal turn on red (stops the cars on Y street from proceeding). Even doing this, it still means that only 1 car at a time can make a right turn. A HUGE amount of vehicles trying to take right turns develops every day on X avenue. These pedestrians constantly and just casually crossing illegally every day causes a tremendous strain on traffic. Yet, this is all just socially acceptable and police do nothing about it. If I were to just run a red light because it was convenient to me, and make every other car wait for me, I'd get at least one person honking their horn at my actions. Given the impact jaywalking has on traffic, both society and the police should take this much more seriously. Posting a police officer on key intersections to write tickets to every jaywalker (without causing a traffic jam) would be a reasonable solution to this problem. _____ > *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: Both legally and socially, jaywalking should be more unacceptable and taken much more seriously. **Context:** - I work in Seattle. There is a specific situation that is annoying me every day and driving this view. - I'm not talking about a person looking both ways, not seeing any cars, and "Illegally" crossing the street. **Specific Scenario (made up street names):** I am on a one-way, one lane street travelling west (X avenue), and need to take a right turn on to a one-way, multiple lane street (Y street) going North that is extremely congested with both cars and people. There is a "no turn on red" sign on my street (something not uncommon in Seattle). This should be a simple thing. I simply wait there, and when the light turns green I wait for the pedestrians to finish crossing, then take my right turn. Here is what actually happens though: My light turns green, and a steady stream of pedestrians starts going both ways across Y street. The pedestrian light starts flashing red and the count down timer starts (15 seconds). The pedestrians don't stop crossing at all; Despite it flashing red they just continue to cross. Even when it is down to 1 second, or has just stopped, pedestrians are STILL "running" across the street. By the time the pedestrians have finished, my light has already been red for a few seconds and the cars on Y street already have a green light. There is no legal way for me to make my right turn without having to literally wait about 90 minutes for the congestion to slow down. What I have to do is block the intersection with my vehicle so that I can make an illegal turn on red (stops the cars on Y street from proceeding). Even doing this, it still means that only 1 car at a time can make a right turn. A HUGE amount of vehicles trying to take right turns develops every day on X avenue. These pedestrians constantly and just casually crossing illegally every day causes a tremendous strain on traffic. Yet, this is all just socially acceptable and police do nothing about it. If I were to just run a red light because it was convenient to me, and make every other car wait for me, I'd get at least one person honking their horn at my actions. Given the impact jaywalking has on traffic, both society and the police should take this much more seriously. Posting a police officer on key intersections to write tickets to every jaywalker (without causing a traffic jam) would be a reasonable solution to this problem.

t3_68unrz

CMV: Non-axiomattic arguments for gods rely on ignorance, false premises, or other faults in logic.

By gods, I mean the sort presented in classical theism, as well as the sort described by the theists who aren't familiar with apologetics. There are some gods that I don't mind saying I believe in, but I don't call them god: reality (or the substrate of reality), the universe, a higher power (than myself or humans in general, either one), and love. Some examples of common arguments and why I think they rely on ignorance, false premises, or other faults in logic: * The fine-tuning argument relies on us not knowing what the chances of the universe having the fundamental forces at the current values is. * Prime mover argument relies on us not knowing the rules of metaphysics and thus ruling out an infinite regress of movers. * Morality argument relies on the false premise that there's an inherent right and wrong rather than right and wrong relating to specific values. _____ > *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: Non-axiomattic arguments for gods rely on ignorance, false premises, or other faults in logic. By gods, I mean the sort presented in classical theism, as well as the sort described by the theists who aren't familiar with apologetics. There are some gods that I don't mind saying I believe in, but I don't call them god: reality (or the substrate of reality), the universe, a higher power (than myself or humans in general, either one), and love. Some examples of common arguments and why I think they rely on ignorance, false premises, or other faults in logic: * The fine-tuning argument relies on us not knowing what the chances of the universe having the fundamental forces at the current values is. * Prime mover argument relies on us not knowing the rules of metaphysics and thus ruling out an infinite regress of movers. * Morality argument relies on the false premise that there's an inherent right and wrong rather than right and wrong relating to specific values.

t3_1nky31

I think Homeland has turned into the new Lost and I'm not going to watch it anymore. CMV [spoilers]

After watching last season's finale and this week's season opener I've concluded that Homeland isn't actually going anywhere. Like Lost it deals with characters with checkered pasts in stressful and/or mysterious situations, but also like Lost those characters never develop and the mysteries never get closer to resolution. As I see it, Homeland is about three questions: 1) Is Brody truly good or evil? 2) Can Carrie pull it together enough to have a normal life? 3) Can the two of them ever be together. The show is now about keeping these issues unresolved while creating drama around them. Essentially, the show will tease us with resolving them without ever doing so. For example, by having Brody cooperate to kill Nazir only to have a bomb go off and put him on the run again. Lost occasionally changed what questions it left unresolved and maybe Homeland is doing the same. With Brody gone and Saul's betrayal, maybe this season will drop the Brody question (without having resolved it mind you) and replace it with one about Saul. Anyway, my take is the series is going to drag on and end in tears for anyone who invests too much in it. I liked it for 1.9 seasons so please change my view.

I think Homeland has turned into the new Lost and I'm not going to watch it anymore. CMV [spoilers]. After watching last season's finale and this week's season opener I've concluded that Homeland isn't actually going anywhere. Like Lost it deals with characters with checkered pasts in stressful and/or mysterious situations, but also like Lost those characters never develop and the mysteries never get closer to resolution. As I see it, Homeland is about three questions: 1) Is Brody truly good or evil? 2) Can Carrie pull it together enough to have a normal life? 3) Can the two of them ever be together. The show is now about keeping these issues unresolved while creating drama around them. Essentially, the show will tease us with resolving them without ever doing so. For example, by having Brody cooperate to kill Nazir only to have a bomb go off and put him on the run again. Lost occasionally changed what questions it left unresolved and maybe Homeland is doing the same. With Brody gone and Saul's betrayal, maybe this season will drop the Brody question (without having resolved it mind you) and replace it with one about Saul. Anyway, my take is the series is going to drag on and end in tears for anyone who invests too much in it. I liked it for 1.9 seasons so please change my view.

t3_2egptk

CMV: The "Ice Bucket" challenge in support of fighting the Lou Gherig's disease (ALS) is a gross misallocation of resources.

ALS affects 30k people and kills 5k ([source](http://www.alsa.org/about-als/facts-you-should-know.html)). About the same number of healthy children will die from accidents alone ([source](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm)). The Ice Bucket challenge is a textbook example of building a brand, but it squanders it on a cause that in the grand scheme of things is a non-issue. I feel like we should work big-to-small and attack heart disease, cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other unbranded, unsexy, and "same old" causes of death that don't have a viral marketing campaign. I can name a dozen worthy causes that would have a more lasting impact than attempting to raise money for a disease that kills primarily Caucasian men ages 40-60 ([source](http://www.alsa.org/about-als/who-gets-als.html)). Getting kids out of warzones, like Gaza and Donetsk, building shelters and amenities for South American immigrants, working on Ebola research, literally, almost anything else would provide a larger impact.

CMV: The "Ice Bucket" challenge in support of fighting the Lou Gherig's disease (ALS) is a gross misallocation of resources. ALS affects 30k people and kills 5k ([source](http://www.alsa.org/about-als/facts-you-should-know.html)). About the same number of healthy children will die from accidents alone ([source](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm)). The Ice Bucket challenge is a textbook example of building a brand, but it squanders it on a cause that in the grand scheme of things is a non-issue. I feel like we should work big-to-small and attack heart disease, cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other unbranded, unsexy, and "same old" causes of death that don't have a viral marketing campaign. I can name a dozen worthy causes that would have a more lasting impact than attempting to raise money for a disease that kills primarily Caucasian men ages 40-60 ([source](http://www.alsa.org/about-als/who-gets-als.html)). Getting kids out of warzones, like Gaza and Donetsk, building shelters and amenities for South American immigrants, working on Ebola research, literally, almost anything else would provide a larger impact.

t3_2fnszi

CMV: A seemingly straight man dating a pre-op transwoman isn't heterosexual

I believe that sexuality has more to do with our biological sex than our gender. You can identify as male or female, man or woman and that doesn't bother me. I will use your pronoun of choice, and I won't give you flack. I support LGBT rights and believe in transitioning and equal rights. Your gender is more of a social part of you based on stereotypes. I'm atheist, I don't believe in the concept of sin and don't make judgments based on anything supernatural. However, if a biological male has anal intercourse with a bio-male who's gender is socially female, you would have to at least be bisexual. I'm not judging, but you would absolutely have to be. I realize this is a touchy subject and people are going to resent me and come down hard on me for even posting, but I would like for you to 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: A seemingly straight man dating a pre-op transwoman isn't heterosexual. I believe that sexuality has more to do with our biological sex than our gender. You can identify as male or female, man or woman and that doesn't bother me. I will use your pronoun of choice, and I won't give you flack. I support LGBT rights and believe in transitioning and equal rights. Your gender is more of a social part of you based on stereotypes. I'm atheist, I don't believe in the concept of sin and don't make judgments based on anything supernatural. However, if a biological male has anal intercourse with a bio-male who's gender is socially female, you would have to at least be bisexual. I'm not judging, but you would absolutely have to be. I realize this is a touchy subject and people are going to resent me and come down hard on me for even posting, but I would like for you to change my view.

t3_2cz1f6

Fresh Topic Friday - 08/08/14

A lot of subreddits face the problem of balancing a new user's desire to read fresh content with a regular user's desire to do the same. The problem being that fresh to newcomers is not fresh to long time readers. CMV has tried a variety of options to have interesting submissions without limiting even the most common of views. Fresh Topic Fridays is an approach to the problem that we're trying out. During this time, all posts must be manually approved by moderators. **Any post made on FTF may not be highly similar to a post made in the past month.** [Please see the FAQ for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/freshtopicfriday) Any other questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and leave us feedback.

Fresh Topic Friday - 08/08/14. A lot of subreddits face the problem of balancing a new user's desire to read fresh content with a regular user's desire to do the same. The problem being that fresh to newcomers is not fresh to long time readers. CMV has tried a variety of options to have interesting submissions without limiting even the most common of views. Fresh Topic Fridays is an approach to the problem that we're trying out. During this time, all posts must be manually approved by moderators. **Any post made on FTF may not be highly similar to a post made in the past month.** [Please see the FAQ for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/freshtopicfriday) Any other questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and leave us feedback.

t3_5csmx1

CMV: The Baralong incidents were Justice Porn.

The Baralong incidents took place on August and September 1915 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baralong_incidents A merchant ship Nicosian was to be attacked by the U-boat the U-27. However, before the U-boat could attack, a rather epic HMS Baralong appeared out of nowhere and attacked the U-boat sinking it. All of the crewman of the sinking U-boat were then executed by the crew of the Baralong. While, some have called The Baralong incident a war crime, it is obviously an incident of Justice Porn. If you're about to attack a merchant ship and fail why should you expect mercy from the people you tried to kill? The sheer arrogance alone of the U-boat crew to board the Nicosian. It is the equivalent of pirates expecting mercy. War crimes morally are to things like the Nanjing Massacre, whereas isn't attacking a merchant ship a war crime in of itself, legally probably not morally it should be considered far more of a war crime than shooting a U-Boat who tried to murder civilians (there were passengers onboard the Nicosian)

CMV: The Baralong incidents were Justice Porn. The Baralong incidents took place on August and September 1915 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baralong_incidents A merchant ship Nicosian was to be attacked by the U-boat the U-27. However, before the U-boat could attack, a rather epic HMS Baralong appeared out of nowhere and attacked the U-boat sinking it. All of the crewman of the sinking U-boat were then executed by the crew of the Baralong. While, some have called The Baralong incident a war crime, it is obviously an incident of Justice Porn. If you're about to attack a merchant ship and fail why should you expect mercy from the people you tried to kill? The sheer arrogance alone of the U-boat crew to board the Nicosian. It is the equivalent of pirates expecting mercy. War crimes morally are to things like the Nanjing Massacre, whereas isn't attacking a merchant ship a war crime in of itself, legally probably not morally it should be considered far more of a war crime than shooting a U-Boat who tried to murder civilians (there were passengers onboard the Nicosian)

t3_1zwd4x

I believe that English classes should be removed from English-speaking countries. CMV

I think that English classes are pointless in an English speaking country because, yes, they DO provide grammar, and essay writing, but I feel these skills are not worth my time. Essay writing in particular is something I detest, due to the on-the-book format as well as a HUGE set of rules and guidelines which are unnecessarily stupid. English class seems like a waste of my time, when I could be doing other useful things, like Global History or Chemistry. Though there are thousands of people who love English (and literature) I'm one of those people who hates to read "sappy" books, especially stupid realistic fiction books about conflict and prejudice and stupid morals and things to just make an English teacher talk all day about symbols and similes! Anyway, I think that my view is pretty biased. If you could change it, that would help.

I believe that English classes should be removed from English-speaking countries. CMV. I think that English classes are pointless in an English speaking country because, yes, they DO provide grammar, and essay writing, but I feel these skills are not worth my time. Essay writing in particular is something I detest, due to the on-the-book format as well as a HUGE set of rules and guidelines which are unnecessarily stupid. English class seems like a waste of my time, when I could be doing other useful things, like Global History or Chemistry. Though there are thousands of people who love English (and literature) I'm one of those people who hates to read "sappy" books, especially stupid realistic fiction books about conflict and prejudice and stupid morals and things to just make an English teacher talk all day about symbols and similes! Anyway, I think that my view is pretty biased. If you could change it, that would help.

t3_1rrl5r

I think your sexual proclivities, like your penis and your religious views, should be kept to yourself unless asked to share. CMV

There's an internet saying which goes, "Your religion is like your penis; it's nice to have one, it's great that you're proud of it, but please keep it to yourself." or something like that. I believe the same should be true about your sexual proclivities. I believe the world is becoming too hypersexualized and people are treating their sex life as some kind of performance art, especially on social media, which is subject to public (dis)approval, rather than for gratification of themselves and their partner(s). People agitate for slut-acceptance while shaming virgins and vice versa. How about everyone stay out of everyone else's sex lives while we proceed to do whatever we want that gets us off privately?

I think your sexual proclivities, like your penis and your religious views, should be kept to yourself unless asked to share. CMV. There's an internet saying which goes, "Your religion is like your penis; it's nice to have one, it's great that you're proud of it, but please keep it to yourself." or something like that. I believe the same should be true about your sexual proclivities. I believe the world is becoming too hypersexualized and people are treating their sex life as some kind of performance art, especially on social media, which is subject to public (dis)approval, rather than for gratification of themselves and their partner(s). People agitate for slut-acceptance while shaming virgins and vice versa. How about everyone stay out of everyone else's sex lives while we proceed to do whatever we want that gets us off privately?

t3_6ccy53

CMV:Eco-libertarianism is utopic

EDIT: Maybe I should have put "inviable" in the title. You get the gist, please don't fixate on the word choice. I identify as a libertarian, however environmental issues are also very important to me. Hence, I tend to see no other option but defend that the government should ensure that there is the least amount of environmental damage, through regulations on companies. That makes me really uncomfortable, though, and I'd rather find a properly libertarian way of defending the environment. I've done a little reading on eco-libertarianism, which suggests "full-cost accounting" and "internalising externalities". Honestly I couldn't understand those concepts very well, but from what I gathered you can't enforce them without interfering in the free market. Anyone can present a defence of eco-libertarianism, and libertarian mechanisms to protect the environment? _____ > *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:Eco-libertarianism is utopic. EDIT: Maybe I should have put "inviable" in the title. You get the gist, please don't fixate on the word choice. I identify as a libertarian, however environmental issues are also very important to me. Hence, I tend to see no other option but defend that the government should ensure that there is the least amount of environmental damage, through regulations on companies. That makes me really uncomfortable, though, and I'd rather find a properly libertarian way of defending the environment. I've done a little reading on eco-libertarianism, which suggests "full-cost accounting" and "internalising externalities". Honestly I couldn't understand those concepts very well, but from what I gathered you can't enforce them without interfering in the free market. Anyone can present a defence of eco-libertarianism, and libertarian mechanisms to protect the environment?

t3_1jbfjx

I believe that the objectivist stance on free will contradicts itself. CMV

I agree with most of objectivism's underlying premises, although I disagree strongly with its recommended economic policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the argument for capitalism that Ayn Rand put forth in her works: 1. Humans have complete free will; and this is self-evident to anyone who has free will, because by definition, free will includes awareness of free will. 2. True free will and determinism are incompatible. 3. Therefore, no form of determinism exists in the universe, or at least, humans are "exempt" from it. (by #1 and #2) 4. As a result of #1 and #3, a human is free to change his or her future in any direction, with enough effort. 5. Because of #4, humans should be held personally accountable for their actions and for their current state in life. If 1 and 2 are held to be true, then it can be shown using the statements above that any person can choose to be hard-working, and that any hard-working person will always benefit from capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is an ideal. --- I think that most of the logic involved is simple and true; however, I disagree with the end result because I believe that statements 1 and 2 are incompatible with each other. #1 can very easily be shown true because if you are aware of your decision process, then you have a form of free will. However, the key fundamental of objectivism is that you can only have knowledge based on objective facts and reason; the only fact offered to you in the case of free will is that you are capable of making your own decisions *based on your current state of mind and beliefs*. You do not consciously control your state of mind at every second of your life; changing your state of mind deliberately requires your *previous* state of mind to allow you to make that decision in the first place. There very well may be a true free will possessed by humans, but since we can not directly observe every aspect of free will, we can not prove it factually, and thus objectivism does not (or at least should not) accept the existence of a complete free will based on personal experience. Even so, there is still a free will that can be objectively demonstrated - we just do not know for sure whether it is *completely* free will. #2 is a simple statement of the philosophical idea of [incompatibilism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism). This model holds that if a true free will exists, then an individual with free will can change the future, which renders [determinism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) impossible. However, this logic is only solid if a *true* free will is assumed; but as noted earlier, I do not believe that there is any objective evidence for a complete free will, thus objectivism cannot justify it. The definition of free will as the ability to make decisions based on a given state of mind, which I believe objectivism *can* justify, is generally considered to be [compatible with determinism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism). In my opinion, this means that #1 and #2 are logically inconsistent. Therefore, humans cannot be held entirely accountable for all of their decisions - sometimes a bad situation is completely inevitable - and, as a result, pure capitalism is not an ideal based on this philosophy, regardless of whether it works well or not.

I believe that the objectivist stance on free will contradicts itself. CMV. I agree with most of objectivism's underlying premises, although I disagree strongly with its recommended economic policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is the argument for capitalism that Ayn Rand put forth in her works: 1. Humans have complete free will; and this is self-evident to anyone who has free will, because by definition, free will includes awareness of free will. 2. True free will and determinism are incompatible. 3. Therefore, no form of determinism exists in the universe, or at least, humans are "exempt" from it. (by #1 and #2) 4. As a result of #1 and #3, a human is free to change his or her future in any direction, with enough effort. 5. Because of #4, humans should be held personally accountable for their actions and for their current state in life. If 1 and 2 are held to be true, then it can be shown using the statements above that any person can choose to be hard-working, and that any hard-working person will always benefit from capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is an ideal. --- I think that most of the logic involved is simple and true; however, I disagree with the end result because I believe that statements 1 and 2 are incompatible with each other. #1 can very easily be shown true because if you are aware of your decision process, then you have a form of free will. However, the key fundamental of objectivism is that you can only have knowledge based on objective facts and reason; the only fact offered to you in the case of free will is that you are capable of making your own decisions *based on your current state of mind and beliefs*. You do not consciously control your state of mind at every second of your life; changing your state of mind deliberately requires your *previous* state of mind to allow you to make that decision in the first place. There very well may be a true free will possessed by humans, but since we can not directly observe every aspect of free will, we can not prove it factually, and thus objectivism does not (or at least should not) accept the existence of a complete free will based on personal experience. Even so, there is still a free will that can be objectively demonstrated - we just do not know for sure whether it is *completely* free will. #2 is a simple statement of the philosophical idea of [incompatibilism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism). This model holds that if a true free will exists, then an individual with free will can change the future, which renders [determinism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) impossible. However, this logic is only solid if a *true* free will is assumed; but as noted earlier, I do not believe that there is any objective evidence for a complete free will, thus objectivism cannot justify it. The definition of free will as the ability to make decisions based on a given state of mind, which I believe objectivism *can* justify, is generally considered to be [compatible with determinism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism). In my opinion, this means that #1 and #2 are logically inconsistent. Therefore, humans cannot be held entirely accountable for all of their decisions - sometimes a bad situation is completely inevitable - and, as a result, pure capitalism is not an ideal based on this philosophy, regardless of whether it works well or not.

t3_27a6jh

CMV: Telling women that they should view all men as potential rapists is unfair to men.

I just read this article, https://medium.com/human-parts/a-gentlemens-guide-to-rape-culture-7fc86c50dc4c , "A Gentlemen's Guide to Rape Culture." There's a lot that I agree with, so let me say specifically what I disagree with: "Because when it comes to assessing a man, whatever one man is capable of, a woman must presume you are capable of. Unfortunately, that means all men must be judged by our worst example. If you think that sort of stereotyping is bullshit, how do you treat a snake you come across in the wild? …You treat it like a snake, right? Well, that’s not stereotyping, that’s acknowledging an animal for what it’s capable of doing and the harm it can inflict. Simple rules of the jungle, man. Since you are a man, women must treat you as such. The completely reasonable and understandable fear of men is your responsibility." Essentially I disagree with the idea that because the vast majority of rapists are male, that all men are potential rapists and should be treated as such. Now why I disagree with it: Is this this not at least kind of comparable with saying, "Well, it's a fact that black men are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime, so everyone else should treat all of them as a potential threat, and it is their responsibility to show us that they are non-threatening." BTW I totally disagree with this idea, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that all men should be treated as potential rapists. Ok, break it down for me. To change my view you'll need to prove one of two things: 1) That it is fair to treat racial groups that are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes as a universal threat, and expect them to go out of their way to prove they are non-threatening. OR 2) That the comparison I gave is invalid. I think this is the much more reasonable option. You'll have to consider the differences in the situations and formulate them into an effective argument. Thanks in advance for your opinions! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Telling women that they should view all men as potential rapists is unfair to men. I just read this article, https://medium.com/human-parts/a-gentlemens-guide-to-rape-culture-7fc86c50dc4c , "A Gentlemen's Guide to Rape Culture." There's a lot that I agree with, so let me say specifically what I disagree with: "Because when it comes to assessing a man, whatever one man is capable of, a woman must presume you are capable of. Unfortunately, that means all men must be judged by our worst example. If you think that sort of stereotyping is bullshit, how do you treat a snake you come across in the wild? …You treat it like a snake, right? Well, that’s not stereotyping, that’s acknowledging an animal for what it’s capable of doing and the harm it can inflict. Simple rules of the jungle, man. Since you are a man, women must treat you as such. The completely reasonable and understandable fear of men is your responsibility." Essentially I disagree with the idea that because the vast majority of rapists are male, that all men are potential rapists and should be treated as such. Now why I disagree with it: Is this this not at least kind of comparable with saying, "Well, it's a fact that black men are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime, so everyone else should treat all of them as a potential threat, and it is their responsibility to show us that they are non-threatening." BTW I totally disagree with this idea, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that all men should be treated as potential rapists. Ok, break it down for me. To change my view you'll need to prove one of two things: 1) That it is fair to treat racial groups that are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes as a universal threat, and expect them to go out of their way to prove they are non-threatening. OR 2) That the comparison I gave is invalid. I think this is the much more reasonable option. You'll have to consider the differences in the situations and formulate them into an effective argument. Thanks in advance for your opinions!

t3_1zcs5x

Clinical depression is exaggerated. CMV

I want to start by saying this isn't a very strong opinion. It can be changed easily, I just havn't seen the nessessary facts. So I know depression is a chemical inbalance of the brain where certain neurotransmitters (dopamone, serotonin etc) are lacking. So drugs are given to a an individual to make up for this difference. But how do we know that the problem can't fix itself? How come a person with clinical depression can't start working out, find a girl and a new job and lose his depression? I mean, the brain. Is resilent and we know certain actions produce the neurotransmitters that would combat depression. I'm looking for any evidence that proves depression can only be fixed with drugs. To me depression sufferers lack motivation and feel stuck. I think its a change in behavior thats needed to get you out of this hole. Why does working out help? Because you are improving yourself and have a sense of getting something done along with actual stress hormones being released. So you accomolished a goal every time you exercise and its not easy. I'd like responses to answer this. Do depressikn sufferers benifit from any action? Are there examples where peole change their life around for the the better and are still depressed? My last point is that the medicine they prescribe seems to dull the pain. I've heard this from different people. It seems like depression is your brain trying to motivate you by making your normal everyday life feel like shit and drugs like Zoloft get rid of that. So you don't feel unmotivated or happy. Just nothing. Interesting that all of these mass shooters are on anti-depressants. So to be clear, Im not saying there isn't a phenomenon of chemical inbalance im the brain, I don't deny that. Im just not so sure that the cause is random, and not caused by fixable defects in social and personal life. Change my view.

Clinical depression is exaggerated. CMV. I want to start by saying this isn't a very strong opinion. It can be changed easily, I just havn't seen the nessessary facts. So I know depression is a chemical inbalance of the brain where certain neurotransmitters (dopamone, serotonin etc) are lacking. So drugs are given to a an individual to make up for this difference. But how do we know that the problem can't fix itself? How come a person with clinical depression can't start working out, find a girl and a new job and lose his depression? I mean, the brain. Is resilent and we know certain actions produce the neurotransmitters that would combat depression. I'm looking for any evidence that proves depression can only be fixed with drugs. To me depression sufferers lack motivation and feel stuck. I think its a change in behavior thats needed to get you out of this hole. Why does working out help? Because you are improving yourself and have a sense of getting something done along with actual stress hormones being released. So you accomolished a goal every time you exercise and its not easy. I'd like responses to answer this. Do depressikn sufferers benifit from any action? Are there examples where peole change their life around for the the better and are still depressed? My last point is that the medicine they prescribe seems to dull the pain. I've heard this from different people. It seems like depression is your brain trying to motivate you by making your normal everyday life feel like shit and drugs like Zoloft get rid of that. So you don't feel unmotivated or happy. Just nothing. Interesting that all of these mass shooters are on anti-depressants. So to be clear, Im not saying there isn't a phenomenon of chemical inbalance im the brain, I don't deny that. Im just not so sure that the cause is random, and not caused by fixable defects in social and personal life. Change my view.

t3_55rff0

CMV: Social pressures on men should be given equal coverage/concern as social pressures on women.

Much like women face social pressure to live up to beauty standards, men face social pressures to live up to standards of wealth, security, and mental toughness. However this unfair pressure rarely gets recognized as it is less tangible than beauty standards (mental vs. physical). Today's media often covers stories related to body shaming, unrealistic standards, etc in women, but men's issues (much like suicide) are rarely covered. Let's start with that. Interested to hear people's opinions :) _____ > *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: Social pressures on men should be given equal coverage/concern as social pressures on women. Much like women face social pressure to live up to beauty standards, men face social pressures to live up to standards of wealth, security, and mental toughness. However this unfair pressure rarely gets recognized as it is less tangible than beauty standards (mental vs. physical). Today's media often covers stories related to body shaming, unrealistic standards, etc in women, but men's issues (much like suicide) are rarely covered. Let's start with that. Interested to hear people's opinions :)

t3_6r094u

CMV: Why NCAA should not pay their student athletes.

So, this question comes from the recent Philip DeFranco video. I haven't done much research for this and you will obviously see that I am not an avid sports fan. My personal opinion, though uneducated, tends to lean towards the side of being against NCAA rulings about athletes not being able to make their own money. Preferably working another job or have another form of income separate from the sport they play, thought there are obvious disadvantages to this. However, in the past I heard a good argument towards why the larger organizations should not pay football players a set portion money they earn for the organization, and I would like to hear everyone's thoughts. I guess, it is an even tricker situation than it seems because where is the cut off line and what criteria would the organizations set? If you allow student athletes who play football to earn money through their larger organization, are they also going to let other student athletes have the chance to do the same? If not, this would be unfair to all student athletes (many who also have the same disadvantages as football players), but what criteria would you make towards this. Not all college sports make the revenue that football does, and perhaps this can be a hinderance to the sport if they were now forced to pay the students. Also, who would pay these athletes? The universities or the larger organizations? Smaller universities probably would not be able to pay as much as larger universities, which would be unfair to either the program if they cannot support this or to the students if they do not get paid the same as other university athletes. Anyways, please tell me your thoughts.

CMV: Why NCAA should not pay their student athletes. So, this question comes from the recent Philip DeFranco video. I haven't done much research for this and you will obviously see that I am not an avid sports fan. My personal opinion, though uneducated, tends to lean towards the side of being against NCAA rulings about athletes not being able to make their own money. Preferably working another job or have another form of income separate from the sport they play, thought there are obvious disadvantages to this. However, in the past I heard a good argument towards why the larger organizations should not pay football players a set portion money they earn for the organization, and I would like to hear everyone's thoughts. I guess, it is an even tricker situation than it seems because where is the cut off line and what criteria would the organizations set? If you allow student athletes who play football to earn money through their larger organization, are they also going to let other student athletes have the chance to do the same? If not, this would be unfair to all student athletes (many who also have the same disadvantages as football players), but what criteria would you make towards this. Not all college sports make the revenue that football does, and perhaps this can be a hinderance to the sport if they were now forced to pay the students. Also, who would pay these athletes? The universities or the larger organizations? Smaller universities probably would not be able to pay as much as larger universities, which would be unfair to either the program if they cannot support this or to the students if they do not get paid the same as other university athletes. Anyways, please tell me your thoughts.

t3_6wslpp

CMV: Pay and compensation with a company should be transparent

I do concede that in the short run there would need to be an adjustment period and that it could cause issues, but in the long run it would lead to a more equitable distribution of pay. If there was a gap between two people performing similar roles it would need to be justified by disparities in ability or responsibility etc. For instance, an employer can't pay someone more than someone else just because they are male. I can also see other benefits such as a clearer path for advancement. In the long run, this lack of information seems to heavily favor the employer.

CMV: Pay and compensation with a company should be transparent. I do concede that in the short run there would need to be an adjustment period and that it could cause issues, but in the long run it would lead to a more equitable distribution of pay. If there was a gap between two people performing similar roles it would need to be justified by disparities in ability or responsibility etc. For instance, an employer can't pay someone more than someone else just because they are male. I can also see other benefits such as a clearer path for advancement. In the long run, this lack of information seems to heavily favor the employer.

t3_5xckt4

CMV:Spotify (and other streaming services) will begin paying artists more as consumers buy into the idea of streaming.

So in order to get most products/services off the ground, the product often must be offered for free or as a trial as incentive for consumer to engage and adopt the product. Streaming has been the only model that has effectively curbed illegal downloading (I am aware it still happens, but look at the numbers of illegal v. legal downloads following iTunes entering the market versus when Spotify entered the market) and gotten people to pay for music. Now the way payments to artists work through streaming services is they are paid based on who is listening to their music; they get paid the least for free members and the most for members who pay full subscriptions. Freemium is a huge part of the issue here with paying artists, but as I mentioned before free trials are often necessary for new products/services. Now the idea is that eventually Spotify will be operating on revenue to the point that they do not need free trails to sell their product, and eventually can even begin raising prices (look at how Netflix raised prices without a peep from consumers). So, in conclusion, I believe that as more consumer adoption occurs, artists will begin to get paid more. I know some of the arguments against this, but I would love have my mind changed on this one, and see if anyone can come up with a better system or strategy for accomplishing to the end goal of having a high quality consumption model for consumers that fairly pays artists. _____ > *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:Spotify (and other streaming services) will begin paying artists more as consumers buy into the idea of streaming. So in order to get most products/services off the ground, the product often must be offered for free or as a trial as incentive for consumer to engage and adopt the product. Streaming has been the only model that has effectively curbed illegal downloading (I am aware it still happens, but look at the numbers of illegal v. legal downloads following iTunes entering the market versus when Spotify entered the market) and gotten people to pay for music. Now the way payments to artists work through streaming services is they are paid based on who is listening to their music; they get paid the least for free members and the most for members who pay full subscriptions. Freemium is a huge part of the issue here with paying artists, but as I mentioned before free trials are often necessary for new products/services. Now the idea is that eventually Spotify will be operating on revenue to the point that they do not need free trails to sell their product, and eventually can even begin raising prices (look at how Netflix raised prices without a peep from consumers). So, in conclusion, I believe that as more consumer adoption occurs, artists will begin to get paid more. I know some of the arguments against this, but I would love have my mind changed on this one, and see if anyone can come up with a better system or strategy for accomplishing to the end goal of having a high quality consumption model for consumers that fairly pays artists.

t3_28xzqn

CMV: it is not sexist to be okay with hitting women, provided you are also okay with hitting a man who is weaker than you in that situation. If you think it is, you are being sexist.

some people are gandhi level pacifists and think it's always wrong to hit anyone no matter what. some people think it's okay to hit people in self defense. some people think it's okay to hit people if they threaten you or your family. some people think it's okay to hit people if they hit you first. some people think it's okay to hit people if they insult you/ your family/ your beliefs. some people think it's okay to hit people if you feel like it. whatever the situation, and putting aside the argument for when you think it's actually okay to hit someone, if you call someone a sexist for extending that to women as well as men, you're calling for special rights for women, which is inherently sexist. CMV I put the caveat of 'men who are weaker than you' since the arguement i usually see is that it's worse because women are physically weaker than men. i can't change the title now, but i should have put 'women who are weaker than you' to make it symmetrical, but oh well.

CMV: it is not sexist to be okay with hitting women, provided you are also okay with hitting a man who is weaker than you in that situation. If you think it is, you are being sexist. some people are gandhi level pacifists and think it's always wrong to hit anyone no matter what. some people think it's okay to hit people in self defense. some people think it's okay to hit people if they threaten you or your family. some people think it's okay to hit people if they hit you first. some people think it's okay to hit people if they insult you/ your family/ your beliefs. some people think it's okay to hit people if you feel like it. whatever the situation, and putting aside the argument for when you think it's actually okay to hit someone, if you call someone a sexist for extending that to women as well as men, you're calling for special rights for women, which is inherently sexist. CMV I put the caveat of 'men who are weaker than you' since the arguement i usually see is that it's worse because women are physically weaker than men. i can't change the title now, but i should have put 'women who are weaker than you' to make it symmetrical, but oh well.

t3_2lo786

CMV: a "good actor" has more to do with writing, directing and overall production than with a particular actor's skills.

Now I'm not saying that actors are not talented and that it is not difficult to act out difficult scenes. My qualm is with the separation of "good actors" and "average actors". Matthew McConnahey is the obvious candidate who was thought of as nothing special until he had an opportunity to work with a good script, good production and good directing. Heath Ledger was another example. Robin Williams, too, would not have been thought as much more than a comedian until given the right opportunity. Or Will Smith. We may soon be saying the same for Jesse Eisenberg. Given the quality of script, the careful directing, the number of takes and feedback and cues an actor may take to get a scene right, the music which can be an emotional trigger; it is hard to imagine any professional actor who could not be coaxed into giving stellar performances. Obviously people will cite examples to the contrary, but to compare Gary Oldman who is widely regarded as a master actor, I've recently noticed the previously unremarkable aussie actor Joel Edgerton being cast as Rameses in the upcoming Exodus, and I think that it may not take much to make a competent actor "chameleonic". Basically, I believe any competent or trained actor can be coaxed to give outstanding performances with the right directing and production. There is less variety in the capabilities of professional actors than the fandom of A-listers suggest. Edit: to clarify my position: I think there is less validity to the claim "X is a brilliant actor and Y is a bad or average actor" than there is to "X got a good role, script and director whilst Y has been unable to find a role or script he can really shine in." Edit2: okay guys, took a bit of discussion but you did change my view. A few guys highlighted the inverse of my position, good movies dragged down by bad acting (Keanu in Dracula is one I'll never forgive) and average movies saved by an outstanding performance (no one would be mentioning Good Morning Vietnam without Williams). But most importantly was the talk of theater, which removes all of my talk of takes, editing and music and lets it be the bare actors. I never considered that, but it is absolutely contrary to my position and changed my mind. Dishing out the deltas for the 3 who changed my view.

CMV: a "good actor" has more to do with writing, directing and overall production than with a particular actor's skills. Now I'm not saying that actors are not talented and that it is not difficult to act out difficult scenes. My qualm is with the separation of "good actors" and "average actors". Matthew McConnahey is the obvious candidate who was thought of as nothing special until he had an opportunity to work with a good script, good production and good directing. Heath Ledger was another example. Robin Williams, too, would not have been thought as much more than a comedian until given the right opportunity. Or Will Smith. We may soon be saying the same for Jesse Eisenberg. Given the quality of script, the careful directing, the number of takes and feedback and cues an actor may take to get a scene right, the music which can be an emotional trigger; it is hard to imagine any professional actor who could not be coaxed into giving stellar performances. Obviously people will cite examples to the contrary, but to compare Gary Oldman who is widely regarded as a master actor, I've recently noticed the previously unremarkable aussie actor Joel Edgerton being cast as Rameses in the upcoming Exodus, and I think that it may not take much to make a competent actor "chameleonic". Basically, I believe any competent or trained actor can be coaxed to give outstanding performances with the right directing and production. There is less variety in the capabilities of professional actors than the fandom of A-listers suggest. Edit: to clarify my position: I think there is less validity to the claim "X is a brilliant actor and Y is a bad or average actor" than there is to "X got a good role, script and director whilst Y has been unable to find a role or script he can really shine in." Edit2: okay guys, took a bit of discussion but you did change my view. A few guys highlighted the inverse of my position, good movies dragged down by bad acting (Keanu in Dracula is one I'll never forgive) and average movies saved by an outstanding performance (no one would be mentioning Good Morning Vietnam without Williams). But most importantly was the talk of theater, which removes all of my talk of takes, editing and music and lets it be the bare actors. I never considered that, but it is absolutely contrary to my position and changed my mind. Dishing out the deltas for the 3 who changed my view.

t3_3erm7n

CMV: In the 21st century western world, both genders have pros and cons and hence one is not more oppressed

I know this might be considered a low hanging fruit, and let me know if it is, but I have a friend who is overall very intelligent, yet this is something we argue about once in a while and I was hoping for some opinions that we can read together and come to a conclusion. I've noticed these arguments occur with many people who consider themselves feminist (actual not tumblr). Personally I believe that there are issues with treatment of both genders. Women have higher rates of rape outside prison, a very small but statistically significant pay gap (~95:100), stricter standards of beauty, some discrimination in STEM fields in professional environments, general treatment at skill levels, domestic violence rates, sex ed in certain regions, Madonna/Whore complex treatment, etc. I also believe men have issues such as higher rates of workplace injuries and death, PTSD due to higher enlisting rates, treatment towards mental health issues, homelessness, mate selection, physical violence, university enrolment and graduation rates, punishment for the same crime, paternity and divorce issues, etc. In the end I don't believe that one gender has a clear advantage over the other. I believe that both genders have issues they face in modern society, and to quantify them would take away from the struggles of either. Hence despite agreeing on many points with feminism, I would not be considered a feminist because I don't agree with the core belief that women are the oppressed gender. This seems to bother my friend who feels strongly about feminism, because despite the fact that we agree on many points, that one distinction is not something we agree on. He finds it insulting that I would compare out-of-prison rapes to something like PTSD from war in terms of statistics of percentage occurring to each gender. Personally I find it shitty because he doesn't acknowledge that men have some serious issues as well, and no one gender is undoubtedly superior in the eyes of society. In many other parts of the world, I agree with him 100%; women are significantly more oppressed in many Islamic countries for example. I just think the only factor in which men are clearly superior in practice and eyes of society are physical abilities, but otherwise both genders deal with some horrible things and no one gender is undoubtedly oppressed.

CMV: In the 21st century western world, both genders have pros and cons and hence one is not more oppressed. I know this might be considered a low hanging fruit, and let me know if it is, but I have a friend who is overall very intelligent, yet this is something we argue about once in a while and I was hoping for some opinions that we can read together and come to a conclusion. I've noticed these arguments occur with many people who consider themselves feminist (actual not tumblr). Personally I believe that there are issues with treatment of both genders. Women have higher rates of rape outside prison, a very small but statistically significant pay gap (~95:100), stricter standards of beauty, some discrimination in STEM fields in professional environments, general treatment at skill levels, domestic violence rates, sex ed in certain regions, Madonna/Whore complex treatment, etc. I also believe men have issues such as higher rates of workplace injuries and death, PTSD due to higher enlisting rates, treatment towards mental health issues, homelessness, mate selection, physical violence, university enrolment and graduation rates, punishment for the same crime, paternity and divorce issues, etc. In the end I don't believe that one gender has a clear advantage over the other. I believe that both genders have issues they face in modern society, and to quantify them would take away from the struggles of either. Hence despite agreeing on many points with feminism, I would not be considered a feminist because I don't agree with the core belief that women are the oppressed gender. This seems to bother my friend who feels strongly about feminism, because despite the fact that we agree on many points, that one distinction is not something we agree on. He finds it insulting that I would compare out-of-prison rapes to something like PTSD from war in terms of statistics of percentage occurring to each gender. Personally I find it shitty because he doesn't acknowledge that men have some serious issues as well, and no one gender is undoubtedly superior in the eyes of society. In many other parts of the world, I agree with him 100%; women are significantly more oppressed in many Islamic countries for example. I just think the only factor in which men are clearly superior in practice and eyes of society are physical abilities, but otherwise both genders deal with some horrible things and no one gender is undoubtedly oppressed.

t3_1itag0

Bird-watching looks like a very boring hobby to me. CMV

As I understand it, the hobby consists of traveling around, and observing, listening to, and recording birds. Many who participate in this hobby also have a collection aspect to their pursuit, where they will have lists of birds, and check off or otherwise memorialize the ones they have encountered. Many also invest enormous sums into fabulously high-end camera equipment with which to record the birds, in addition to the costs of flying to exotic locations where rare birds may be present. I really enjoy nature a lot, but at the same time, I have little to no desire to specialize my enjoyment of nature in birds. In fact, watching birds seems significantly less interesting to me than watching mammals, which on average appear smarter and to have more interesting behaviors. At zoos, I find the birds much less enjoyable to observe than the mammals, and I believe this view is widely shared, as the most crowded exhibits tend to be things like lions, or pandas, and only rarely birds. However, even then, there is no mainstream hobby of watching mammals. Nobody decides that as a hobby they want to travel around the world collecting mammals they have observed. Although I really like seeing mammals, I, too, have little desire to specialize my enjoyment of nature into watching mammals. What exactly is the appeal of the bird-watching hobby?

Bird-watching looks like a very boring hobby to me. CMV. As I understand it, the hobby consists of traveling around, and observing, listening to, and recording birds. Many who participate in this hobby also have a collection aspect to their pursuit, where they will have lists of birds, and check off or otherwise memorialize the ones they have encountered. Many also invest enormous sums into fabulously high-end camera equipment with which to record the birds, in addition to the costs of flying to exotic locations where rare birds may be present. I really enjoy nature a lot, but at the same time, I have little to no desire to specialize my enjoyment of nature in birds. In fact, watching birds seems significantly less interesting to me than watching mammals, which on average appear smarter and to have more interesting behaviors. At zoos, I find the birds much less enjoyable to observe than the mammals, and I believe this view is widely shared, as the most crowded exhibits tend to be things like lions, or pandas, and only rarely birds. However, even then, there is no mainstream hobby of watching mammals. Nobody decides that as a hobby they want to travel around the world collecting mammals they have observed. Although I really like seeing mammals, I, too, have little desire to specialize my enjoyment of nature into watching mammals. What exactly is the appeal of the bird-watching hobby?

t3_20r9lx

I believe that women in general are better carers than men. CMV.

I believe that women have a greater biological predisposition to nurture than men do. I feel that it is no coincidence that the majority of nurses, midwives, and the rest, are women. When a baby wakes up in the night and begins to cry, it is usually the mother who gets up to tend to its needs. It is almost always the mother who lactates after their baby is born (in rare cases, some men can lactate). Finally, it's the mother who can get pregnant, and not the man. My teacher disagreed with me today, but did not explain why as he did not have the time - so could you guys help me change my view, thanks.

I believe that women in general are better carers than men. CMV. I believe that women have a greater biological predisposition to nurture than men do. I feel that it is no coincidence that the majority of nurses, midwives, and the rest, are women. When a baby wakes up in the night and begins to cry, it is usually the mother who gets up to tend to its needs. It is almost always the mother who lactates after their baby is born (in rare cases, some men can lactate). Finally, it's the mother who can get pregnant, and not the man. My teacher disagreed with me today, but did not explain why as he did not have the time - so could you guys help me change my view, thanks.

t3_21li1b

I believe pedophilia is a sexual orientation like any other. CMV.

I believe it is a sexual orientation. We are all attracted to certain things, people, ways to have sex... it varies. And do we really choose these? No. Homosexual don't "choose" to be homosexual, and straight people don't "choose" to be straight. It's the same for pedophiles - they don't "choose" to be pedophiles. They just are. Most of them don't act on it. Naturally you only hear about the ones that do. I think people should stop treating them like ruthless monsters and more like people who have unfortunately had a sexuality thrust upon them that is illegal. This particularly piqued my interest when I saw the film Nymphomaniac in the cinema, which had the idea within the film. This is what I think. Prove me wrong. CMV.

I believe pedophilia is a sexual orientation like any other. CMV. I believe it is a sexual orientation. We are all attracted to certain things, people, ways to have sex... it varies. And do we really choose these? No. Homosexual don't "choose" to be homosexual, and straight people don't "choose" to be straight. It's the same for pedophiles - they don't "choose" to be pedophiles. They just are. Most of them don't act on it. Naturally you only hear about the ones that do. I think people should stop treating them like ruthless monsters and more like people who have unfortunately had a sexuality thrust upon them that is illegal. This particularly piqued my interest when I saw the film Nymphomaniac in the cinema, which had the idea within the film. This is what I think. Prove me wrong. CMV.

t3_1usnd2

I believe NYC Mayor de Blasio's plan to ban horse drawn carriages is misguided and overreaching CMV

Mayor de Blasio has publicly said "it's over" for horse drawn carriages in NYC claiming the practice is inhumane to the horses. These horses are the owner-operators livelihood. I find it hard to believe that someone whose income is dependent on the horse being in good condition would do anything other than care for them to the best of their ability. I don't see why this is a pressing issue for NYC or why de Blasio feels he needs to expand the nanny state in New York. My opinion is, if you are opposed to the practice, don't participate. I know a few people that are very into animal rights issues. They would never go to a zoo, but they don't demand the govt shut them down.

I believe NYC Mayor de Blasio's plan to ban horse drawn carriages is misguided and overreaching CMV. Mayor de Blasio has publicly said "it's over" for horse drawn carriages in NYC claiming the practice is inhumane to the horses. These horses are the owner-operators livelihood. I find it hard to believe that someone whose income is dependent on the horse being in good condition would do anything other than care for them to the best of their ability. I don't see why this is a pressing issue for NYC or why de Blasio feels he needs to expand the nanny state in New York. My opinion is, if you are opposed to the practice, don't participate. I know a few people that are very into animal rights issues. They would never go to a zoo, but they don't demand the govt shut them down.

t3_26p9dq

CMV: I believe that using race in determining admissions for medical school is extremely misguided, irresponsible, and dangerous

I believe medical school applicants should be admitted on merit and past work/volunteer experiences and race should not be a factor in the matter at all. The idea of allowing someone from a underrepresented minority into a medical program ahead of someone else with better credentials is dangerous and a discredit to that future MD's patients and society. In many other cases, I can think of reasons to defend affirmative action, but medicine has no place for such politicized concepts. According to The American Thinker, whites with a GPA in the 3.40-3.59 range and with an MCAT score in the 21-23 range had an 11.5% acceptance rate. Meanwhile, a review of minority students (black, Latino, and Native American) with the same GPA and MCAT range had a 42.6% acceptance rate. According to the same article, URM's are much more likely to drop out due to academic reasons. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that using race in determining admissions for medical school is extremely misguided, irresponsible, and dangerous. I believe medical school applicants should be admitted on merit and past work/volunteer experiences and race should not be a factor in the matter at all. The idea of allowing someone from a underrepresented minority into a medical program ahead of someone else with better credentials is dangerous and a discredit to that future MD's patients and society. In many other cases, I can think of reasons to defend affirmative action, but medicine has no place for such politicized concepts. According to The American Thinker, whites with a GPA in the 3.40-3.59 range and with an MCAT score in the 21-23 range had an 11.5% acceptance rate. Meanwhile, a review of minority students (black, Latino, and Native American) with the same GPA and MCAT range had a 42.6% acceptance rate. According to the same article, URM's are much more likely to drop out due to academic reasons.

t3_2ap7ec

CMV: If Bitcoin users actually paid all of the required taxes from their transactions, they would never use Bitcoin

Many of the bitcoin debates seem to leave out the fact that there is no way to collect taxes on all of the transactions done with bitcoin. Items (even illegal ones) need to have sales tax applied for the state of sale. Many people sell things via bitcoin and never claim the income tax. A common use is to send money over seas which is supposed to follow strict guidelines that get completely avoided using crypto-currencies. I feel that a lot of the benefit people get from using bitcoin is that fact that it easily evades all the tax laws. If people followed all the tax laws it would be no better than using paypal. In fact it might be worse because you have to pay an exchange rate to get it back to your home currency. 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: If Bitcoin users actually paid all of the required taxes from their transactions, they would never use Bitcoin. Many of the bitcoin debates seem to leave out the fact that there is no way to collect taxes on all of the transactions done with bitcoin. Items (even illegal ones) need to have sales tax applied for the state of sale. Many people sell things via bitcoin and never claim the income tax. A common use is to send money over seas which is supposed to follow strict guidelines that get completely avoided using crypto-currencies. I feel that a lot of the benefit people get from using bitcoin is that fact that it easily evades all the tax laws. If people followed all the tax laws it would be no better than using paypal. In fact it might be worse because you have to pay an exchange rate to get it back to your home currency. Change my view

t3_25ovxk

CMV: All substances should be legal

This seems to be a popular opinion on reddit, and I strongly disagree with it. Let me say I believe certain drugs should be legal(alcohol/weed). In fact I like to use legal drugs, but here is my argument to why it should be illegal. My argument is that the fact that something is legal does make it seem less dangerous. And I understand, people should have the right to use these dangerous drugs, but the problem is that it effects society as a whole. I feel like I heroin was legal, there'd be more people willing to do it. Now it affects society because it is highly addictive. This can lead to higher crime rates, mostly theft. Also I feel like it would lead to easier access for underage kids to get a hold of these drugs. I know in highschool I knew absolutely nobody who could get a hold of heroin, crack, or meth. Obviously there are some kids who get a hold of these drugs, but it is not that easy. Hell even in college it's not that easy to find a guy to buy something like coke from. Anyway that's my argument against it, who knows maybe I'm mistaken on how popular opinion it is on reddit. Anyway I'd love to hear an argument from the opposing side.

CMV: All substances should be legal. This seems to be a popular opinion on reddit, and I strongly disagree with it. Let me say I believe certain drugs should be legal(alcohol/weed). In fact I like to use legal drugs, but here is my argument to why it should be illegal. My argument is that the fact that something is legal does make it seem less dangerous. And I understand, people should have the right to use these dangerous drugs, but the problem is that it effects society as a whole. I feel like I heroin was legal, there'd be more people willing to do it. Now it affects society because it is highly addictive. This can lead to higher crime rates, mostly theft. Also I feel like it would lead to easier access for underage kids to get a hold of these drugs. I know in highschool I knew absolutely nobody who could get a hold of heroin, crack, or meth. Obviously there are some kids who get a hold of these drugs, but it is not that easy. Hell even in college it's not that easy to find a guy to buy something like coke from. Anyway that's my argument against it, who knows maybe I'm mistaken on how popular opinion it is on reddit. Anyway I'd love to hear an argument from the opposing side.

t3_6pwh87

CMV: Consumption of natural resources is aggression.

The Non-Aggression Principle is a Libertarian idea that says any aggressing individual must pay for his aggressions. Aggressions are physical contact, pollution, trespassing, theft, etc. The NAP can also be used to apply economic pressure towards sustainability. Pollution is an aggression, obviously, so it becomes expensive to pollute. Since all companies and individuals desire profit they will try to avoid the costs of polluting. Similarly, if we consider the harvesting, destruction, and consumption of natural resources as an aggression we can apply this same economic pressure to not only lower pollution but to also lower environmental destruction. The more an individual destroys the environment the more they have to pay for their aggression. These costs can be determined by the free market so higher demand environments will cost a lot to use but low-demand environments like the Moon will cost less to use. This also means that Nestle would have to pay for all the fresh water they harvest because natural water is a natural resource. A company that buys urine and purifies it into pure water though would be using man made resources and thus not be aggressing (except for the land the factory is sitting on, waste, sound pollution, etc). So I'm asking if applying the NAP in such a manner would pressure humanity into sustainability naturally without having to rely on arbitrary laws or corrupt politicians.

CMV: Consumption of natural resources is aggression. The Non-Aggression Principle is a Libertarian idea that says any aggressing individual must pay for his aggressions. Aggressions are physical contact, pollution, trespassing, theft, etc. The NAP can also be used to apply economic pressure towards sustainability. Pollution is an aggression, obviously, so it becomes expensive to pollute. Since all companies and individuals desire profit they will try to avoid the costs of polluting. Similarly, if we consider the harvesting, destruction, and consumption of natural resources as an aggression we can apply this same economic pressure to not only lower pollution but to also lower environmental destruction. The more an individual destroys the environment the more they have to pay for their aggression. These costs can be determined by the free market so higher demand environments will cost a lot to use but low-demand environments like the Moon will cost less to use. This also means that Nestle would have to pay for all the fresh water they harvest because natural water is a natural resource. A company that buys urine and purifies it into pure water though would be using man made resources and thus not be aggressing (except for the land the factory is sitting on, waste, sound pollution, etc). So I'm asking if applying the NAP in such a manner would pressure humanity into sustainability naturally without having to rely on arbitrary laws or corrupt politicians.

t3_1bnyg1

I think that animal rights is stupid. CMV

The bottom line is that animals are not people, they do not have people feelings, they do not have people emotions. What obligation does humanity have, or does anyone person have, to treat animals with rights and respect? If an individual chooses to observe an animals rights, thats fine and his right to do so, but why do other people who do not recognise animal rights have to be subservient to somebody's perspective and abide by a misplaced sense of equalisation of humans to animals? Frankly, I find the idea of animal rights insulting to humans. Millions suffer across the world, yet some choose to care about the suffering of animals first and foremost. Like how Australia spends money on protecting whales. Every cent that we spend on protecting whales could go towards the saving of a certain human life in Africa. The fact is, when animals feel pain, it is not the same as humans feeling pain. When animals suffer, that is animal suffering, not human suffering. There is no comparison, and there is no reason at all, in my view, why we should appropriate the same attitudes to animal suffering as we do to human suffering. Change my view.

I think that animal rights is stupid. CMV. The bottom line is that animals are not people, they do not have people feelings, they do not have people emotions. What obligation does humanity have, or does anyone person have, to treat animals with rights and respect? If an individual chooses to observe an animals rights, thats fine and his right to do so, but why do other people who do not recognise animal rights have to be subservient to somebody's perspective and abide by a misplaced sense of equalisation of humans to animals? Frankly, I find the idea of animal rights insulting to humans. Millions suffer across the world, yet some choose to care about the suffering of animals first and foremost. Like how Australia spends money on protecting whales. Every cent that we spend on protecting whales could go towards the saving of a certain human life in Africa. The fact is, when animals feel pain, it is not the same as humans feeling pain. When animals suffer, that is animal suffering, not human suffering. There is no comparison, and there is no reason at all, in my view, why we should appropriate the same attitudes to animal suffering as we do to human suffering. Change my view.

t3_3u7p95

CMV: "If you are not happy, you are unhappy" is a toxic idea in American culture that can cause people to suffer a false depression.

I want to start with a disclaimer: This is a touchy subject and I am aware that all cases are different and everyone's lives are different. I am basing my view/argument on observations and personal experience with depression/anxiety. I have been through a battle with my brain for years. There are many forms of depression, I would like to try and separate them into two main groups. The fully chemical that is treated with meds(which are not relevant to my view) and the psychological. There are many cases that fall in between, some apply to my view, some will not. Okay off we go... In American(and some European) culture, there seems to be a growing idea that happiness is a necessity and that if one is not happy, one is unhappy. The cause of that idea stems from many different parts of society. From entertainment media to technology to novels and even simple existential crises that go along with an ever changing world. Whatever the reason, it seems to me there is an inability to just be content. Everywhere you turn you see plastic smiles that create an illusion subconsciously that everyone is happy. Advertisements, movies, television, they all portray a happiness. Every American exchange starts with "Hey how are you?" "Good, and you?" "Doing well thanks." There is an illusion or a mass delusion that happiness is everywhere. Obviously, there are limits and the vast majority of people are aware that everyone is not happy, but in stead of showing/portraying the not happy people as content or just not happy, there is a full 180 and sadness takes over. If anything is not happy it is sad, depressed, lonely and pathetic. There is no middle ground. So how does this relate to depression? Depression is a spiral, a vicious cycle that starts as a seed and grows into an evergreen nightmare. It is a slowly building wave miles off shore that begins with a ripple and a slight tug from the moon and picks up steam building to a crescendo of misery. In short, it sucks. The cases of depression that are chemical, that are treated and helped by a slew of medicines that (hopefully) work, are not a part of my view. The cases that I am talking about are the psychological cases that slowly build. The Planted seed that I used in my metaphor is the catalyst for depression. In my opinion that seed is formed because of the idea that if one is not happy they are unhappy. There is an unnecessary number of people that are suffering through a false depression. A depression fabricated on the idea that since they could not find happiness consistently, they are depressed. That is the seed that is planted, then the mind takes over. The false depression that is a societal and psychological contrast then builds are changes into an actual real depression. In our society(s), it is not okay to be sad, depressed, anti social. There is constant pressure to be happy and build a good life. If someone is not happy, they are unhappy. It's a dangerous idea. _____ > *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 are not happy, you are unhappy" is a toxic idea in American culture that can cause people to suffer a false depression. I want to start with a disclaimer: This is a touchy subject and I am aware that all cases are different and everyone's lives are different. I am basing my view/argument on observations and personal experience with depression/anxiety. I have been through a battle with my brain for years. There are many forms of depression, I would like to try and separate them into two main groups. The fully chemical that is treated with meds(which are not relevant to my view) and the psychological. There are many cases that fall in between, some apply to my view, some will not. Okay off we go... In American(and some European) culture, there seems to be a growing idea that happiness is a necessity and that if one is not happy, one is unhappy. The cause of that idea stems from many different parts of society. From entertainment media to technology to novels and even simple existential crises that go along with an ever changing world. Whatever the reason, it seems to me there is an inability to just be content. Everywhere you turn you see plastic smiles that create an illusion subconsciously that everyone is happy. Advertisements, movies, television, they all portray a happiness. Every American exchange starts with "Hey how are you?" "Good, and you?" "Doing well thanks." There is an illusion or a mass delusion that happiness is everywhere. Obviously, there are limits and the vast majority of people are aware that everyone is not happy, but in stead of showing/portraying the not happy people as content or just not happy, there is a full 180 and sadness takes over. If anything is not happy it is sad, depressed, lonely and pathetic. There is no middle ground. So how does this relate to depression? Depression is a spiral, a vicious cycle that starts as a seed and grows into an evergreen nightmare. It is a slowly building wave miles off shore that begins with a ripple and a slight tug from the moon and picks up steam building to a crescendo of misery. In short, it sucks. The cases of depression that are chemical, that are treated and helped by a slew of medicines that (hopefully) work, are not a part of my view. The cases that I am talking about are the psychological cases that slowly build. The Planted seed that I used in my metaphor is the catalyst for depression. In my opinion that seed is formed because of the idea that if one is not happy they are unhappy. There is an unnecessary number of people that are suffering through a false depression. A depression fabricated on the idea that since they could not find happiness consistently, they are depressed. That is the seed that is planted, then the mind takes over. The false depression that is a societal and psychological contrast then builds are changes into an actual real depression. In our society(s), it is not okay to be sad, depressed, anti social. There is constant pressure to be happy and build a good life. If someone is not happy, they are unhappy. It's a dangerous idea.

t3_3dqi0b

CMV: Strong belief in the existence of alien life (intelligent or otherwise) is currently unscientific

This CMV is not about whether you or I believe aliens exist. It is about the widely held point of view: if you don’t think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you’re crazy. I understand where this view comes from; the [Universe is so unimaginably huge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U) and so filled with [galaxies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg), and therefore stars, and therefore [planets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_spacecraft), there simply *must* be other life out there. My view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence. My background: I am a physics and astronomy teacher, and I teach about this subject in depth every year. I think about it and research it often. I’m well acquainted with the [Drake Equation](https://xkcd.com/384/), the [Fermi Paradox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc) and [its many possible solutions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fQkVqno-uI), the [Great Filter](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html), and the debate over alien life in general. My own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the ‘of course aliens exist out there’ side, but I thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them. However, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book *Alone in the Universe* by [John Gribbin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin), and I now think that the great profusion of life here on Earth is so rare that we are alone in the Universe. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely open to the idea of aliens existing. I kind of hope they do, as long as they don’t destroy us all! But until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist — an organized signal, clear alien-made trace elements on a planet’s spectroscopy, anything measurable — I think the correct scientific approach is that they don’t exist. CMV. Edit 1: Some good thoughts in here, thanks. Also, some incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying. Probability is of course a useful scientific tool, the key to our understanding of quantum mechanics. But guesses about the Drake Equation boil down to probability based on no data, quite different from the data-based probability of QM. The most compelling argument that I've read below is that because we know life happened once in the Universe with us, it could happen again. Physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the Universe. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's given me something to think about. And so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non-life. Is it easy or hard? Could it have happened only once? *Alone in the Universe* argues that a LOT of things had to go just right for us to exist. I call these things 'Drake's Denominator' in class -- the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets. Edit 2: Delta awarded, thanks all for your thoughts. I realized that even the single data point we have about life, life here on Earth, makes it possible for other life to exist out there. We don't have any evidence yet, but it's not unscientific to imagine that it exists. I still think life is exceedingly rare out there, and perhaps we're alone. The strange thing is that we'll probably never know. The story about [Vlad the Astrophysicist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPl10L40pBM) is closer to my main view about aliens in general -- civilizations pop in and out of existence in no time at all, never having the chance to reach out across space and communicate. _____ > *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: Strong belief in the existence of alien life (intelligent or otherwise) is currently unscientific. This CMV is not about whether you or I believe aliens exist. It is about the widely held point of view: if you don’t think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you’re crazy. I understand where this view comes from; the [Universe is so unimaginably huge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U) and so filled with [galaxies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg), and therefore stars, and therefore [planets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_spacecraft), there simply *must* be other life out there. My view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence. My background: I am a physics and astronomy teacher, and I teach about this subject in depth every year. I think about it and research it often. I’m well acquainted with the [Drake Equation](https://xkcd.com/384/), the [Fermi Paradox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc) and [its many possible solutions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fQkVqno-uI), the [Great Filter](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html), and the debate over alien life in general. My own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the ‘of course aliens exist out there’ side, but I thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them. However, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book *Alone in the Universe* by [John Gribbin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin), and I now think that the great profusion of life here on Earth is so rare that we are alone in the Universe. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely open to the idea of aliens existing. I kind of hope they do, as long as they don’t destroy us all! But until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist — an organized signal, clear alien-made trace elements on a planet’s spectroscopy, anything measurable — I think the correct scientific approach is that they don’t exist. CMV. Edit 1: Some good thoughts in here, thanks. Also, some incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying. Probability is of course a useful scientific tool, the key to our understanding of quantum mechanics. But guesses about the Drake Equation boil down to probability based on no data, quite different from the data-based probability of QM. The most compelling argument that I've read below is that because we know life happened once in the Universe with us, it could happen again. Physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the Universe. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's given me something to think about. And so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non-life. Is it easy or hard? Could it have happened only once? *Alone in the Universe* argues that a LOT of things had to go just right for us to exist. I call these things 'Drake's Denominator' in class -- the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets. Edit 2: Delta awarded, thanks all for your thoughts. I realized that even the single data point we have about life, life here on Earth, makes it possible for other life to exist out there. We don't have any evidence yet, but it's not unscientific to imagine that it exists. I still think life is exceedingly rare out there, and perhaps we're alone. The strange thing is that we'll probably never know. The story about [Vlad the Astrophysicist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPl10L40pBM) is closer to my main view about aliens in general -- civilizations pop in and out of existence in no time at all, never having the chance to reach out across space and communicate.

t3_3g1m4b

CMV: "My condolences". "My apologies". "My sympathies". When I hear these phrases, I get irritated because they sound so insincere!

I saw a post on my fb feed that my friend's grandmother passed away, and a few of the comments said things like "I'm so sorry to hear. She and your family are in my prayers." These don't bother me. What bothers me are people who simply say what I listed in the title, and maybe a few words more: * My condolences man. * My sympathies for your family bro. I don't understand why people can say these things and think it has any meaning whatsoever. They sound so ***insincere*** to me! Hell, even "shit, that fucking sucks man" sounds more sincere to me than those other hollow phrases. When my grandma passed away a few years ago, I texted my best friend to tell him, and he responded with two texts: "Fuck" "Tell me how to help". He didn't say he was sorry to hear and he didn't say anything nice about my grandma like how kind she was or how he know that she and I were close, but I still felt more comfort from those words than I could ever imagine feeling from "my condolences man." I don't know the people that posted those comments on my friends' fb, and so I don't know how genuine they are, but just the words alone bother me. They tell me that you felt like you should say something, but you weren't really feeling anything, so you picked those empty words. 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: "My condolences". "My apologies". "My sympathies". When I hear these phrases, I get irritated because they sound so insincere!. I saw a post on my fb feed that my friend's grandmother passed away, and a few of the comments said things like "I'm so sorry to hear. She and your family are in my prayers." These don't bother me. What bothers me are people who simply say what I listed in the title, and maybe a few words more: * My condolences man. * My sympathies for your family bro. I don't understand why people can say these things and think it has any meaning whatsoever. They sound so ***insincere*** to me! Hell, even "shit, that fucking sucks man" sounds more sincere to me than those other hollow phrases. When my grandma passed away a few years ago, I texted my best friend to tell him, and he responded with two texts: "Fuck" "Tell me how to help". He didn't say he was sorry to hear and he didn't say anything nice about my grandma like how kind she was or how he know that she and I were close, but I still felt more comfort from those words than I could ever imagine feeling from "my condolences man." I don't know the people that posted those comments on my friends' fb, and so I don't know how genuine they are, but just the words alone bother me. They tell me that you felt like you should say something, but you weren't really feeling anything, so you picked those empty words. CMV?

t3_268ag2

CMV: I believe tolerance should inherently extend to all major opinions and sides of an ideal; even those you disagree with morally.

NOTE: This applies mainly to the U.S. As someone who identifies with both the libertarian party as well as holds Christian beliefs, something that will always bother me is the inherent idea that demonizing nearly half of the nation. I try very hard to listen to those people who advocate for beliefs I do not hold, but I cannot bear to listen to someone that labels my opinions "extremist," when there is no way in hell these beliefs are anywhere close to extreme. For example: Gay Marriage. Yes, I know, beating a dead horse here, but it's a hot topic for such labeling. When someone discusses LGBT rights on a liberal site or news station, they inherently claim they so love tolerance, but then label 40% of the country "extremist" or "bigoted" for daring to so much as disagree with the concept. I'm sorry, but there is nowhere near so much as a moderate consensus on gay marriage. The most liberal state in the country, California, even voted against it. Unless the federal judiciary is involved, if you held a national vote on it, I guarantee you there would be no consensus. Either position would pass. And, if compartmentalized to individual states, *just about every state in the union would be against it.* This doesn't just apply to gay marriage. These are issues we still face as a country. Same with abortion, welfare, etc. I just cannot stand it when people claim tolerance then start labeling people based on their belief systems. Please try to explain to me why it is this way. If anything, I would just like to know why someone can look me in the eye and claim I'm an extremist for believing certain things that a near-majority believe in. I thought tolerance was accepting that people believe and feel differently than you, and even disagree with you, and that's just ok. *As a side note, I don't even believe in governmental regulation of marriage in any way. It's none of their business if I marry anyone or anything as long as I uphold the laws of the nation. I personally feel like marriage is a spiritual communion you hold with either God, science, Buddha, nothing, or whatever it is you believe in. Give tax breaks for living together if you'd like but that's it. Stay out of my life.* _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe tolerance should inherently extend to all major opinions and sides of an ideal; even those you disagree with morally. NOTE: This applies mainly to the U.S. As someone who identifies with both the libertarian party as well as holds Christian beliefs, something that will always bother me is the inherent idea that demonizing nearly half of the nation. I try very hard to listen to those people who advocate for beliefs I do not hold, but I cannot bear to listen to someone that labels my opinions "extremist," when there is no way in hell these beliefs are anywhere close to extreme. For example: Gay Marriage. Yes, I know, beating a dead horse here, but it's a hot topic for such labeling. When someone discusses LGBT rights on a liberal site or news station, they inherently claim they so love tolerance, but then label 40% of the country "extremist" or "bigoted" for daring to so much as disagree with the concept. I'm sorry, but there is nowhere near so much as a moderate consensus on gay marriage. The most liberal state in the country, California, even voted against it. Unless the federal judiciary is involved, if you held a national vote on it, I guarantee you there would be no consensus. Either position would pass. And, if compartmentalized to individual states, *just about every state in the union would be against it.* This doesn't just apply to gay marriage. These are issues we still face as a country. Same with abortion, welfare, etc. I just cannot stand it when people claim tolerance then start labeling people based on their belief systems. Please try to explain to me why it is this way. If anything, I would just like to know why someone can look me in the eye and claim I'm an extremist for believing certain things that a near-majority believe in. I thought tolerance was accepting that people believe and feel differently than you, and even disagree with you, and that's just ok. *As a side note, I don't even believe in governmental regulation of marriage in any way. It's none of their business if I marry anyone or anything as long as I uphold the laws of the nation. I personally feel like marriage is a spiritual communion you hold with either God, science, Buddha, nothing, or whatever it is you believe in. Give tax breaks for living together if you'd like but that's it. Stay out of my life.*

t3_45spbf

CMV: In the show "The 100", Murphy is a good guy, and his persecution by the group is completely unjustified (The 100 spoilers obviously)

To summarize, Murphy was accused of a crime he didn't commit, and was nearly hanged by the group until the real killer stepped forward. All he demanded was the same justice for her that was about to be inflicted on him. She ended up committing suicide, and everyone was a total dick to him for the entire series because of it. I just don't get why what he did was such a big deal. Was it so monstrous of him to demand justice when there was a confession, when they were about to kill him without one? Without getting too far into it, a LOT of characters do far worse things and are totally accepted in the group. I just don't get why they all have such a hate boner for Murphy. _____ > *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 show "The 100", Murphy is a good guy, and his persecution by the group is completely unjustified (The 100 spoilers obviously). To summarize, Murphy was accused of a crime he didn't commit, and was nearly hanged by the group until the real killer stepped forward. All he demanded was the same justice for her that was about to be inflicted on him. She ended up committing suicide, and everyone was a total dick to him for the entire series because of it. I just don't get why what he did was such a big deal. Was it so monstrous of him to demand justice when there was a confession, when they were about to kill him without one? Without getting too far into it, a LOT of characters do far worse things and are totally accepted in the group. I just don't get why they all have such a hate boner for Murphy.

t3_1ikqmd

I think that Halal & Kosher meat is animal cruelty and should be treated as such, CMV.

A single cut to the throat is made rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter. It can take up to 2 minute for an animal to bleed out, causing considerable suffering. If this act wasn't taking place in the name of religion, the offender would be persecuted. There is no imperative for Muslims or Jews to eat meat produced in this manner. There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us. Change my view.

I think that Halal & Kosher meat is animal cruelty and should be treated as such, CMV. A single cut to the throat is made rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter. It can take up to 2 minute for an animal to bleed out, causing considerable suffering. If this act wasn't taking place in the name of religion, the offender would be persecuted. There is no imperative for Muslims or Jews to eat meat produced in this manner. There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us. Change my view.

t3_1zow3h

If I own a business and want to refuse service to certain people/groups, my right to free association should trump their right to my product or service, CMV

I just want to run my business. I'm human and like all humans have biases. Some are stupid. Some are not. I'm not actively harming anyone by refusing to rent them an apartment or make them a sandwich (yes I agree emergency room services and fire rescue are special cases). People/groups that I don't want to serve are actively harming my ability to assert property rights and associate only with people of my choosing. This is a really unpopular opinion among black/gay/fat friends of mine. I'm a minister happy to perform gay interracial or species marriages and an atheist as well. I don't really care who does what outside of my home/business. But outside of FSLA, OSHA, USERRA and anything else regarding health or safety, I want to make my own decisions about who and what I serve (I'm not and won't be a multinational cartel, just a dude running a small business). CMV

If I own a business and want to refuse service to certain people/groups, my right to free association should trump their right to my product or service, CMV. I just want to run my business. I'm human and like all humans have biases. Some are stupid. Some are not. I'm not actively harming anyone by refusing to rent them an apartment or make them a sandwich (yes I agree emergency room services and fire rescue are special cases). People/groups that I don't want to serve are actively harming my ability to assert property rights and associate only with people of my choosing. This is a really unpopular opinion among black/gay/fat friends of mine. I'm a minister happy to perform gay interracial or species marriages and an atheist as well. I don't really care who does what outside of my home/business. But outside of FSLA, OSHA, USERRA and anything else regarding health or safety, I want to make my own decisions about who and what I serve (I'm not and won't be a multinational cartel, just a dude running a small business). CMV

t3_3vagef

CMV: Stricter gun laws would not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting, as California already has the strictest gun laws in the country.

After the San Bernandino shooting, Democrat politicans like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley tweeted that this is evidence that we need stricter gun laws and to "stand up to the NRA." This seems like a red herring to me. California already has strict gun control laws; some of the strictest in the nation. Background checks are required, even for gun show purchases. The true cause of the shooting doesn't appear to be lax gun laws, but religious extremism. I doubt the shooters -- who had pipe bombs in addition to body armor and assault rifles -- wouldn't have been able to find a way around gun control laws. I get that one cannot simply ban extremism, but Islamic terrorism has been a problem for a while now, and they don't seem to have much of a problem obtaining weapons illegally. **Edit**: People have pointed out that my line of logic -- California has comparatively strict laws therefore stricter laws would not work -- is bad. After thinking about this, I agree. I should rephrase my problem then: I don't believe that strict gun control laws would prevent *organized religious extremists* from obtaining weapons. They may prevent some loner with a mental illness and a grudge from getting a gun, but otherwise sane people with extremist views will find a way around the laws. This is "change my view", so I'd like for people to point out how stricter gun laws would prevent this, rather than just say my logic is bad. _____ > *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: Stricter gun laws would not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting, as California already has the strictest gun laws in the country. After the San Bernandino shooting, Democrat politicans like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley tweeted that this is evidence that we need stricter gun laws and to "stand up to the NRA." This seems like a red herring to me. California already has strict gun control laws; some of the strictest in the nation. Background checks are required, even for gun show purchases. The true cause of the shooting doesn't appear to be lax gun laws, but religious extremism. I doubt the shooters -- who had pipe bombs in addition to body armor and assault rifles -- wouldn't have been able to find a way around gun control laws. I get that one cannot simply ban extremism, but Islamic terrorism has been a problem for a while now, and they don't seem to have much of a problem obtaining weapons illegally. **Edit**: People have pointed out that my line of logic -- California has comparatively strict laws therefore stricter laws would not work -- is bad. After thinking about this, I agree. I should rephrase my problem then: I don't believe that strict gun control laws would prevent *organized religious extremists* from obtaining weapons. They may prevent some loner with a mental illness and a grudge from getting a gun, but otherwise sane people with extremist views will find a way around the laws. This is "change my view", so I'd like for people to point out how stricter gun laws would prevent this, rather than just say my logic is bad.

t3_2584kr

CMV: Dubstep (real dubstep) hit a creative wall after 2011-2012 and now it's very boring.

I really like a lot of Dubstep, particularly the 06-08 stuff like early Hessle Audio, Punch Drunk, early Applepips, etc. In the few years after that there's still some good stuff to be heard, like Silkie & similar artists, etc. But now new Dubstep releases just seem to be either way too minimal and broody ("dungeon"). Or the tracks seem more like elaborate DJ tools that don't really function as something I'd listen to at home, I.E. Livity Sound, Mumdance, etc. Dubstep's always been about the effect with a crowd and a soundsystem, but songs like [TRG: Broken Heart (Martyn Remix](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDo0cCtUulE) are able to stand on their own without needing to be mixed by a DJ on a system. Is there Dubstep that's come out this year or the last year that isn't so boring? I can listen to Dubstep Allstars vol. 6 over and over, but Vol 11 (J:Kenzo) in comparison just sounds like a constant collage of punchy drums and randomly distorted worbly sounds. With the occasional "dark" movie sample. I even went to a recent show where a bunch of current Dubstep artists played (Dusk & Blackdown, Wen, Parris, etc) and it was cool and all, but the only songs that really excited me were ones with 4x4 beats. _____ > *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: Dubstep (real dubstep) hit a creative wall after 2011-2012 and now it's very boring. I really like a lot of Dubstep, particularly the 06-08 stuff like early Hessle Audio, Punch Drunk, early Applepips, etc. In the few years after that there's still some good stuff to be heard, like Silkie & similar artists, etc. But now new Dubstep releases just seem to be either way too minimal and broody ("dungeon"). Or the tracks seem more like elaborate DJ tools that don't really function as something I'd listen to at home, I.E. Livity Sound, Mumdance, etc. Dubstep's always been about the effect with a crowd and a soundsystem, but songs like [TRG: Broken Heart (Martyn Remix](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDo0cCtUulE) are able to stand on their own without needing to be mixed by a DJ on a system. Is there Dubstep that's come out this year or the last year that isn't so boring? I can listen to Dubstep Allstars vol. 6 over and over, but Vol 11 (J:Kenzo) in comparison just sounds like a constant collage of punchy drums and randomly distorted worbly sounds. With the occasional "dark" movie sample. I even went to a recent show where a bunch of current Dubstep artists played (Dusk & Blackdown, Wen, Parris, etc) and it was cool and all, but the only songs that really excited me were ones with 4x4 beats.

t3_1dgl5k

Child support is so much cheaper and easier than raising a child as a custodial parent that the only time you hear about it is around tax day and then only from the impoverished. CMV

It would seem that the google trends for "alimony" roughly bear this out: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=alimony&geo=US&cmpt=q In general, when love, a child and the law combine there is no one size fits all solution. We have to let the judges decide and hope for the best. Try to get a good lawyer. If you can't afford one, then your argument should be more in line with the 99% movement than the men's rights movement. C M V

Child support is so much cheaper and easier than raising a child as a custodial parent that the only time you hear about it is around tax day and then only from the impoverished. CMV. It would seem that the google trends for "alimony" roughly bear this out: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=alimony&geo=US&cmpt=q In general, when love, a child and the law combine there is no one size fits all solution. We have to let the judges decide and hope for the best. Try to get a good lawyer. If you can't afford one, then your argument should be more in line with the 99% movement than the men's rights movement. C M V

t3_69zzgc

CMV: I believe Government Cabinets should consist of individuals who are specialists in their field

I am strongly for the idea that in order to have a prosperous and sustainable government, it is absolutely paramount to have specialists holding public office, in positions they have devoted their entire life to. In other words, the position of legal secretary should be held by a lawyer/barrister who is leading in his/her field. The environment secretary should be held by scientists leading research within the environment. The health secretary should be lead by doctors/surgeons who, again, are leaders and pioneers in their field. And so on for every major cabinet position in the civilised world. By having a group of 'Politicians' with no real expertise in these fields, it is an absolute travesty to have these people in such positions. For example, when a Cabinet is reshuffled and members are moved into different areas, how could this possibly benefit the people or the sectors in which they have moved to? These people know nothing about the field they manage compared to those working and devoting their life to the same subject. It is frankly delusional to suggest Jeremy Hunt (UK Health Secretary) understands health policy and its impact on the NHS more than a medical surgeon who has spent decades within this field. I would have so much more faith in a leading surgeon who has lived his entire career within medicine to hold such position in Government. The same with lawyers, teachers, etc. Also, when we see cuts to sectors such as music, culture and sports, I just can't help but feel these people in charge don't make prudent decisions. They simply don't understand the impact of their decisions, whereas someone within those fields will understand far deeper and would acknowledge any decision and its impact on grassroots, society and beyond. Politicians who are just allowed to shape-shift into specialists of whichever public position they are thrown into is just not good for government, policymakers, or society. I believe this plays a huge factor in why there's so much disillusionment and discontent with contemporary politics today. _____ > *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 believe Government Cabinets should consist of individuals who are specialists in their field. I am strongly for the idea that in order to have a prosperous and sustainable government, it is absolutely paramount to have specialists holding public office, in positions they have devoted their entire life to. In other words, the position of legal secretary should be held by a lawyer/barrister who is leading in his/her field. The environment secretary should be held by scientists leading research within the environment. The health secretary should be lead by doctors/surgeons who, again, are leaders and pioneers in their field. And so on for every major cabinet position in the civilised world. By having a group of 'Politicians' with no real expertise in these fields, it is an absolute travesty to have these people in such positions. For example, when a Cabinet is reshuffled and members are moved into different areas, how could this possibly benefit the people or the sectors in which they have moved to? These people know nothing about the field they manage compared to those working and devoting their life to the same subject. It is frankly delusional to suggest Jeremy Hunt (UK Health Secretary) understands health policy and its impact on the NHS more than a medical surgeon who has spent decades within this field. I would have so much more faith in a leading surgeon who has lived his entire career within medicine to hold such position in Government. The same with lawyers, teachers, etc. Also, when we see cuts to sectors such as music, culture and sports, I just can't help but feel these people in charge don't make prudent decisions. They simply don't understand the impact of their decisions, whereas someone within those fields will understand far deeper and would acknowledge any decision and its impact on grassroots, society and beyond. Politicians who are just allowed to shape-shift into specialists of whichever public position they are thrown into is just not good for government, policymakers, or society. I believe this plays a huge factor in why there's so much disillusionment and discontent with contemporary politics today.

t3_2gmt4d

CMV: /r/debate should be the default subreddit, not /r/changemyview

When I found CMV, I was, at first, excited that there was a sub where people could come put out something they believe in that they know is controversial, and see if their reasoning behind it stands up to the scrutiny of others. However, I then came across posts that weren't "black and white," or were even posts that I agreed with! How could I, in good conscious, change the view of someone who is questioning something they don't know is "true" or "right", to something that I do not believe to be true or right? I can't, and so I must either abstain from initiating support for the Original Poster and wait for others to respond to them, or ignore the submission altogether. Also, the fact that the OP claims they *want* to have their view changed implies there is a right and wrong answer, and that OP is expressing the "wrong" option and somehow, deep down, knows it and wants to be convinced otherwise. Such black-and-white, right-and-wrong constructs are rarely true in real life, and so the whole sub-reddit is basically an echo-chamber for the majority of CMV posters/responders to put out the party line. On the other hand, /r/gue is a more balanced approach to controversial ideas and topics. A proposition is put forth, and than arguments are made for and against it. In this way, the sub allows both sides of the debate to put their best arguments forward and then allows them the opportunity to refute the others' arguments. On top of the format, the OP is not seeking to have his view changed, as the idea may not be his idea at all. It is even actually *recommended* to make a proposition or argue a side that is opposed to your own beliefs, so that you may learn something new that you may not have, otherwise. Please, CMV! edit: Looked up /r/debate and /r/gue when I first thought about this. I totally meant to put /r/gue in my title, sorry. edit 2: ...I am a moron. someone (probably brother) must have added /r/changemyview while I was logged in, because despite it having been in my feed for the entire time I've had my account, it is not, in fact, a default sub. I may end up deleting this to hide my shame, but I'll leave it up a little longer, jic. _____ > *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: /r/debate should be the default subreddit, not /r/changemyview. When I found CMV, I was, at first, excited that there was a sub where people could come put out something they believe in that they know is controversial, and see if their reasoning behind it stands up to the scrutiny of others. However, I then came across posts that weren't "black and white," or were even posts that I agreed with! How could I, in good conscious, change the view of someone who is questioning something they don't know is "true" or "right", to something that I do not believe to be true or right? I can't, and so I must either abstain from initiating support for the Original Poster and wait for others to respond to them, or ignore the submission altogether. Also, the fact that the OP claims they *want* to have their view changed implies there is a right and wrong answer, and that OP is expressing the "wrong" option and somehow, deep down, knows it and wants to be convinced otherwise. Such black-and-white, right-and-wrong constructs are rarely true in real life, and so the whole sub-reddit is basically an echo-chamber for the majority of CMV posters/responders to put out the party line. On the other hand, /r/gue is a more balanced approach to controversial ideas and topics. A proposition is put forth, and than arguments are made for and against it. In this way, the sub allows both sides of the debate to put their best arguments forward and then allows them the opportunity to refute the others' arguments. On top of the format, the OP is not seeking to have his view changed, as the idea may not be his idea at all. It is even actually *recommended* to make a proposition or argue a side that is opposed to your own beliefs, so that you may learn something new that you may not have, otherwise. Please, CMV! edit: Looked up /r/debate and /r/gue when I first thought about this. I totally meant to put /r/gue in my title, sorry. edit 2: ...I am a moron. someone (probably brother) must have added /r/changemyview while I was logged in, because despite it having been in my feed for the entire time I've had my account, it is not, in fact, a default sub. I may end up deleting this to hide my shame, but I'll leave it up a little longer, jic.

t3_4any24

CMV: If the general election comes out to "Trump vs Clinton", I should vote for Gary Johnson (or whoever is the Libertarian candidate) and campaign for them hard.

I will admit, in this election I was very much in favor of Bernie, but his chances look pretty well shot at this point. And in the primaries on the Republican side, Trump is honestly looking like the front-runner. I think that the reasons that I can't vote for Trump are obvious. I will fully admit that I wrote him in during the 2008 elections because that was another presidential race where I didn't like either candidate and Trump had yet to prove (to me) what a colossally bad choice he would be. I still have beef with Hillary Clinton over her whole "Videogames are making this country violent" thing from the 90s and 2000s. Something so obviously wrong and something that was basically a crusade started by professional lunatic and vexatious litigant Jack Thompson, I just can't forgive that, despite the parts of her policy I agree with. I considered moving to Canada, but upon further reflection I would have to mock myself so hard I'd burst into flames if I did this. So the only option left is to try to shake things up in the American political system. [5 percent of the popular vote qualifies a third party for a government grant that will put them on somewhat-equal financial footing with the big 2](http://ivn.us/2012/11/01/why-5-matters-to-gary-johnson/) and come next election cycle it's going to be much *more* interesting. I say Libertarian because I agree with them the most on social issues; I've drifted away from them on economic policy, but I do think that many of their social policies (ie: stop imprisoning non-violent drug users and let the ones who are currently in jail free) will help the economy, so that mitigates things. Some things that probably won't change my view: * Challenging my currently-held political beliefs that make me think Libertarians are my best bet (I agree with Libertarians almost entirely when it comes to social issues, but align more Democrat for economic issues) * Trying to convince me that Trump or Hilary aren't that bad. I know that I agree with Hilary's stances on a lot of things, but I still don't trust her at all, and that's important. I don't agree with Trump on anything. Some things that might be the best avenue for a view change: * A different third party who has a chance at getting 5% and aligns more closely with my views. As a quick rundown on social issues: I believe that people should be free to do what they want up until it infringes on the rights of others directly. I believe that victimless crimes should not be crimes. I believe that there's no reason that gays should not be able to both marry, and be able to carry a firearm, just so I get in something that gets both sides riled up. On economic issues: I believe that wealth inequality needs to be addressed, and the free market fails to do this. I believe that once something has become both 1) ubiquitous enough and 2) a necessity for modern life, it should be made a public service or utility (healthcare, internet, etc;). I believe that the government should exist to make sure that companies and other people don't infringe on the rights of others, with bad business practices and the like. _____ > *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 the general election comes out to "Trump vs Clinton", I should vote for Gary Johnson (or whoever is the Libertarian candidate) and campaign for them hard. I will admit, in this election I was very much in favor of Bernie, but his chances look pretty well shot at this point. And in the primaries on the Republican side, Trump is honestly looking like the front-runner. I think that the reasons that I can't vote for Trump are obvious. I will fully admit that I wrote him in during the 2008 elections because that was another presidential race where I didn't like either candidate and Trump had yet to prove (to me) what a colossally bad choice he would be. I still have beef with Hillary Clinton over her whole "Videogames are making this country violent" thing from the 90s and 2000s. Something so obviously wrong and something that was basically a crusade started by professional lunatic and vexatious litigant Jack Thompson, I just can't forgive that, despite the parts of her policy I agree with. I considered moving to Canada, but upon further reflection I would have to mock myself so hard I'd burst into flames if I did this. So the only option left is to try to shake things up in the American political system. [5 percent of the popular vote qualifies a third party for a government grant that will put them on somewhat-equal financial footing with the big 2](http://ivn.us/2012/11/01/why-5-matters-to-gary-johnson/) and come next election cycle it's going to be much *more* interesting. I say Libertarian because I agree with them the most on social issues; I've drifted away from them on economic policy, but I do think that many of their social policies (ie: stop imprisoning non-violent drug users and let the ones who are currently in jail free) will help the economy, so that mitigates things. Some things that probably won't change my view: * Challenging my currently-held political beliefs that make me think Libertarians are my best bet (I agree with Libertarians almost entirely when it comes to social issues, but align more Democrat for economic issues) * Trying to convince me that Trump or Hilary aren't that bad. I know that I agree with Hilary's stances on a lot of things, but I still don't trust her at all, and that's important. I don't agree with Trump on anything. Some things that might be the best avenue for a view change: * A different third party who has a chance at getting 5% and aligns more closely with my views. As a quick rundown on social issues: I believe that people should be free to do what they want up until it infringes on the rights of others directly. I believe that victimless crimes should not be crimes. I believe that there's no reason that gays should not be able to both marry, and be able to carry a firearm, just so I get in something that gets both sides riled up. On economic issues: I believe that wealth inequality needs to be addressed, and the free market fails to do this. I believe that once something has become both 1) ubiquitous enough and 2) a necessity for modern life, it should be made a public service or utility (healthcare, internet, etc;). I believe that the government should exist to make sure that companies and other people don't infringe on the rights of others, with bad business practices and the like.

t3_4gk51l

CMV: I don't think Hardcore Henry was a bad film

A lot of critics don't like the movie. The most common criticism is that it's filled with tropes and lacks characters. But I went into the movie expecting to watch a cheesy first-person action cyborg movie. This was exactly how it was advertised. In that context, it's not a bad movie. 70% of the movie is crazy action and 30% is silly humor and overused sci-fi tropes. It definitely delivers value for your movie ticket. Yes, it has plot holes in every scene and the acting is mediocre (though Sharlto Copley was actually pretty good). But STX never advertised good acting or story. It's very literally a music video that someone bought the rights to, and turned into a movie. People who are interested in a fully-fleshed out story are not the intended audience of the movie. So I think the critics are giving the movie a much harder time than it deserves. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think Hardcore Henry was a bad film. A lot of critics don't like the movie. The most common criticism is that it's filled with tropes and lacks characters. But I went into the movie expecting to watch a cheesy first-person action cyborg movie. This was exactly how it was advertised. In that context, it's not a bad movie. 70% of the movie is crazy action and 30% is silly humor and overused sci-fi tropes. It definitely delivers value for your movie ticket. Yes, it has plot holes in every scene and the acting is mediocre (though Sharlto Copley was actually pretty good). But STX never advertised good acting or story. It's very literally a music video that someone bought the rights to, and turned into a movie. People who are interested in a fully-fleshed out story are not the intended audience of the movie. So I think the critics are giving the movie a much harder time than it deserves.

t3_3owwpg

CMV: University of Michigan is going to beat Michigan State on Saturday

In the past six games, the Wolverines have a record of 5-1, losing only their first regular season game to Utah. More specifically, they have actually shut out the last three teams—including Northwestern, which before traveling to Ann Arbor, had been 5-0 and was ranked No. 14, six spots higher than Michigan. The Northwestern game was expected to be a close battle; however, within the first nine minutes, the Wolverines were up by two touchdowns. After the past seven weeks, I believe that the University of Michigan football team is going to beat Michigan State because of their powerful defense, the strategic coaching of Jim Harbaugh, and the recent weak performances of State. Not only has Michigan shut out the past three teams, they have only allowed the opposition to score two touchdowns in the past five games. In fact, they are ranked number 1 in third down defense, and number 2 in total defense in the NCAA. They held Northwestern, which had previously been undefeated, to less than 200 yards (http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2015/10/11/michigan-football-defense-ranking/73771722/.) This team has demonstrated a tremendous defensive effort—it is one thing to simply win a game, but to limit the opposing teams by such an enormous margin is something entirely different. At this point in the season, it is hard to imagine this defense giving any opportunities to Michigan State. As soon as Jim Harbuagh was announced as the new head football coach at Michigan, the buildup for the upcoming season was unprecedented. Former coach Brady Hoke was known to have talent with recruiting players, but could never quite develop them properly. That’s where Harbaugh has really made a difference for this team—you have to admit, the turnaround has been unprecedented. He is so involved and dedicated to improving his players, and it has created a level of respect that is probably the key to his success. For example, he physically does the drills with the players; he literally wears cleats to practice—how many other head coaches do that (http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2015/08/04/michigan-football-jim-harbaugh/31113887/)? With his style of coaching, Michigan has been groomed into a competitor that will be able to beat State. I will acknowledge that MSU has had quite a run these past few seasons. And yes, they are 6-0 right now. However—the teams they have played aren’t exactly tough competitors. And being undefeated hasn’t been an easy task. For example, last weekend, they came dangerously close to losing to Rutgers, a team that isn’t even in the top 25 and was ranked No. 81 at the beginning of the year. Their recent challenges could be due to the number of injuries they have suffered, which is another factor that place the odds for Saturday in Michigan’s favor. They just don’t have the same momentum as the Wolverines right now. Saturday is quickly approaching…is my bet safe? > *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: University of Michigan is going to beat Michigan State on Saturday. In the past six games, the Wolverines have a record of 5-1, losing only their first regular season game to Utah. More specifically, they have actually shut out the last three teams—including Northwestern, which before traveling to Ann Arbor, had been 5-0 and was ranked No. 14, six spots higher than Michigan. The Northwestern game was expected to be a close battle; however, within the first nine minutes, the Wolverines were up by two touchdowns. After the past seven weeks, I believe that the University of Michigan football team is going to beat Michigan State because of their powerful defense, the strategic coaching of Jim Harbaugh, and the recent weak performances of State. Not only has Michigan shut out the past three teams, they have only allowed the opposition to score two touchdowns in the past five games. In fact, they are ranked number 1 in third down defense, and number 2 in total defense in the NCAA. They held Northwestern, which had previously been undefeated, to less than 200 yards (http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2015/10/11/michigan-football-defense-ranking/73771722/.) This team has demonstrated a tremendous defensive effort—it is one thing to simply win a game, but to limit the opposing teams by such an enormous margin is something entirely different. At this point in the season, it is hard to imagine this defense giving any opportunities to Michigan State. As soon as Jim Harbuagh was announced as the new head football coach at Michigan, the buildup for the upcoming season was unprecedented. Former coach Brady Hoke was known to have talent with recruiting players, but could never quite develop them properly. That’s where Harbaugh has really made a difference for this team—you have to admit, the turnaround has been unprecedented. He is so involved and dedicated to improving his players, and it has created a level of respect that is probably the key to his success. For example, he physically does the drills with the players; he literally wears cleats to practice—how many other head coaches do that (http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2015/08/04/michigan-football-jim-harbaugh/31113887/)? With his style of coaching, Michigan has been groomed into a competitor that will be able to beat State. I will acknowledge that MSU has had quite a run these past few seasons. And yes, they are 6-0 right now. However—the teams they have played aren’t exactly tough competitors. And being undefeated hasn’t been an easy task. For example, last weekend, they came dangerously close to losing to Rutgers, a team that isn’t even in the top 25 and was ranked No. 81 at the beginning of the year. Their recent challenges could be due to the number of injuries they have suffered, which is another factor that place the odds for Saturday in Michigan’s favor. They just don’t have the same momentum as the Wolverines right now. Saturday is quickly approaching…is my bet safe? > *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_1komdp

I don't believe that Windows 8 deserves all the hate it's gotten, CMV.

I've had windows 8 on my gaming laptop for months now, and I haven't had any problems with it. Recently after telling someone I have it they acted as if I was an idiot for using it. His main argument was "it was designed for touch screen", but I don't see why this makes the operating system poor. Another grief people have with it is the lack of a start button, but there's a command that brings up a basic version of it. All in all it seems faster and more efficient than windows 7 to me, and I believe that all the hate is a result of people hopping on the "windows 8 is bad" bandwagon.

I don't believe that Windows 8 deserves all the hate it's gotten, CMV. I've had windows 8 on my gaming laptop for months now, and I haven't had any problems with it. Recently after telling someone I have it they acted as if I was an idiot for using it. His main argument was "it was designed for touch screen", but I don't see why this makes the operating system poor. Another grief people have with it is the lack of a start button, but there's a command that brings up a basic version of it. All in all it seems faster and more efficient than windows 7 to me, and I believe that all the hate is a result of people hopping on the "windows 8 is bad" bandwagon.

t3_72zp3p

CMV: Spatial ability gender differences are a large cause of the gender discrepancies in STEM.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14704028 Men on average are one standard deviation higher than women in spatial intelligence. This likely has a biological root, though to what extent remains unknown. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf Women on the other hand, perform better on reading/verbal and perceptual tasks. I'd say women have a better, more rounded intelligence. [The math gender academic gap is inversely proportional to the reading gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_gaps_in_mathematics_and_reading). The more women close the math gap in a country, the bigger the reading gap becomes. Males big advantage has always been in math/spatial ability, thus I'd say they have a type of intelligence that lends them a bigger chance of entering the "genius" fields. That doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter overall however. Again, how much of this is social/biological remains to be seen. Spatial ability is a major contributor to the leaky STEM pipeline. Women's skills will be underdeveloped compared to men, and thus they are more likely to leave these majors in the "weed-out" courses that rely heavily on spatial ability. I think our top priority should be to institute classes/ programs to teach girls spatial ability, as well as reading skills for boys. _____ > *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: Spatial ability gender differences are a large cause of the gender discrepancies in STEM. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14704028 Men on average are one standard deviation higher than women in spatial intelligence. This likely has a biological root, though to what extent remains unknown. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf Women on the other hand, perform better on reading/verbal and perceptual tasks. I'd say women have a better, more rounded intelligence. [The math gender academic gap is inversely proportional to the reading gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_gaps_in_mathematics_and_reading). The more women close the math gap in a country, the bigger the reading gap becomes. Males big advantage has always been in math/spatial ability, thus I'd say they have a type of intelligence that lends them a bigger chance of entering the "genius" fields. That doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter overall however. Again, how much of this is social/biological remains to be seen. Spatial ability is a major contributor to the leaky STEM pipeline. Women's skills will be underdeveloped compared to men, and thus they are more likely to leave these majors in the "weed-out" courses that rely heavily on spatial ability. I think our top priority should be to institute classes/ programs to teach girls spatial ability, as well as reading skills for boys.

t3_1x2yx8

I don't think Joy Division (specifically Unkown Pleasures) is very good CMV

Ok, first I would like to acknowledge that when it comes to CMV's regarding bands, movies, etc. I know that a lot of subjectivity is involved so I just want to clarify, that I don't think Joy Division is overrated, or that no-one should think they are good I'm just looking for why other people like them in an attempt to find my own meaning within the music. That being said, I'll be a little more descriptive about my situation. I am a huge music geek, I study music I play music, I am overall consumed by music. It's how I spend almost all of my time. I have many friends, and people who I look up to musically who love Joy Division. I've listened to Unknown Pleasures maybe 10 times front to back, and frankly I find it boring. I have a hard time paying attention. I don't really enjoy most of the instrumentation or find the song writing to be very interesting either. I will go as far as to say that the very opening of the album almost makes me want to laugh, it sounds so cheesey. Considering how many people I respect who love it I want to be absolutely sure that there isn't something that I'm not hearing or paying attention too that might be preventing me from loving them. Does anyone else here have a similar experience? Did it take you more than 10 tries to like it? Is there a context of the music I don't know that makes it special? I know there's a Joy Division documentary would that maybe be good to watch to understand it better? Please help me CMV.

I don't think Joy Division (specifically Unkown Pleasures) is very good CMV. Ok, first I would like to acknowledge that when it comes to CMV's regarding bands, movies, etc. I know that a lot of subjectivity is involved so I just want to clarify, that I don't think Joy Division is overrated, or that no-one should think they are good I'm just looking for why other people like them in an attempt to find my own meaning within the music. That being said, I'll be a little more descriptive about my situation. I am a huge music geek, I study music I play music, I am overall consumed by music. It's how I spend almost all of my time. I have many friends, and people who I look up to musically who love Joy Division. I've listened to Unknown Pleasures maybe 10 times front to back, and frankly I find it boring. I have a hard time paying attention. I don't really enjoy most of the instrumentation or find the song writing to be very interesting either. I will go as far as to say that the very opening of the album almost makes me want to laugh, it sounds so cheesey. Considering how many people I respect who love it I want to be absolutely sure that there isn't something that I'm not hearing or paying attention too that might be preventing me from loving them. Does anyone else here have a similar experience? Did it take you more than 10 tries to like it? Is there a context of the music I don't know that makes it special? I know there's a Joy Division documentary would that maybe be good to watch to understand it better? Please help me CMV.

t3_5bv7qo

CMV: We're going to miss /r/The_Donald post-election, they've been a hilarious new form of politics.

The way I see it, this year's election has been a dumpster fire on both sides. The Hillary camp tried to keep it serious but /r/The_Donald basically broke out the marshmallows and hot dogs and had a party with the insanity. "All hail the God-Emperor for life" is about acknowledging Trump is a narcissist, "weaponized autism" was self-deprecating humor along with the whole "KEK!" thing (Warcraft reference apparently), the crazy memes, the shitposting and much more. They're a crazy part of a batshit insane election *and they realized it* and just rolled with it. I've never seen that before, EVER outside of a few guys like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme ...and such. /r/The_Donald was needed this year, and the Hillary supporters needed to realize the flaws on their side too. Had they done so with 1/10th of the chaotic humor /r/The_Donald put into it, all of Reddit would have been better off. Instead we had "Correct The Record" and /r/politics going just as partisan as /r/The_Donald ever was...screw that. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We're going to miss /r/The_Donald post-election, they've been a hilarious new form of politics. The way I see it, this year's election has been a dumpster fire on both sides. The Hillary camp tried to keep it serious but /r/The_Donald basically broke out the marshmallows and hot dogs and had a party with the insanity. "All hail the God-Emperor for life" is about acknowledging Trump is a narcissist, "weaponized autism" was self-deprecating humor along with the whole "KEK!" thing (Warcraft reference apparently), the crazy memes, the shitposting and much more. They're a crazy part of a batshit insane election *and they realized it* and just rolled with it. I've never seen that before, EVER outside of a few guys like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme ...and such. /r/The_Donald was needed this year, and the Hillary supporters needed to realize the flaws on their side too. Had they done so with 1/10th of the chaotic humor /r/The_Donald put into it, all of Reddit would have been better off. Instead we had "Correct The Record" and /r/politics going just as partisan as /r/The_Donald ever was...screw that.

t3_4qv031

CMV: There is no plausible ending for the "Song of Ice and Fire" series that isn't Daenerys on the Iron Throne.

First things first: I don't dislike Daenerys. I think that throughout the course of the series, she has grown as a leader and is coming into her own as a potential ruler for Westeros. Does that make her deserving of it, per se? That's a matter of opinion and it's not one that I necessarily prescribe to. However, I do think that regardless of whether or not anyone else is deserving of the throne, be it Jon, Asha, or Arianne, there will be no one else who takes it because of the giant fucking deus ex we've watched grow through the span of the series. I'm talking, of course, about the dragons. At the end of the day, if Dany has dragons, does it really matter how many men Jon has loyal to House Stark? If Dany has dragons, does it make a damn bit of difference what Cersei schemes and connives into existence? Of course it doesn't. Short of Jon going Azor Ahai on Dany's Nissa Nissa, she's the biggest OP that ever lived. You simply cannot defeat dragons in the War of the Five Kings. Now, I know that there is at least one historical incidence of dragons being defeated. Aegon's Conquest indiciates that the defeat of the dragons, Meraxes' slaying in particular, is plausible, but within the context of the War of the Five Kings, it's just not going to happen. Dany will take the Iron Throne with fire and blood. The Song of Ice and Fire is, of course, about Jon and Dany, but at the end of the day, fire will always come out on top. Does that mean that she'll be a good ruler? Probably not, especially if she has to burn Moscow to get to the throne. I do, however, truly believe it is the only reasonable endgame. CMV.

CMV: There is no plausible ending for the "Song of Ice and Fire" series that isn't Daenerys on the Iron Throne. First things first: I don't dislike Daenerys. I think that throughout the course of the series, she has grown as a leader and is coming into her own as a potential ruler for Westeros. Does that make her deserving of it, per se? That's a matter of opinion and it's not one that I necessarily prescribe to. However, I do think that regardless of whether or not anyone else is deserving of the throne, be it Jon, Asha, or Arianne, there will be no one else who takes it because of the giant fucking deus ex we've watched grow through the span of the series. I'm talking, of course, about the dragons. At the end of the day, if Dany has dragons, does it really matter how many men Jon has loyal to House Stark? If Dany has dragons, does it make a damn bit of difference what Cersei schemes and connives into existence? Of course it doesn't. Short of Jon going Azor Ahai on Dany's Nissa Nissa, she's the biggest OP that ever lived. You simply cannot defeat dragons in the War of the Five Kings. Now, I know that there is at least one historical incidence of dragons being defeated. Aegon's Conquest indiciates that the defeat of the dragons, Meraxes' slaying in particular, is plausible, but within the context of the War of the Five Kings, it's just not going to happen. Dany will take the Iron Throne with fire and blood. The Song of Ice and Fire is, of course, about Jon and Dany, but at the end of the day, fire will always come out on top. Does that mean that she'll be a good ruler? Probably not, especially if she has to burn Moscow to get to the throne. I do, however, truly believe it is the only reasonable endgame. CMV.

t3_25sujh

CMV: I don't think 'Love' is a real emotion.

It's not that I'm not fond of the aspect of love, conditionally or unconditionally, or being 'In love'. And it's not that i've been really hurt in the past. Yes Humans experience basic emotions, and yes instinct comes into play increasing our chances of reproducing which taking that into account the action of sleeping around rules out any notion of love at that given time. I mean, when did we stop acting on instinct and invent this thing called love? My thoughts are it's more along the lines of "Hey I like this person a lot", there's no real border line between like and love. Maybe it's the movies portraying a completely non-realistic definition of it. I can't exactly pin-point what it is, it's not that I think to believe in it or not. It's that I do not think it's real. P.S please don't reply with the cliche "When you love someone, you'll know". As I said conditional, or unconditional. My family are amazing as well, good upbringing etc.

CMV: I don't think 'Love' is a real emotion. It's not that I'm not fond of the aspect of love, conditionally or unconditionally, or being 'In love'. And it's not that i've been really hurt in the past. Yes Humans experience basic emotions, and yes instinct comes into play increasing our chances of reproducing which taking that into account the action of sleeping around rules out any notion of love at that given time. I mean, when did we stop acting on instinct and invent this thing called love? My thoughts are it's more along the lines of "Hey I like this person a lot", there's no real border line between like and love. Maybe it's the movies portraying a completely non-realistic definition of it. I can't exactly pin-point what it is, it's not that I think to believe in it or not. It's that I do not think it's real. P.S please don't reply with the cliche "When you love someone, you'll know". As I said conditional, or unconditional. My family are amazing as well, good upbringing etc.

t3_5m8nu1

CMV: It is impossible to claim that capitalism is a fair system that rewards hard work.

The typical defense for capitalism as an economic system, and right wing politics and general is the idea that one should work hard and then reap the benefits from that. The idea that happiness is something that needs to be earned etc. The problem with this, is that it simply isn't possible to claim this to be true. If you have a race where different people have different starting positions then it is not a fair race. The biggest decider of your financial well-being is going to be your parents financial well-being. Even then, other factors will still affect this, such as race, gender, disability etc. Right wing people often point to people who have had 'rags to riches' stories as examples of how the American Dream works, but the fact is that these people have just had to work several times harder than people who have had life handed to them on a plate. If your father gave you 'a small loan of a million dollars', then honestly it isn't that difficult to turn that into a greater sum of money. I'm no fan of the individualistic mindset that people who support capitalism espouse, but if you truly believe in a survival of the fittest system is a fair one, you still need a system in which everyone has the same starting position. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is impossible to claim that capitalism is a fair system that rewards hard work. The typical defense for capitalism as an economic system, and right wing politics and general is the idea that one should work hard and then reap the benefits from that. The idea that happiness is something that needs to be earned etc. The problem with this, is that it simply isn't possible to claim this to be true. If you have a race where different people have different starting positions then it is not a fair race. The biggest decider of your financial well-being is going to be your parents financial well-being. Even then, other factors will still affect this, such as race, gender, disability etc. Right wing people often point to people who have had 'rags to riches' stories as examples of how the American Dream works, but the fact is that these people have just had to work several times harder than people who have had life handed to them on a plate. If your father gave you 'a small loan of a million dollars', then honestly it isn't that difficult to turn that into a greater sum of money. I'm no fan of the individualistic mindset that people who support capitalism espouse, but if you truly believe in a survival of the fittest system is a fair one, you still need a system in which everyone has the same starting position.

t3_364la1

CMV: There should be mo American political parties.

It seems a lot of politicians are the same. I believe it would make a lot more sense if a politician was him/her own self with his/her own ideas instead of having to choose one of two political parties. The fact that we only really have two major political parties is ridiculous. The entire concept of it doesn't make sense. If you put people in groups according to their ideas, each group member would pretty much be a clone of the other, if not close to it. It seems because of this there isn't much middle ground in politicians, you either have a republican who believes in X or a democrat who believes in Y. With a system like that it just doesn't seem any innovation or new ideas would come through like they could. But not only that, when you put a bunch of people in one group the people will end up doing what is best for that group (party) and not necessarily what they think is right, or want to do. So please, tell me why I'm wrong here. EDIT: Title should say "There should be NO American political parties"

CMV: There should be mo American political parties. It seems a lot of politicians are the same. I believe it would make a lot more sense if a politician was him/her own self with his/her own ideas instead of having to choose one of two political parties. The fact that we only really have two major political parties is ridiculous. The entire concept of it doesn't make sense. If you put people in groups according to their ideas, each group member would pretty much be a clone of the other, if not close to it. It seems because of this there isn't much middle ground in politicians, you either have a republican who believes in X or a democrat who believes in Y. With a system like that it just doesn't seem any innovation or new ideas would come through like they could. But not only that, when you put a bunch of people in one group the people will end up doing what is best for that group (party) and not necessarily what they think is right, or want to do. So please, tell me why I'm wrong here. EDIT: Title should say "There should be NO American political parties"

t3_4ogsez

CMV: If you are working a low-paying or 'dead end' job, and proceed to have children anyway, I do not feel sorry for you.

I keep seeing this argument pop up with regards to the movement to increase the minimum wage, either marginally or all the way to $15/hr and beyond. "I'm a single mother with two children and work at [insert low paying job here]" or "My husband and I cannot support our family at our current positions" are examples of what I keep hearing. I believe a decent majority of people in these positions (for a multitude of reasons) are very financially inept and in general are not very proficient with regards to planning long term. No matter if you live alone and work one of these jobs and rent/own, or live with someone, both of you working jobs like this and rent/own, it's pretty evident that children cost well into the six figure range long term. You need to plan well in advance, budget and fully understand the sort of financial responsibility you are undertaking by having a kid, no matter if you are trying or not. For those not even trying, having a kid by accident is simply careless. Kids are not required and no one forces you to have a kid or not use some sort of protection. Condoms are not that expensive. If you have a kid because you would like one, by all means please do. That is your right. But then it is up to you to take the necessary steps to better yourself and your family financially, not adjust an entire system to fit your needs. _____ > *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 are working a low-paying or 'dead end' job, and proceed to have children anyway, I do not feel sorry for you. I keep seeing this argument pop up with regards to the movement to increase the minimum wage, either marginally or all the way to $15/hr and beyond. "I'm a single mother with two children and work at [insert low paying job here]" or "My husband and I cannot support our family at our current positions" are examples of what I keep hearing. I believe a decent majority of people in these positions (for a multitude of reasons) are very financially inept and in general are not very proficient with regards to planning long term. No matter if you live alone and work one of these jobs and rent/own, or live with someone, both of you working jobs like this and rent/own, it's pretty evident that children cost well into the six figure range long term. You need to plan well in advance, budget and fully understand the sort of financial responsibility you are undertaking by having a kid, no matter if you are trying or not. For those not even trying, having a kid by accident is simply careless. Kids are not required and no one forces you to have a kid or not use some sort of protection. Condoms are not that expensive. If you have a kid because you would like one, by all means please do. That is your right. But then it is up to you to take the necessary steps to better yourself and your family financially, not adjust an entire system to fit your needs.

t3_1lk9a2

People who seriously ridicule others for their fashion choices, no matter how bizarre, are not mature enough to warrant their friendship. CMV.

Look, the occasional joke about Crocs or fedoras are funny, but I feel like a lot of people on here place a tangible value on a person's worth based on their fashion choices - as if the articles of clothing a person wears can instantly make them not want to meet or talk to the "violator." What ever happened to wearing clothing for your own enjoyment, rather than the approval of others? Why is someone who wears Vibrams/cowboy hats/any other kind of "weird" accessory in casual, public occasions a "douche," or a "wanker?" I get that the kid who thinks wearing a zebra-patterned trilby will net him girls, lusting after his "classiness," probably has some serious delusions and/or insecurity issues. What about the dude on my floor who wears a Stetson? Should I disregard how intelligent and personable he may be just because he happens to not give a shit about what other people think of his hat? It's not like these are things that can physically hurt or make someone uncomfortable (e.g. they smell, are indecently exposing themselves to children)

People who seriously ridicule others for their fashion choices, no matter how bizarre, are not mature enough to warrant their friendship. CMV. Look, the occasional joke about Crocs or fedoras are funny, but I feel like a lot of people on here place a tangible value on a person's worth based on their fashion choices - as if the articles of clothing a person wears can instantly make them not want to meet or talk to the "violator." What ever happened to wearing clothing for your own enjoyment, rather than the approval of others? Why is someone who wears Vibrams/cowboy hats/any other kind of "weird" accessory in casual, public occasions a "douche," or a "wanker?" I get that the kid who thinks wearing a zebra-patterned trilby will net him girls, lusting after his "classiness," probably has some serious delusions and/or insecurity issues. What about the dude on my floor who wears a Stetson? Should I disregard how intelligent and personable he may be just because he happens to not give a shit about what other people think of his hat? It's not like these are things that can physically hurt or make someone uncomfortable (e.g. they smell, are indecently exposing themselves to children)

t3_1h2vqf

I've grown up loving well-done steaks because that's how my mom always prepared it. I get disgusted by the "blood" in medium/rare steaks, but I know it's the "better" way to enjoy steaks. Reddit, CMV on steaks

My mom always cooked her steak well done, and that's how I've grown to like it. Every time I eat any kind of medium/rare steak that has too much juice/blood I get disgusted. I know good steaks are meant to be eaten medium or medium rare. How do you CMV on this and get me to start my gradual transition without being disgusted by the blood? I can try slowly going from well-done to medium-well to medium and so-forth but I still can't get past the whole the-juice-is-blood part. I also need a few more characters to get to the 500 minimum so here it is

I've grown up loving well-done steaks because that's how my mom always prepared it. I get disgusted by the "blood" in medium/rare steaks, but I know it's the "better" way to enjoy steaks. Reddit, CMV on steaks. My mom always cooked her steak well done, and that's how I've grown to like it. Every time I eat any kind of medium/rare steak that has too much juice/blood I get disgusted. I know good steaks are meant to be eaten medium or medium rare. How do you CMV on this and get me to start my gradual transition without being disgusted by the blood? I can try slowly going from well-done to medium-well to medium and so-forth but I still can't get past the whole the-juice-is-blood part. I also need a few more characters to get to the 500 minimum so here it is

t3_1f2zp5

I believe the European Muslim society't doing enough to curb the extremists in their midst. CMV

As we see more and more attacks on indigenous Europeans by Muslim extremists it seems that the moderate and peaceful Muslims are not doing enough to be proactive in rooting out this element within their religious ranks. It brings into question the motives and at least the manners of this cult. Disclaimer: I am an atheist, and I think all religions are toxic to a self actualized healthy human planet.

I believe the European Muslim society't doing enough to curb the extremists in their midst. CMV. As we see more and more attacks on indigenous Europeans by Muslim extremists it seems that the moderate and peaceful Muslims are not doing enough to be proactive in rooting out this element within their religious ranks. It brings into question the motives and at least the manners of this cult. Disclaimer: I am an atheist, and I think all religions are toxic to a self actualized healthy human planet.

t3_27vrfr

CMV:I believe we should be much harsher on prison inmates.

I dislike the fact that if I commit a crime I gain more than I lose. I get put in a jail where I can meet other criminals. Being in jail I get the sense that society has turned its back on me so I might begin to resent it. Because of this I become closer to the only other people I can interact with: other criminals. I get to work out everyday, making myself more dangerous. If I was homeless before, I may want to go to jail: I get 3 meals a day and hot running water. I get free networking with criminals (has nothing to do with being homeless). If the death penalty is not enforced in my state there is nothing preventing me from killing a guard or a fellow inmate if I'm clever about it. Many gangs in the USA get stronger when members recruit while in prison . In my opinion weight lifting equipment should be removed from prisons. There should be 2 prisoners per cell and that should be the only form of interaction a prisoner receives for their term. Outdoor time should be short with none of the open yards seen today. I feel the modern form of execution is overly dramatic. In my opinion hanging by a trained professional, shot to the back of the head or a captive bolt pistol should be used. the organs of executed should be used to help those in need. I must say alot of this sounds barbaric, I am usually very liberal and has studied a bit of philosophy. I am not a politics major, I'm an engineer, this is just something I've been thinking about for a while. Some of these ideas come from a documentary about Russia's toughest prisons ( I think it's still on YouTube). The comment about gangs growing in prison comes from the series "gangland" where they would recount the history of Americas biggest gangs, biggest and many prospered in prison. Most of my reasoning come from the idea that if I break a law intentionally I break a social contract and thus forfeit my rights. Why should a murder live better than some low income families? Why should a rapist have access to medicine that third world countries go without? Why do we spent more money on jails than we do in taking care of our veterans? Just my views. Edit: I am trying to get to all of the replies, I thank all of your disagreeing with me, you have given me some very good food for thought. I need to think about some of this and read a bit more but I am determined to get to all of you. Thanks again. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I believe we should be much harsher on prison inmates. I dislike the fact that if I commit a crime I gain more than I lose. I get put in a jail where I can meet other criminals. Being in jail I get the sense that society has turned its back on me so I might begin to resent it. Because of this I become closer to the only other people I can interact with: other criminals. I get to work out everyday, making myself more dangerous. If I was homeless before, I may want to go to jail: I get 3 meals a day and hot running water. I get free networking with criminals (has nothing to do with being homeless). If the death penalty is not enforced in my state there is nothing preventing me from killing a guard or a fellow inmate if I'm clever about it. Many gangs in the USA get stronger when members recruit while in prison . In my opinion weight lifting equipment should be removed from prisons. There should be 2 prisoners per cell and that should be the only form of interaction a prisoner receives for their term. Outdoor time should be short with none of the open yards seen today. I feel the modern form of execution is overly dramatic. In my opinion hanging by a trained professional, shot to the back of the head or a captive bolt pistol should be used. the organs of executed should be used to help those in need. I must say alot of this sounds barbaric, I am usually very liberal and has studied a bit of philosophy. I am not a politics major, I'm an engineer, this is just something I've been thinking about for a while. Some of these ideas come from a documentary about Russia's toughest prisons ( I think it's still on YouTube). The comment about gangs growing in prison comes from the series "gangland" where they would recount the history of Americas biggest gangs, biggest and many prospered in prison. Most of my reasoning come from the idea that if I break a law intentionally I break a social contract and thus forfeit my rights. Why should a murder live better than some low income families? Why should a rapist have access to medicine that third world countries go without? Why do we spent more money on jails than we do in taking care of our veterans? Just my views. Edit: I am trying to get to all of the replies, I thank all of your disagreeing with me, you have given me some very good food for thought. I need to think about some of this and read a bit more but I am determined to get to all of you. Thanks again.

t3_62qy7h

CMV: FIRE BAD!

ME NO LIKE FIRE. FIRE BURN MY WOOD HOUSE. MY BABY GO CLOSE TO FIRE. FIRE BURN HIM. ME USE ANIMAL SKIN FOR WARM, NO NEED FIRE TO KEEP WARM. ME SLEEP AT NIGHT. NO NEED FIRE TO SEE. FIRE BURN FOREST. FIRE BURN TREES. FIRE BURN ANIMALS. FIRE TAKE AWAY MY FRUIT AND MEAT. FIRE MAKE ME STARVE TILL I MOVE AWAY. EVERYBODY IN MY TRIBE SAY FIRE GOOD. I SAY FIRE BAD. CMV

CMV: FIRE BAD!. ME NO LIKE FIRE. FIRE BURN MY WOOD HOUSE. MY BABY GO CLOSE TO FIRE. FIRE BURN HIM. ME USE ANIMAL SKIN FOR WARM, NO NEED FIRE TO KEEP WARM. ME SLEEP AT NIGHT. NO NEED FIRE TO SEE. FIRE BURN FOREST. FIRE BURN TREES. FIRE BURN ANIMALS. FIRE TAKE AWAY MY FRUIT AND MEAT. FIRE MAKE ME STARVE TILL I MOVE AWAY. EVERYBODY IN MY TRIBE SAY FIRE GOOD. I SAY FIRE BAD. CMV

t3_23i0xv

CMV: I do not blame the mods of /r/technology for the censorship and decline in quality in that subreddit.Instead, I blame the admins for condoning allowing mods to hold so much power.

It seems like certain mods do not have enough rules to follow. It seems as if they can do what ever they'd like to a subreddit with out the consent of their subscribers. The subscribers to subreddits do not have a voice to take certain mods out of their position. This is a sign of corruption and it's happening because the administrators LET IT HAPPEN. Imagine if /r/changemyview started censoring words like "corruption" and "NSA". There would be nothing we could do about it other than to unsubscribe, find a new subreddit, and hope that that one doesn't get ruined as well. As you can see in this [thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/23f3s4/creating_a_transparent_rtechnology_part_1/), which is a mod post in /r/technology about creating transparency, almost all the comments say they wish to remove /u/maxwellhill and /u/anutensil. If you look through /u/anutensil's posting [history](http://www.reddit.com/user/anutensil), you'll notice that he is clearly MOCKING his subscribers. That alone is a sign of corruption and the lack of power the subscribers have to remove him. I also believe that something should be done to prevent mods from moderating too many subreddits. This is all in the hands of the admins because they are the only ones that are able to establish some rules. TL;DR: The admins should not allow mods to hold that much power over their subreddit. Subscribers to subreddits deserve the right to vote mods out of their position. ~~Mods shouldn't be able to mod a high number of subreddits.~~ 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 do not blame the mods of /r/technology for the censorship and decline in quality in that subreddit.Instead, I blame the admins for condoning allowing mods to hold so much power. It seems like certain mods do not have enough rules to follow. It seems as if they can do what ever they'd like to a subreddit with out the consent of their subscribers. The subscribers to subreddits do not have a voice to take certain mods out of their position. This is a sign of corruption and it's happening because the administrators LET IT HAPPEN. Imagine if /r/changemyview started censoring words like "corruption" and "NSA". There would be nothing we could do about it other than to unsubscribe, find a new subreddit, and hope that that one doesn't get ruined as well. As you can see in this [thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/23f3s4/creating_a_transparent_rtechnology_part_1/), which is a mod post in /r/technology about creating transparency, almost all the comments say they wish to remove /u/maxwellhill and /u/anutensil. If you look through /u/anutensil's posting [history](http://www.reddit.com/user/anutensil), you'll notice that he is clearly MOCKING his subscribers. That alone is a sign of corruption and the lack of power the subscribers have to remove him. I also believe that something should be done to prevent mods from moderating too many subreddits. This is all in the hands of the admins because they are the only ones that are able to establish some rules. TL;DR: The admins should not allow mods to hold that much power over their subreddit. Subscribers to subreddits deserve the right to vote mods out of their position. ~~Mods shouldn't be able to mod a high number of subreddits.~~ CHANGE MY VIEW!

t3_1lli1u

I believe what most people see as racism is really just "culturalism". CMV

From my experience, most of the stereotypical assumptions of people based on race really just come from differences in socioeconomic status. For example, the stereotypical "black person" (uneducated, born and raised in the projects, involved in gang-related activities) are really applicable to anyone born within that specific class, and have nothing to do with race. In fact, the things I notice that people really dislike about other races are just attributes of culture, and could apply to anyone born and raised in that atmosphere, regardless of color. Also, due to this confusion, I think the word racism is overused and abused in our country (USA). CMV Edit: To clarify, I mean "racists are misconstruing their dislike for a cultural element and assigning it to a race". Thank you /u/BenIncognito

I believe what most people see as racism is really just "culturalism". CMV. From my experience, most of the stereotypical assumptions of people based on race really just come from differences in socioeconomic status. For example, the stereotypical "black person" (uneducated, born and raised in the projects, involved in gang-related activities) are really applicable to anyone born within that specific class, and have nothing to do with race. In fact, the things I notice that people really dislike about other races are just attributes of culture, and could apply to anyone born and raised in that atmosphere, regardless of color. Also, due to this confusion, I think the word racism is overused and abused in our country (USA). CMV Edit: To clarify, I mean "racists are misconstruing their dislike for a cultural element and assigning it to a race". Thank you /u/BenIncognito

t3_22rnya

CMV: The fact that the line is beginning to blur between 'being misrepresented' and 'being discriminated against' is detrimental to society.

This is an issue that has been bugging me somewhat lately, so let me preface it by saying what finally led me to post this. I was watching a television show earlier today and at one point a character is trying to hire a nanny. They go through a list of candidates who do or say something inappropriate and he puts a large X on a piece of paper indicating that they haven't gotten the job. Then a candidate appears who is dressed in a stereotypically 'heavy metal' fashion style: her hair is dyed cherry red and in a mohawk, she's dressed in black and steel, etc etc. She has no lines, the character immediately puts an X on her sheet. It's also worth mentioning that I myself am a metalhead. For a brief second I was offended. That was discrimination! Almost every metalhead I know is a great human being, and the ones with children are excellent with them. Then about two seconds later I remembered a couple things: 1) The creators of the show did not write that particular joke with my very unique perspective in mind, as trying to cater a mainstream television show to my exacting and particular tastes would be ludicrous. 2) There is a common and pervasive stereotype that people who dress in my particular fashion are dangerous. Playing off of that stereotype can be used effectively for comedy. The joke was actually pretty funny. It got me thinking about the issue of discrimination as a whole, and the so-called "SJW" crowd. Now mind you, I understand that "true" SJWs are a vocal minority but their existence speaks to a larger issue of the overly-sensitive cultural zeitgeist of the last fifteen years. The fact that people as a whole seem to be more and more easily offended speaks to me of an underlying egocentric nature that is growing more and more. That is to say that people are having an increasingly difficult time considering outside perspectives that exist beyond their own. Namely that it's ludicrous to expect that every single small self-segregated group be taken into consideration before someone makes a joke. The ironic thing is that in considering others overmuch it seems that people are becoming more and more concerned with themselves. The issue isn't about whether or not a particular group is being discriminated against, it's about the fact that people don't see the world exactly from *my* perspective, which is the superior perspective. And it speaks to larger issues as well. Pulling a discrimination card (be it race, gender, sexual preference, etc) at unnecessary or inappropriate moments is facilitated by this, for example. Anyway, before I start rambling further or repeating myself I'll summarize and conclude: The idea that every viewpoint can be equally represented is ludicrous, and fighting for that cause is a standpoint based on egocentricity rather than a legitimate desire to have everyone treated equally. Ultimately there is much less harm in catering to the majority than honestly trying to make sure that nobody is offended in the slightest. _____ > *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: The fact that the line is beginning to blur between 'being misrepresented' and 'being discriminated against' is detrimental to society. This is an issue that has been bugging me somewhat lately, so let me preface it by saying what finally led me to post this. I was watching a television show earlier today and at one point a character is trying to hire a nanny. They go through a list of candidates who do or say something inappropriate and he puts a large X on a piece of paper indicating that they haven't gotten the job. Then a candidate appears who is dressed in a stereotypically 'heavy metal' fashion style: her hair is dyed cherry red and in a mohawk, she's dressed in black and steel, etc etc. She has no lines, the character immediately puts an X on her sheet. It's also worth mentioning that I myself am a metalhead. For a brief second I was offended. That was discrimination! Almost every metalhead I know is a great human being, and the ones with children are excellent with them. Then about two seconds later I remembered a couple things: 1) The creators of the show did not write that particular joke with my very unique perspective in mind, as trying to cater a mainstream television show to my exacting and particular tastes would be ludicrous. 2) There is a common and pervasive stereotype that people who dress in my particular fashion are dangerous. Playing off of that stereotype can be used effectively for comedy. The joke was actually pretty funny. It got me thinking about the issue of discrimination as a whole, and the so-called "SJW" crowd. Now mind you, I understand that "true" SJWs are a vocal minority but their existence speaks to a larger issue of the overly-sensitive cultural zeitgeist of the last fifteen years. The fact that people as a whole seem to be more and more easily offended speaks to me of an underlying egocentric nature that is growing more and more. That is to say that people are having an increasingly difficult time considering outside perspectives that exist beyond their own. Namely that it's ludicrous to expect that every single small self-segregated group be taken into consideration before someone makes a joke. The ironic thing is that in considering others overmuch it seems that people are becoming more and more concerned with themselves. The issue isn't about whether or not a particular group is being discriminated against, it's about the fact that people don't see the world exactly from *my* perspective, which is the superior perspective. And it speaks to larger issues as well. Pulling a discrimination card (be it race, gender, sexual preference, etc) at unnecessary or inappropriate moments is facilitated by this, for example. Anyway, before I start rambling further or repeating myself I'll summarize and conclude: The idea that every viewpoint can be equally represented is ludicrous, and fighting for that cause is a standpoint based on egocentricity rather than a legitimate desire to have everyone treated equally. Ultimately there is much less harm in catering to the majority than honestly trying to make sure that nobody is offended in the slightest.

t3_3rn702

CMV: Consensus based arguments against climate skeptics that state "97% of climate scientists agree on human-driven climate change" are stupid

To be sure, the fact that anthropogenic climate change exists is borne out by the data. Not by the consensus of scientists. Talking about a high percentage of scientists giving their opinions confounds the issue by implying that *facts* are a matter of *opinions* of scientists. This is antithetical to the scientific method, whose whole point is to remove subjectivity and opinion from the business of finding out the truth. Almost all climate data is now publicly available and should be used a basis for argumentation. Democratic consensus is not and has never been the test of whether something is "true".

CMV: Consensus based arguments against climate skeptics that state "97% of climate scientists agree on human-driven climate change" are stupid. To be sure, the fact that anthropogenic climate change exists is borne out by the data. Not by the consensus of scientists. Talking about a high percentage of scientists giving their opinions confounds the issue by implying that *facts* are a matter of *opinions* of scientists. This is antithetical to the scientific method, whose whole point is to remove subjectivity and opinion from the business of finding out the truth. Almost all climate data is now publicly available and should be used a basis for argumentation. Democratic consensus is not and has never been the test of whether something is "true".

t3_38wikk

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, May 30, 2015 - Friday, June 05, 2015

Totals: 7 days, 139 posts, 10,539 comments. Included in this report: The top 139 posts, and 6,924 of the top comments, by 1,777 distinct authors. There was 1 gilded post, and 2 comments were gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1317|/u/themindset|[CMV: Fonts that have ambiguous lower case L and uppercase I should be phased out from use.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38jv4g/cmv_fonts_that_have_ambiguous_lower_case_l_and/?ref=search_posts)| |930|/u/Defiance42|[CMV: Advertisements for prescription medications should be illegal](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38839s/cmv_advertisements_for_prescription_medications/?ref=search_posts)| |708|/u/TedToaster22|[CMV: Gender identity should be based upon the genitals with which you were born with and the hormones your body naturally produces.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/385s7x/cmv_gender_identity_should_be_based_upon_the/?ref=search_posts)| |676|/u/VerumInInanis|[CMV: Population decline is a good thing.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37y9hl/cmv_population_decline_is_a_good_thing/?ref=search_posts)| |669|/u/AlexTheOgre|[CMV: I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic status, not race.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38glop/cmv_i_think_affirmative_action_should_be_based_on/?ref=search_posts)| |657|/u/Darklightus|[CMV: In the story of the Garden of Eden, God is the bad guy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37us53/cmv_in_the_story_of_the_garden_of_eden_god_is_the/?ref=search_posts)| |417|/u/PrefersDigg|[CMV: Global warming predictions are epistemologically flawed, and should not be the basis for public policy.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38d9or/cmv_global_warming_predictions_are/?ref=search_posts)| |400|/u/MrF33|[CMV: Burritos are better than sandwiches](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38ob5e/cmv_burritos_are_better_than_sandwiches/?ref=search_posts)| |358|/u/eeyers|[CMV: I am a circumcised male. I see no issues with the procedure and would circumcise my child if he were born in the U.S. today.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/381ey6/cmv_i_am_a_circumcised_male_i_see_no_issues_with/?ref=search_posts)| |348|/u/throwaway56168148406|[CMV: Police body cameras are a good option to deal with police accountabllity.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/382wa7/cmv_police_body_cameras_are_a_good_option_to_deal/?ref=search_posts)| |328|/u/highvemind|[CMV: It is much more likely for humans to come into contact with alien robots than sentient organic life-forms.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37scpk/cmv_it_is_much_more_likely_for_humans_to_come/?ref=search_posts)| |275|/u/pmbasehore|[CMV: Labeling people as the "First African-American" or "First Woman" to do something does more to separate us than bring us together](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/383qcb/cmv_labeling_people_as_the_first_africanamerican/?ref=search_posts)| |255|/u/TanithRosenbaum|[CMV: "Buckle up, it's the law" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3814fe/cmv_buckle_up_its_the_law_is_an_appeal_to/?ref=search_posts)| |196|/u/Sirius_Crack|[CMV: I think student should be able to test out of almost every class.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/381ai7/cmv_i_think_student_should_be_able_to_test_out_of/?ref=search_posts)| |181|/u/Tony_M_Cannoli|[CMV: It should be customary to get a job before you go to college. (Having your first job at 22 isn't okay.)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38ehc6/cmv_it_should_be_customary_to_get_a_job_before/?ref=search_posts)| |158|/u/SebasTheBass|[CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38hvec/cmv_prisoners_should_have_the_option_to_end_their/?ref=search_posts)| |156|/u/ElfKid|[CMV: Anti-GMOers are the same breed of moron as Anti-Vaxxers](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38b3d9/cmv_antigmoers_are_the_same_breed_of_moron_as/?ref=search_posts)| |153|/u/LogicKennedy|[CMV: China is Not Currently a Serious Challenger to Western Dominance Because of its Lack of Cultural Influence](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38nv4x/cmv_china_is_not_currently_a_serious_challenger/?ref=search_posts)| |147|/u/SoulWager|[CMV: Terms and conditions for most software should be restricted to a few standardized licenses.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38gc0d/cmv_terms_and_conditions_for_most_software_should/?ref=search_posts)| |132|/u/realsingingishard|[CMV: Social Justice Warriors are obnoxious and harmful to the very cause that they champion.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38ezgc/cmv_social_justice_warriors_are_obnoxious_and/?ref=search_posts)| |119|/u/garnteller|[[Mod Post] Freshness of topics (transexual topic posters - this means you)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38g4hx/mod_post_freshness_of_topics_transexual_topic/?ref=search_posts)| |93|/u/Chris-P|[CMV: There is no such thing as "always offensive". Context and intended meaning are everything.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/382a0i/cmv_there_is_no_such_thing_as_always_offensive/?ref=search_posts)| |91|/u/rand486|[CMV: There is no media "agenda", just average people reporting on what sells.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37x4xe/cmv_there_is_no_media_agenda_just_average_people/?ref=search_posts)| |74|/u/combobmoc|[CMV: The pledge of allegience and other rituals of national identity are holding society back.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/382uqn/cmv_the_pledge_of_allegience_and_other_rituals_of/?ref=search_posts)| |72|/u/_kweef_|[CMV: When minorities complain about cultural appropriation it in itself perpetuates racism and self segregation.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37xfke/cmv_when_minorities_complain_about_cultural/?ref=search_posts)| |72|/u/jimbo_sweets|[CMV: trying a child as an adult makes the protections offered to children irrelevant and is downright vengeful](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37ypcc/cmv_trying_a_child_as_an_adult_makes_the/?ref=search_posts)| |67|/u/geoflause88|[CMV:The media is unfairly excluding presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38fdrk/cmvthe_media_is_unfairly_excluding_presidential/?ref=search_posts)| |65|/u/Uneje|[CMV: High school English classes should focus more on sustaining a desire to read](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38i1tj/cmv_high_school_english_classes_should_focus_more/?ref=search_posts)| |64|/u/TaylorSwiftDid911|[CMV: Tweets denouncing Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner for winning the Bravest Person award only serve to show why she won it](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38aw44/cmv_tweets_denouncing_brucecaitlyn_jenner_for/?ref=search_posts)| |64|/u/VorTex_Thunderr|[CMV: Discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would disprove Abrahamic religions.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37svzg/cmv_discovery_of_intelligent_extraterrestrial/?ref=search_posts)| |58|/u/Vorpal_Smilodon|[CMV: I think the overpriced popcorn and soft drinks at the movies is a wonderful thing for customers](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38p5uu/cmv_i_think_the_overpriced_popcorn_and_soft/?ref=search_posts)| |55|/u/keanex|[CMV: Apples are better than oranges](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37ven4/cmv_apples_are_better_than_oranges/?ref=search_posts)| |50|/u/Nomanorus|[CMV: Our Culture's post-Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is inconsistent at best and harmful at worst.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38dnie/cmv_our_cultures_postjudeochristian_sexual_ethic/?ref=search_posts)| |47|/u/meteoraln|[CMV: If you're ok with how athletes are paid, you should be ok with how CEOs are paid](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38kidg/cmv_if_youre_ok_with_how_athletes_are_paid_you/?ref=search_posts)| |42|/u/huadpe|[CMV: The US should make a $1,000 bill.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38j6do/cmv_the_us_should_make_a_1000_bill/?ref=search_posts)| |41|/u/tkron31|[CMV: The human species' tendency to form "tribes" will never completely go away.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3886wf/cmv_the_human_species_tendency_to_form_tribes/?ref=search_posts)| |39|/u/HalfBurntToast|[CMV: One large purpose for NSA spying is political blackmail, thus it's power can never fully be removed.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3899ie/cmv_one_large_purpose_for_nsa_spying_is_political/?ref=search_posts)| |37|/u/Primatebuddy|[CMV: Tattoos are banal.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/388a4d/cmv_tattoos_are_banal/?ref=search_posts)| |36|/u/sarded|[CMV: Being quick to anger and violence is a mental illness or disability, and we should be more proactive about getting it treated if we see its symptoms, and preventing it occurring](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3822j7/cmv_being_quick_to_anger_and_violence_is_a_mental/?ref=search_posts)| |36|/u/Grandfather_Clock|[CMV: My vote in an election doesn't matter](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37u8cs/cmv_my_vote_in_an_election_doesnt_matter/?ref=search_posts)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, May 30, 2015 - Friday, June 05, 2015. Totals: 7 days, 139 posts, 10,539 comments. Included in this report: The top 139 posts, and 6,924 of the top comments, by 1,777 distinct authors. There was 1 gilded post, and 2 comments were gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1317|/u/themindset|[CMV: Fonts that have ambiguous lower case L and uppercase I should be phased out from use.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38jv4g/cmv_fonts_that_have_ambiguous_lower_case_l_and/?ref=search_posts)| |930|/u/Defiance42|[CMV: Advertisements for prescription medications should be illegal](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38839s/cmv_advertisements_for_prescription_medications/?ref=search_posts)| |708|/u/TedToaster22|[CMV: Gender identity should be based upon the genitals with which you were born with and the hormones your body naturally produces.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/385s7x/cmv_gender_identity_should_be_based_upon_the/?ref=search_posts)| |676|/u/VerumInInanis|[CMV: Population decline is a good thing.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37y9hl/cmv_population_decline_is_a_good_thing/?ref=search_posts)| |669|/u/AlexTheOgre|[CMV: I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic status, not race.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38glop/cmv_i_think_affirmative_action_should_be_based_on/?ref=search_posts)| |657|/u/Darklightus|[CMV: In the story of the Garden of Eden, God is the bad guy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37us53/cmv_in_the_story_of_the_garden_of_eden_god_is_the/?ref=search_posts)| |417|/u/PrefersDigg|[CMV: Global warming predictions are epistemologically flawed, and should not be the basis for public policy.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38d9or/cmv_global_warming_predictions_are/?ref=search_posts)| |400|/u/MrF33|[CMV: Burritos are better than sandwiches](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38ob5e/cmv_burritos_are_better_than_sandwiches/?ref=search_posts)| |358|/u/eeyers|[CMV: I am a circumcised male. I see no issues with the procedure and would circumcise my child if he were born in the U.S. today.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/381ey6/cmv_i_am_a_circumcised_male_i_see_no_issues_with/?ref=search_posts)| |348|/u/throwaway56168148406|[CMV: Police body cameras are a good option to deal with police accountabllity.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/382wa7/cmv_police_body_cameras_are_a_good_option_to_deal/?ref=search_posts)| |328|/u/highvemind|[CMV: It is much more likely for humans to come into contact with alien robots than sentient organic life-forms.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37scpk/cmv_it_is_much_more_likely_for_humans_to_come/?ref=search_posts)| |275|/u/pmbasehore|[CMV: Labeling people as the "First African-American" or "First Woman" to do something does more to separate us than bring us together](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/383qcb/cmv_labeling_people_as_the_first_africanamerican/?ref=search_posts)| |255|/u/TanithRosenbaum|[CMV: "Buckle up, it's the law" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3814fe/cmv_buckle_up_its_the_law_is_an_appeal_to/?ref=search_posts)| |196|/u/Sirius_Crack|[CMV: I think student should be able to test out of almost every class.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/381ai7/cmv_i_think_student_should_be_able_to_test_out_of/?ref=search_posts)| |181|/u/Tony_M_Cannoli|[CMV: It should be customary to get a job before you go to college. (Having your first job at 22 isn't okay.)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38ehc6/cmv_it_should_be_customary_to_get_a_job_before/?ref=search_posts)| |158|/u/SebasTheBass|[CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38hvec/cmv_prisoners_should_have_the_option_to_end_their/?ref=search_posts)| |156|/u/ElfKid|[CMV: Anti-GMOers are the same breed of moron as Anti-Vaxxers](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38b3d9/cmv_antigmoers_are_the_same_breed_of_moron_as/?ref=search_posts)| |153|/u/LogicKennedy|[CMV: China is Not Currently a Serious Challenger to Western Dominance Because of its Lack of Cultural Influence](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38nv4x/cmv_china_is_not_currently_a_serious_challenger/?ref=search_posts)| |147|/u/SoulWager|[CMV: Terms and conditions for most software should be restricted to a few standardized licenses.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38gc0d/cmv_terms_and_conditions_for_most_software_should/?ref=search_posts)| |132|/u/realsingingishard|[CMV: Social Justice Warriors are obnoxious and harmful to the very cause that they champion.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38ezgc/cmv_social_justice_warriors_are_obnoxious_and/?ref=search_posts)| |119|/u/garnteller|[[Mod Post] Freshness of topics (transexual topic posters - this means you)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38g4hx/mod_post_freshness_of_topics_transexual_topic/?ref=search_posts)| |93|/u/Chris-P|[CMV: There is no such thing as "always offensive". Context and intended meaning are everything.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/382a0i/cmv_there_is_no_such_thing_as_always_offensive/?ref=search_posts)| |91|/u/rand486|[CMV: There is no media "agenda", just average people reporting on what sells.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37x4xe/cmv_there_is_no_media_agenda_just_average_people/?ref=search_posts)| |74|/u/combobmoc|[CMV: The pledge of allegience and other rituals of national identity are holding society back.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/382uqn/cmv_the_pledge_of_allegience_and_other_rituals_of/?ref=search_posts)| |72|/u/_kweef_|[CMV: When minorities complain about cultural appropriation it in itself perpetuates racism and self segregation.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37xfke/cmv_when_minorities_complain_about_cultural/?ref=search_posts)| |72|/u/jimbo_sweets|[CMV: trying a child as an adult makes the protections offered to children irrelevant and is downright vengeful](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37ypcc/cmv_trying_a_child_as_an_adult_makes_the/?ref=search_posts)| |67|/u/geoflause88|[CMV:The media is unfairly excluding presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38fdrk/cmvthe_media_is_unfairly_excluding_presidential/?ref=search_posts)| |65|/u/Uneje|[CMV: High school English classes should focus more on sustaining a desire to read](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38i1tj/cmv_high_school_english_classes_should_focus_more/?ref=search_posts)| |64|/u/TaylorSwiftDid911|[CMV: Tweets denouncing Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner for winning the Bravest Person award only serve to show why she won it](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38aw44/cmv_tweets_denouncing_brucecaitlyn_jenner_for/?ref=search_posts)| |64|/u/VorTex_Thunderr|[CMV: Discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would disprove Abrahamic religions.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37svzg/cmv_discovery_of_intelligent_extraterrestrial/?ref=search_posts)| |58|/u/Vorpal_Smilodon|[CMV: I think the overpriced popcorn and soft drinks at the movies is a wonderful thing for customers](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38p5uu/cmv_i_think_the_overpriced_popcorn_and_soft/?ref=search_posts)| |55|/u/keanex|[CMV: Apples are better than oranges](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37ven4/cmv_apples_are_better_than_oranges/?ref=search_posts)| |50|/u/Nomanorus|[CMV: Our Culture's post-Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is inconsistent at best and harmful at worst.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38dnie/cmv_our_cultures_postjudeochristian_sexual_ethic/?ref=search_posts)| |47|/u/meteoraln|[CMV: If you're ok with how athletes are paid, you should be ok with how CEOs are paid](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38kidg/cmv_if_youre_ok_with_how_athletes_are_paid_you/?ref=search_posts)| |42|/u/huadpe|[CMV: The US should make a $1,000 bill.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/38j6do/cmv_the_us_should_make_a_1000_bill/?ref=search_posts)| |41|/u/tkron31|[CMV: The human species' tendency to form "tribes" will never completely go away.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3886wf/cmv_the_human_species_tendency_to_form_tribes/?ref=search_posts)| |39|/u/HalfBurntToast|[CMV: One large purpose for NSA spying is political blackmail, thus it's power can never fully be removed.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3899ie/cmv_one_large_purpose_for_nsa_spying_is_political/?ref=search_posts)| |37|/u/Primatebuddy|[CMV: Tattoos are banal.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/388a4d/cmv_tattoos_are_banal/?ref=search_posts)| |36|/u/sarded|[CMV: Being quick to anger and violence is a mental illness or disability, and we should be more proactive about getting it treated if we see its symptoms, and preventing it occurring](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3822j7/cmv_being_quick_to_anger_and_violence_is_a_mental/?ref=search_posts)| |36|/u/Grandfather_Clock|[CMV: My vote in an election doesn't matter](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/37u8cs/cmv_my_vote_in_an_election_doesnt_matter/?ref=search_posts)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

t3_3njdqt

CMV: As a reserved critical thinker in the U.S., there is absolutely nothing I can do to enact meaningful change on a useful scale.

Maybe it's because I'm getting older and listening to NPR more. Maybe it's always been this way. I just feel like I am completely null beyond the door of my house or my cubicle. Social media is one place I feel my view is supported with meaningful evidence. It seems as though any time a subject of high media value -may not be the best way to describe it- like guns, refugees, immigration, planned parenthood, et cetera comes up, the only opinions that get any traction are those of strong polarization and narrow scope. No matter which side of the fence the person is on, their submissions are strongly supported by a somewhat large number of people if they have a strong, narrow opinion based on little fact if not complete farce. News media enforces this opinion when I see tables of talking heads who have invited an industry expert on a show to discuss the day's topic; during which they are highly consistent in devaluing the commentary of the expert. My opinion is supported on a large political scale by my perception of total corruption at all levels of government. I'm currently in a very small town where the roads destroy cars, the ubiquitous four-way-stops cause daily car crashes, and small businesses fail or can't start due to legacy government. In the state in which I previously lived, education spending was placed below the budget priority on prison spending and salary spending for state and local officials resulting in a highly toxic environment for my wife, a primary school teacher. On a national level, I may not be privy to bribe-based corruption, but it is obvious when lawmakers use [perfectly legal tactics](http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/09/22/planned-parenthood-and-government-shutdown-things-to-know) to gridlock the system and undermine true democracy that something other than public interest is on the line. The people with money and power will continue to have money and power regardless of what I do and thanks to news media and social media, I am politically null in today's society without acting in the extreme. My vote doesn't matter at any level of government.

CMV: As a reserved critical thinker in the U.S., there is absolutely nothing I can do to enact meaningful change on a useful scale. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and listening to NPR more. Maybe it's always been this way. I just feel like I am completely null beyond the door of my house or my cubicle. Social media is one place I feel my view is supported with meaningful evidence. It seems as though any time a subject of high media value -may not be the best way to describe it- like guns, refugees, immigration, planned parenthood, et cetera comes up, the only opinions that get any traction are those of strong polarization and narrow scope. No matter which side of the fence the person is on, their submissions are strongly supported by a somewhat large number of people if they have a strong, narrow opinion based on little fact if not complete farce. News media enforces this opinion when I see tables of talking heads who have invited an industry expert on a show to discuss the day's topic; during which they are highly consistent in devaluing the commentary of the expert. My opinion is supported on a large political scale by my perception of total corruption at all levels of government. I'm currently in a very small town where the roads destroy cars, the ubiquitous four-way-stops cause daily car crashes, and small businesses fail or can't start due to legacy government. In the state in which I previously lived, education spending was placed below the budget priority on prison spending and salary spending for state and local officials resulting in a highly toxic environment for my wife, a primary school teacher. On a national level, I may not be privy to bribe-based corruption, but it is obvious when lawmakers use [perfectly legal tactics](http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/09/22/planned-parenthood-and-government-shutdown-things-to-know) to gridlock the system and undermine true democracy that something other than public interest is on the line. The people with money and power will continue to have money and power regardless of what I do and thanks to news media and social media, I am politically null in today's society without acting in the extreme. My vote doesn't matter at any level of government.

t3_4djmb5

CMV: I don't see any reason for me to be involved with any social media other than reddit.

The only other social media site I've ever used has been Facebook and I haven't posted anything on there since last June. I glance at it occasionally to see if there's any interesting notifications but for the last year, it's only been birthdays. I've only gone to Twitter when I see a reddit post going there that I want to see, Pinterest once or twice for craft ideas for work, and I've never used Instagram, Snapchat, or any other form of social media outside of reddit. I'm about to click the delete button on my Facebook profile but wanted to see if reddit could change my mind. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't see any reason for me to be involved with any social media other than reddit. The only other social media site I've ever used has been Facebook and I haven't posted anything on there since last June. I glance at it occasionally to see if there's any interesting notifications but for the last year, it's only been birthdays. I've only gone to Twitter when I see a reddit post going there that I want to see, Pinterest once or twice for craft ideas for work, and I've never used Instagram, Snapchat, or any other form of social media outside of reddit. I'm about to click the delete button on my Facebook profile but wanted to see if reddit could change my mind.

t3_1ivo3p

For the first time in my life, I agree with Bill O'Reilly. Please CMV.

Specifically: >“You want a better situation for blacks? Give them a chance to revive their neighborhoods and culture. Work with the good people to stop the bad people. […] You can’t legislate good parenting or responsible entertainment. But you can fight against the madness with discipline, a firm message and little tolerance for excuse making. It is now time for the African American leadership, including President Obama, to stop the nonsense. Walk away from the world of victimization and grievance and lead the way out of this mess.” and >The Factor host called out the entertainment industry for glorifying a “gansta” culture to impressionable children. “Hey, listen up you greed-heads. If a kid can’t speak proper English, uses the f-word in every sentence, […] is disrespectful in his or her mouth, that child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America. […] And it had nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You’re the ones hurting these vulnerable children.” I agree entirely. If a man gets caught with drugs, he can't bitch about race because he had drugs on him. I understand a black man is more likely to be searched, arrested, tried and convicted- but only if he has drugs in the first place. Black culture (well, BET/MTV/Clear Channel black culture) is counter to anything productive in any community ie glorifying violence, drugs, and fiscal irresponsibility. I can't abide the thought of agreeing with bill o'reilly, so please CMV. Edit: I will be putting up a couple (at least!) deltas when I get home from work. Don't stop changing my view, I never get tired of hearing how I'm wrong.

For the first time in my life, I agree with Bill O'Reilly. Please CMV. Specifically: >“You want a better situation for blacks? Give them a chance to revive their neighborhoods and culture. Work with the good people to stop the bad people. […] You can’t legislate good parenting or responsible entertainment. But you can fight against the madness with discipline, a firm message and little tolerance for excuse making. It is now time for the African American leadership, including President Obama, to stop the nonsense. Walk away from the world of victimization and grievance and lead the way out of this mess.” and >The Factor host called out the entertainment industry for glorifying a “gansta” culture to impressionable children. “Hey, listen up you greed-heads. If a kid can’t speak proper English, uses the f-word in every sentence, […] is disrespectful in his or her mouth, that child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America. […] And it had nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You’re the ones hurting these vulnerable children.” I agree entirely. If a man gets caught with drugs, he can't bitch about race because he had drugs on him. I understand a black man is more likely to be searched, arrested, tried and convicted- but only if he has drugs in the first place. Black culture (well, BET/MTV/Clear Channel black culture) is counter to anything productive in any community ie glorifying violence, drugs, and fiscal irresponsibility. I can't abide the thought of agreeing with bill o'reilly, so please CMV. Edit: I will be putting up a couple (at least!) deltas when I get home from work. Don't stop changing my view, I never get tired of hearing how I'm wrong.

t3_4qxvlj

CMV: How can we truly consider ourselves good people if we buy products contributing to child labor/sweatshops?

I feel like this is a topic that is taboo in our society and something most of us would like sweep under the rug when brought up. I was watching a Louis CK stand up special and he talked about how as humans, we complain about how slavery is bad, but in reality, a lot of our advancements as a society came from unethical labor laws. Obviously it was said as a joke, but I've been thinking a lot about it lately. Europe and most of the first world countries today thrived off colonization and capitalizing off the backbones of certain groups of people. Look into modern day, most major name brands out right now outsource their production to third world countries where children and adults are slaving away. Sure, we can end all the suffering in these third world countries by boycotting iPhones, Nike, and other name brands, but we won't because these items are staples to our way of living. Kids are jumping out windows in their shithole factory, but we like the convenience of high speed smart phone and these name brand shoes feel comfortable. An argument can be made that some of us can't afford to buy American made products and that's fair, but for those of us who can afford it we choose not to. A majority of us can agree that we are too attached to these luxuries to want to give it up anytime soon. So can anyone explain to me how they do these things and can confidently say they are a good person? > *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: How can we truly consider ourselves good people if we buy products contributing to child labor/sweatshops?. I feel like this is a topic that is taboo in our society and something most of us would like sweep under the rug when brought up. I was watching a Louis CK stand up special and he talked about how as humans, we complain about how slavery is bad, but in reality, a lot of our advancements as a society came from unethical labor laws. Obviously it was said as a joke, but I've been thinking a lot about it lately. Europe and most of the first world countries today thrived off colonization and capitalizing off the backbones of certain groups of people. Look into modern day, most major name brands out right now outsource their production to third world countries where children and adults are slaving away. Sure, we can end all the suffering in these third world countries by boycotting iPhones, Nike, and other name brands, but we won't because these items are staples to our way of living. Kids are jumping out windows in their shithole factory, but we like the convenience of high speed smart phone and these name brand shoes feel comfortable. An argument can be made that some of us can't afford to buy American made products and that's fair, but for those of us who can afford it we choose not to. A majority of us can agree that we are too attached to these luxuries to want to give it up anytime soon. So can anyone explain to me how they do these things and can confidently say they are a good person? > *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_5bwb8r

CMV: I believe it is not hard to find a job as people make it seem. Unemployment should not be so high.

First off i am 23 years old. I have held a job since I was old enough to have a work permit. I haved moved to 4 seperate towns and have secured a job within 1 week of moving to a completely new town each time. When i hear people say they can't find a job i think it's because they are not looking hard enough. When i lose a job due to slow times or i hate the current one i don'to to the unemployment line i look for another job. I think people just use the wxcuse of a horrible economy to be lazy and not work. Another reason is i own a delivery business and majority of my customers are 30+ and all they are doing when i show up are watching television or sitting on the couch. They are not looking for a job like they say they are. Edit 1: i would like to thank u/leftright-goodnight for giving me best answer. I consider my view changed for the most part. _____ > *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 it is not hard to find a job as people make it seem. Unemployment should not be so high. First off i am 23 years old. I have held a job since I was old enough to have a work permit. I haved moved to 4 seperate towns and have secured a job within 1 week of moving to a completely new town each time. When i hear people say they can't find a job i think it's because they are not looking hard enough. When i lose a job due to slow times or i hate the current one i don'to to the unemployment line i look for another job. I think people just use the wxcuse of a horrible economy to be lazy and not work. Another reason is i own a delivery business and majority of my customers are 30+ and all they are doing when i show up are watching television or sitting on the couch. They are not looking for a job like they say they are. Edit 1: i would like to thank u/leftright-goodnight for giving me best answer. I consider my view changed for the most part.

t3_2jrl4b

CMV: Though seemingly superficial Being Attractive is single biggest factor in achieving success in career and relationships so working on it should be a priority.

Of course you need intelligence, empathy, social skills, courage etc etc they are all necessary but I believe being attractive is the single most important factor in success. We can all agree that Confidence, Good Upbringing, Self esteem, Assertive behavior, Extroversion, Magnetic personality, Charisma, Fame play a significant role in a person's success.All those traits are present in abundance in an attractive person. Also almost every successful person I have met is attractive. Of course, there are a few exceptions but they are few and far in between. Also, its not just about the genes, its the way you dress, groom and present yourself.

CMV: Though seemingly superficial Being Attractive is single biggest factor in achieving success in career and relationships so working on it should be a priority. Of course you need intelligence, empathy, social skills, courage etc etc they are all necessary but I believe being attractive is the single most important factor in success. We can all agree that Confidence, Good Upbringing, Self esteem, Assertive behavior, Extroversion, Magnetic personality, Charisma, Fame play a significant role in a person's success.All those traits are present in abundance in an attractive person. Also almost every successful person I have met is attractive. Of course, there are a few exceptions but they are few and far in between. Also, its not just about the genes, its the way you dress, groom and present yourself.

t3_1jvpdz

I believe people should have the option to pay the IRS directly at tax time exactly what they owed each year instead of having it deducted ahead of time from each paycheck. CMV

Just started my first job and I took a lot of time to make sure my W4 was filled out correctly so that I can maximize each paycheck without too little withheld. When I asked others for help seems like very few people knew about the nuances of W4s and they all were too afraid to pay too little taxes fearing huge backlash from IRS at tax time. And alot of people get refunds each year in the thousands so that means the government is getting millions in interest-free loans from the people. So why not have an option for people to pay the IRS directly each year instead of having it deducted from each paycheck. And then just send them a tax bill each year so they have until April 1st to pay up that bill. This way people maximize their spending power to boost economy and the government is not getting interest-free loans at the expense of its people.

I believe people should have the option to pay the IRS directly at tax time exactly what they owed each year instead of having it deducted ahead of time from each paycheck. CMV. Just started my first job and I took a lot of time to make sure my W4 was filled out correctly so that I can maximize each paycheck without too little withheld. When I asked others for help seems like very few people knew about the nuances of W4s and they all were too afraid to pay too little taxes fearing huge backlash from IRS at tax time. And alot of people get refunds each year in the thousands so that means the government is getting millions in interest-free loans from the people. So why not have an option for people to pay the IRS directly each year instead of having it deducted from each paycheck. And then just send them a tax bill each year so they have until April 1st to pay up that bill. This way people maximize their spending power to boost economy and the government is not getting interest-free loans at the expense of its people.

t3_4bijxn

CMV: We should stop 'subsidizing' the suburbs

This is a primarily US-centric CMV and I am not aware of how they do it abroad, so I welcome any insight. Basically, my position is that more should be done, or at least more emphasis should be put on denser, urban-like development and simply reducing reliance on the automobile over focus on alternative fuels and clean energy (even though those are still very important). Cars that do not rely on fossil fuels still have the issue of wasted space, and a switch to those kinds of vehicles won't solve the problem of low density sprawl, which by itself, still presents environmental issues such as loss of open land and more infrastructure needed (transmission lines, water, roads, etc;) to reach far flung places away from the city. Now, when I say subsidize, I really am referring to the current set of policies that incentive low-density. Here are my proposals to tackle the problem: 1. Raise taxes on developers, businesses, and homeowners in such a way that forces people who want to do things that way to pay for the externalities of being in a low density suburb away from the city, along with giving tax breaks for doing the opposite. 2. Raise the gas tax to better reflect the 'true' cost of driving. 3. Get rid of downtown parking minimums and ease up on density restrictions to incentivize more development in the city itself. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We should stop 'subsidizing' the suburbs. This is a primarily US-centric CMV and I am not aware of how they do it abroad, so I welcome any insight. Basically, my position is that more should be done, or at least more emphasis should be put on denser, urban-like development and simply reducing reliance on the automobile over focus on alternative fuels and clean energy (even though those are still very important). Cars that do not rely on fossil fuels still have the issue of wasted space, and a switch to those kinds of vehicles won't solve the problem of low density sprawl, which by itself, still presents environmental issues such as loss of open land and more infrastructure needed (transmission lines, water, roads, etc;) to reach far flung places away from the city. Now, when I say subsidize, I really am referring to the current set of policies that incentive low-density. Here are my proposals to tackle the problem: 1. Raise taxes on developers, businesses, and homeowners in such a way that forces people who want to do things that way to pay for the externalities of being in a low density suburb away from the city, along with giving tax breaks for doing the opposite. 2. Raise the gas tax to better reflect the 'true' cost of driving. 3. Get rid of downtown parking minimums and ease up on density restrictions to incentivize more development in the city itself.

t3_63864z

CMV: If a non-Black person in the US says the N-word, a Black person should not be charged with a crime if they respond violently, unless it results in that non-Black person's death or permanent injury.

If a non-Black person in the US says the N-word, a Black person should not be charged with a crime if they respond violently, unless it results in the non-Black person's death or permanent injury. This is not to say that a Black person MUST react violently, but that, if they do, it is not completely unjustified. My reasoning is that, for many Black people, hearing the N-word from a non-black person (especially a white person) is something akin to psychological trauma. It does more than enrage Black people, it also brings up the old racial scars from history as well as the present. The reason violent retaliation should be decriminalized, however, is because of the nature of this specific word. It's "nature" is that it is a word that is so specific to and hurtful to Black people in America that there is no equivalent word, insult, phrase, or slur that a Black person could use to retaliate against it. This leaves many Black Americans in a position of frustration that is unjustified and inescapable. Therefore, this rule would not only provide an outlet for a Black person's frustration, but also deter non-black use of the word, two things I consider to be good things. As long as the incident does not lead to permanent injury or death, there would be no long term consequences to the violence. Also, because of this "cap" on the severity of violence, it discourages Black Americans to even use this new right, as they would risk permanent injury or a murder charge. I am open to critiques of this opinion, as it conflicts with many of my other beliefs. But something about it feels right. So, if you can, change my view. EDIT: This is the updated version of this opinion. The following shall be a defense to assault: A person shall face no criminal or civil liability if they commit an assault provided the assault: 1.) Was provoked by the use of a racial epithet 2.) The defendant reasonably believed the epithet was intentionally directed at them or maliciously used. 3.) The assault does not cause lasting or serious bodily harm or death. Edit#2: Instead of being a formal law, I think this should be a social norm. Similar to an instance of a "bar fight" when two intoxicated individuals are (in many instances) given the benefit of the doubt and, instead of being arrested, are sent home. This is not always the case and, sometimes, people are arrested. Basically, the leniency for barfights should also be applied to this instance. __ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If a non-Black person in the US says the N-word, a Black person should not be charged with a crime if they respond violently, unless it results in that non-Black person's death or permanent injury. If a non-Black person in the US says the N-word, a Black person should not be charged with a crime if they respond violently, unless it results in the non-Black person's death or permanent injury. This is not to say that a Black person MUST react violently, but that, if they do, it is not completely unjustified. My reasoning is that, for many Black people, hearing the N-word from a non-black person (especially a white person) is something akin to psychological trauma. It does more than enrage Black people, it also brings up the old racial scars from history as well as the present. The reason violent retaliation should be decriminalized, however, is because of the nature of this specific word. It's "nature" is that it is a word that is so specific to and hurtful to Black people in America that there is no equivalent word, insult, phrase, or slur that a Black person could use to retaliate against it. This leaves many Black Americans in a position of frustration that is unjustified and inescapable. Therefore, this rule would not only provide an outlet for a Black person's frustration, but also deter non-black use of the word, two things I consider to be good things. As long as the incident does not lead to permanent injury or death, there would be no long term consequences to the violence. Also, because of this "cap" on the severity of violence, it discourages Black Americans to even use this new right, as they would risk permanent injury or a murder charge. I am open to critiques of this opinion, as it conflicts with many of my other beliefs. But something about it feels right. So, if you can, change my view. EDIT: This is the updated version of this opinion. The following shall be a defense to assault: A person shall face no criminal or civil liability if they commit an assault provided the assault: 1.) Was provoked by the use of a racial epithet 2.) The defendant reasonably believed the epithet was intentionally directed at them or maliciously used. 3.) The assault does not cause lasting or serious bodily harm or death. Edit#2: Instead of being a formal law, I think this should be a social norm. Similar to an instance of a "bar fight" when two intoxicated individuals are (in many instances) given the benefit of the doubt and, instead of being arrested, are sent home. This is not always the case and, sometimes, people are arrested. Basically, the leniency for barfights should also be applied to this instance. __ > *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_6lrzne

CMV:Mainstream discussions have a poverty of implicit understandings of truth

I am a little out of my depth here so please be patient.I do of course want you to CMV. I am of the impression that most online discussions employ, implicitly, 2 or 3 notions of truth or epistemic truth. They also tend to be dogmatic about those being the only ones allowed. Typically what you find is something akin to logical positivism, or naive realism or else some coherentist notion.The fact that there are major problems with all of these does not seem to trouble most people. Logical postivism, in fact, is basically dead. Even its former practitioners, most of them abandoned it and declared it a failure. In any event, my main point is that there is a bouquet of truth theories out there e.g. : positivism a-priorism These combine to form logical positivism Relativism conventionalism Perspectivalist theories including: Consensus Power theories Marxist Transcendental perspectivalism including coherentism (the idea that something is true because it fits with other propositions in a gestalt) Theological perspectivalism (true if it agrees with gods eye view) Pragmatism (A proposition is true if and only if, in the long run it will come to be accepted by a group of inquirers using scientific rational inquiry.) and so on. A lot of online debates break down because of arguing over the one theory of truth or because a disagreement over which is a valid criterion. The fact that ALL major theories of truth have very very large weaknesses does not seem to put manners on anyone.

CMV:Mainstream discussions have a poverty of implicit understandings of truth. I am a little out of my depth here so please be patient.I do of course want you to CMV. I am of the impression that most online discussions employ, implicitly, 2 or 3 notions of truth or epistemic truth. They also tend to be dogmatic about those being the only ones allowed. Typically what you find is something akin to logical positivism, or naive realism or else some coherentist notion.The fact that there are major problems with all of these does not seem to trouble most people. Logical postivism, in fact, is basically dead. Even its former practitioners, most of them abandoned it and declared it a failure. In any event, my main point is that there is a bouquet of truth theories out there e.g. : positivism a-priorism These combine to form logical positivism Relativism conventionalism Perspectivalist theories including: Consensus Power theories Marxist Transcendental perspectivalism including coherentism (the idea that something is true because it fits with other propositions in a gestalt) Theological perspectivalism (true if it agrees with gods eye view) Pragmatism (A proposition is true if and only if, in the long run it will come to be accepted by a group of inquirers using scientific rational inquiry.) and so on. A lot of online debates break down because of arguing over the one theory of truth or because a disagreement over which is a valid criterion. The fact that ALL major theories of truth have very very large weaknesses does not seem to put manners on anyone.

t3_1fzzvv

I don't believe stem cell research, therapy, etc. Is immoral. CMV

As the title says, I don't believe it is immoral. In fact I would say it is immoral to not undertake research and potentialy save millions of lives. The blastocyst isn't developed yet and is just a ball of cells. Please don't bring religious views because, although I do truly respect your views, I am an atheist.

I don't believe stem cell research, therapy, etc. Is immoral. CMV. As the title says, I don't believe it is immoral. In fact I would say it is immoral to not undertake research and potentialy save millions of lives. The blastocyst isn't developed yet and is just a ball of cells. Please don't bring religious views because, although I do truly respect your views, I am an atheist.

t3_3pkx72

CMV:I do not think that there is a sound argument for the existence of God currently. No argument that I have ever come across, whether it belonged to Anselm, William Lane Craig, Descartes, or a random person on the internet, has ever seemed to be sound after close scrutiny.

First off, I want to note that it is not my view that there is definitely *not* a god, nor is it necessarily my view that there is no *possible* sound argument for the existence of said god, merely that I do not think anyone has yet to come up with one. Also, I would like to point out that I have indeed read some of the other posts on this wonderful subreddit about atheism, and I feel like my post is different enough from the ones listed in the Commonly Posted Topics Wiki to justify putting it here. Maybe I'm wrong on that account, you can decide for yourselves. Common arguments for the existence of God, such as the Cosmological Arguments, in all their various forms, seem to me to rely on the logical fallacy of special pleading to reach their conclusion. Others, like the Ontological Arguments set forth by Anselm and the variations of it developed by the likes of Leibniz, seem to rely on an undefinable "greatness" attributed to God, and I fail to see why I would be compelled to accept that something *must* exist simply because of how that thing has been defined. Other arguments, such as the Creationist arguments, seem to fundamentally misunderstand the science topics they are discussing. In my mind, since there is no sound argument for the existence of God, (that I am aware of) the most logical choice one can make is to be a weak atheist. This is not to say that I think it is necessarily *bad* or *wrong* to believe in a higher power, simply that it is the less logical option between actively believing and passively disbelieving. I really would not mind to be proven wrong on this, and if you think you have an argument, either that you came up with or perhaps that you heard/read somewhere, that is logically sound (this goes beyond being logically valid) then please share them with me! Also, if you could put them in something akin to the following format for the sake of clarity and ease of response, that would be awesome! Premise A: Premise B: Conclusion: *Weak atheism is defined as a simple absence of belief in a deity or deities, and should not be confused with strong atheism, which makes a positive assertion that no gods exist. _____ > *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 do not think that there is a sound argument for the existence of God currently. No argument that I have ever come across, whether it belonged to Anselm, William Lane Craig, Descartes, or a random person on the internet, has ever seemed to be sound after close scrutiny. First off, I want to note that it is not my view that there is definitely *not* a god, nor is it necessarily my view that there is no *possible* sound argument for the existence of said god, merely that I do not think anyone has yet to come up with one. Also, I would like to point out that I have indeed read some of the other posts on this wonderful subreddit about atheism, and I feel like my post is different enough from the ones listed in the Commonly Posted Topics Wiki to justify putting it here. Maybe I'm wrong on that account, you can decide for yourselves. Common arguments for the existence of God, such as the Cosmological Arguments, in all their various forms, seem to me to rely on the logical fallacy of special pleading to reach their conclusion. Others, like the Ontological Arguments set forth by Anselm and the variations of it developed by the likes of Leibniz, seem to rely on an undefinable "greatness" attributed to God, and I fail to see why I would be compelled to accept that something *must* exist simply because of how that thing has been defined. Other arguments, such as the Creationist arguments, seem to fundamentally misunderstand the science topics they are discussing. In my mind, since there is no sound argument for the existence of God, (that I am aware of) the most logical choice one can make is to be a weak atheist. This is not to say that I think it is necessarily *bad* or *wrong* to believe in a higher power, simply that it is the less logical option between actively believing and passively disbelieving. I really would not mind to be proven wrong on this, and if you think you have an argument, either that you came up with or perhaps that you heard/read somewhere, that is logically sound (this goes beyond being logically valid) then please share them with me! Also, if you could put them in something akin to the following format for the sake of clarity and ease of response, that would be awesome! Premise A: Premise B: Conclusion: *Weak atheism is defined as a simple absence of belief in a deity or deities, and should not be confused with strong atheism, which makes a positive assertion that no gods exist.

t3_2a6z4j

CMV: Having an advanced degree(s) shouldn't be equated to being intelligent

Lots of people with Ph.Ds are intelligent... but just because someone has an advanced degree doesn't mean that they are smart. If the subject is something that requires tons of problem solving, then they are probably highly intelligent, but if the degree is just memorizing a bunch of stuff (e.g. Medieval Studies) then they just memorized a bunch of (relatively) useless stuff. True intelligence is being able to solve novel problems. So having a degree in certain fields just means they know stuff within a very limited area. I would think a 16 year old math genius is far more intelligent than someone who has a Ph.D in *insert arbitrary niche thing here* Lots of people with advanced degrees are intelligent... but simply having one shouldn't be enough to make people think they are more intelligent than others who don't (or at all) _____ > *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: Having an advanced degree(s) shouldn't be equated to being intelligent. Lots of people with Ph.Ds are intelligent... but just because someone has an advanced degree doesn't mean that they are smart. If the subject is something that requires tons of problem solving, then they are probably highly intelligent, but if the degree is just memorizing a bunch of stuff (e.g. Medieval Studies) then they just memorized a bunch of (relatively) useless stuff. True intelligence is being able to solve novel problems. So having a degree in certain fields just means they know stuff within a very limited area. I would think a 16 year old math genius is far more intelligent than someone who has a Ph.D in *insert arbitrary niche thing here* Lots of people with advanced degrees are intelligent... but simply having one shouldn't be enough to make people think they are more intelligent than others who don't (or at all)

t3_5dhzql

CMV:If Bernie Sanders wants to play a major role in reshaping the Democratic party, he needs to actually become a member of it.

Bernie Sanders clearly has become one of the defining national figures in the Democratic party and the liberal left as a whole. He's pushing for the (relatively) radical choice of Keith Ellis as the new Chairman of the DNC, he's in talks with Chuck Schumer to play a larger role in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and he is in many ways seen as the face of the progressive movement in the US. Yet he continues to identify as an independent. He doesn't hold fundraisers for other Democratic candidates, he isn't working with Democrats as a whole to pursue a cohesive platform, he isn't counted officially as part of the democratic block in the Senate, and he isn't beholden to the congressional strategies of the Minority Leader. Don't get me wrong, I love Bernie; I'm from Vermont and I've voted and campaigned for him regularly. But if he wants to play a pivotal role in the redefining of the Democratic party, he should do so officially. By remaining outside the party he preserves his 'outsider' image, but at the cost of casting himself as in opposition to the Democrats in the eyes of many people. By actually changing his party affiliation and joining the Democratic Party, he can accomplish a number of things. He can channel his massive support towards races and candidates who would benefit from it. He can fundraise to get money that the DNC can use to support long-term strategic agendas. And perhaps most importantly, he can signal to the left that the future of progressivism in the US lies in reforming the existing political structure and harnessing the support of diehard Democrats, not in tearing the left apart and giving conservatives even more room to succeed. If the Democratic Party needs to change, as he says in every appearance he's made for years, then he should play his part in declaring his affiliation and insure that he will be right at the heart of 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 Bernie Sanders wants to play a major role in reshaping the Democratic party, he needs to actually become a member of it. Bernie Sanders clearly has become one of the defining national figures in the Democratic party and the liberal left as a whole. He's pushing for the (relatively) radical choice of Keith Ellis as the new Chairman of the DNC, he's in talks with Chuck Schumer to play a larger role in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and he is in many ways seen as the face of the progressive movement in the US. Yet he continues to identify as an independent. He doesn't hold fundraisers for other Democratic candidates, he isn't working with Democrats as a whole to pursue a cohesive platform, he isn't counted officially as part of the democratic block in the Senate, and he isn't beholden to the congressional strategies of the Minority Leader. Don't get me wrong, I love Bernie; I'm from Vermont and I've voted and campaigned for him regularly. But if he wants to play a pivotal role in the redefining of the Democratic party, he should do so officially. By remaining outside the party he preserves his 'outsider' image, but at the cost of casting himself as in opposition to the Democrats in the eyes of many people. By actually changing his party affiliation and joining the Democratic Party, he can accomplish a number of things. He can channel his massive support towards races and candidates who would benefit from it. He can fundraise to get money that the DNC can use to support long-term strategic agendas. And perhaps most importantly, he can signal to the left that the future of progressivism in the US lies in reforming the existing political structure and harnessing the support of diehard Democrats, not in tearing the left apart and giving conservatives even more room to succeed. If the Democratic Party needs to change, as he says in every appearance he's made for years, then he should play his part in declaring his affiliation and insure that he will be right at the heart of it.

t3_4yt4sk

CMV:The existence of Anti-Defamation laws prevent the public audience from developing their own sense of skepticism. People become lulled by the notion that all accusations are true.

Anti-slander and anti-defamation laws allow the 'victim' of false accusations to file a suit against the accuser and be rewarded for the loss of income, wealth, etc caused by the false accusation. This sounds good in theory because it should curb finger pointing and blaming and typical tribal human tactics we're wont to do but in practice these suits are expensive, long, and have to be iron tight. Worse, if you're famous they basically don't apply to you (like politicians). That means you can defame someone with false accusations and will get away with it 99% of the time. **But because these laws exist, the people who are witness to these false accusations are more likely to believe them, because of the implication.** As an analogy, imagine yourself being passive and unreactive when someone starts yelling at you and showing body language that might escalate to a fight because you know the other person knows they'd get sent to prison if they attacked you. This causes you to be attacked without preparing for it. Similarly, you know that the accuser knows they can be sued for defamation if the victim loses wealth etc because of these accusations so you're less likely to be skeptical. Without these laws, this rationalization would not exist and the audience is more likely to have heard these kinds of attacks before, notice a pattern and smile cynically, maybe a little laugh. Back to the analogy, without anti-violence laws you would have to stand up and react because you know that the yelling human in front of you will actually attack you since you now that they know that they won't get in trouble for it. So you tense up etc... We need this fighter's spirit to develop the public's skepticism because almost every accusation tends to be taken very seriously today. Sure, it may be 3x harder to get the truth but if people put in 4x the effort into finding the truth then we're ahead no matter what. To CMV, maybe attack my notion of defamation. Do I know what defamation is? Another weak point I see is my overvaluation of skepticism, maybe we don't need it? Hit me!

CMV:The existence of Anti-Defamation laws prevent the public audience from developing their own sense of skepticism. People become lulled by the notion that all accusations are true. Anti-slander and anti-defamation laws allow the 'victim' of false accusations to file a suit against the accuser and be rewarded for the loss of income, wealth, etc caused by the false accusation. This sounds good in theory because it should curb finger pointing and blaming and typical tribal human tactics we're wont to do but in practice these suits are expensive, long, and have to be iron tight. Worse, if you're famous they basically don't apply to you (like politicians). That means you can defame someone with false accusations and will get away with it 99% of the time. **But because these laws exist, the people who are witness to these false accusations are more likely to believe them, because of the implication.** As an analogy, imagine yourself being passive and unreactive when someone starts yelling at you and showing body language that might escalate to a fight because you know the other person knows they'd get sent to prison if they attacked you. This causes you to be attacked without preparing for it. Similarly, you know that the accuser knows they can be sued for defamation if the victim loses wealth etc because of these accusations so you're less likely to be skeptical. Without these laws, this rationalization would not exist and the audience is more likely to have heard these kinds of attacks before, notice a pattern and smile cynically, maybe a little laugh. Back to the analogy, without anti-violence laws you would have to stand up and react because you know that the yelling human in front of you will actually attack you since you now that they know that they won't get in trouble for it. So you tense up etc... We need this fighter's spirit to develop the public's skepticism because almost every accusation tends to be taken very seriously today. Sure, it may be 3x harder to get the truth but if people put in 4x the effort into finding the truth then we're ahead no matter what. To CMV, maybe attack my notion of defamation. Do I know what defamation is? Another weak point I see is my overvaluation of skepticism, maybe we don't need it? Hit me!

t3_2p5ffl

CMV: The majority of college-bound students should start out in community colleges

I am addressing people who intend to go to college for a bachelor's. The majority of these people will have a tuition/living payment that is well above what they can afford. If the student has parents footing the bill or is getting scholarships, then there is no huge downside to going to a regular 4-year college. But for most, that is not the case. For almost every student, community college is cheaper than a regular college. If you go to a 4-year college for the "college experience" and go 20k into debt for the dorm life, you're simply being financially irresponsible. There is really no good reason to go into twice as much debt to end up with what is, in the end, the same piece of paper. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The majority of college-bound students should start out in community colleges. I am addressing people who intend to go to college for a bachelor's. The majority of these people will have a tuition/living payment that is well above what they can afford. If the student has parents footing the bill or is getting scholarships, then there is no huge downside to going to a regular 4-year college. But for most, that is not the case. For almost every student, community college is cheaper than a regular college. If you go to a 4-year college for the "college experience" and go 20k into debt for the dorm life, you're simply being financially irresponsible. There is really no good reason to go into twice as much debt to end up with what is, in the end, the same piece of paper. CMV.

t3_1xxnua

Valentine's Day is bullshit and people are wrong to continue celebrating it, CMV.

It started out as the feast day of a Christian saint. Religion is bullshit, so the holiday started out with shaky origins. But between the 14th century, when Valentine's Day first become associated with romantic love, and today, the holiday has been commercialized to the point of meaninglessness. I am all for businesses making money, though, so I'm not going to blame Hallmark or whoever makes those heart-shaped chocolates for Valentine's Day's being bullshit. I blame people in general for allowing themselves to be deluded into think that Valentine's Day is meaningful. First of all, if you love someone, you should express that every day. That there is a day devoted to expressing to your spouse or significant other that you love them is pretty pathetic to me because if you take Valentine's Day seriously, you aren't doing enough for your SO the other 364 days of the year. Secondly, Valentine's Day doesn't benefit anyone. If you are in a relationship, there is societal pressure to spend money on your beloved in order to celebrate, i.e., buying cards/flowers/gifts, going out to fancy dinners. This is bullshit because love isn't dependent upon material things like a box of chocolates. If you aren't in a relationship, Valentine's Day is a yearly society-endorsed reminder of your failure to find someone to love. Basically, Valentine's Day is like the diamond racket. Certain companies have marketed the idea of spending money in order to prove your love, and this idea took hold in the population, who now reinforces the idea without being told to by DeBeers or Hallmark or whomever. It's bullshit.

Valentine's Day is bullshit and people are wrong to continue celebrating it, CMV. It started out as the feast day of a Christian saint. Religion is bullshit, so the holiday started out with shaky origins. But between the 14th century, when Valentine's Day first become associated with romantic love, and today, the holiday has been commercialized to the point of meaninglessness. I am all for businesses making money, though, so I'm not going to blame Hallmark or whoever makes those heart-shaped chocolates for Valentine's Day's being bullshit. I blame people in general for allowing themselves to be deluded into think that Valentine's Day is meaningful. First of all, if you love someone, you should express that every day. That there is a day devoted to expressing to your spouse or significant other that you love them is pretty pathetic to me because if you take Valentine's Day seriously, you aren't doing enough for your SO the other 364 days of the year. Secondly, Valentine's Day doesn't benefit anyone. If you are in a relationship, there is societal pressure to spend money on your beloved in order to celebrate, i.e., buying cards/flowers/gifts, going out to fancy dinners. This is bullshit because love isn't dependent upon material things like a box of chocolates. If you aren't in a relationship, Valentine's Day is a yearly society-endorsed reminder of your failure to find someone to love. Basically, Valentine's Day is like the diamond racket. Certain companies have marketed the idea of spending money in order to prove your love, and this idea took hold in the population, who now reinforces the idea without being told to by DeBeers or Hallmark or whomever. It's bullshit.

t3_33te4g

CMV: I believe that science doesn't fully understand everything, and that the things it does understand does not mean the things it doesn't don't exist.

Often times I'll see people say things like: "Well, just because science doesn't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist." and someone replies "this is a perfect example of [insert title here] fallacy..." and then go onto give themselves a high-five like they just won an argument. I don't see the point in that. No one was asserting that science was false somehow. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that because science doesn't understand everything that we shouldn't treat those things as nonexistent or impossible. It doesn't mean one person or the other is incorrect about something, just that at our current level of understanding we simply don't know from a scientific perspective. And if this represents the "burden of proof" fallacy like I've seen people mention so many times shouldn't that be the case anyways? Shouldn't science carry the burden of proof? If science can't explain it, then what's wrong with letting it be until it can? And if this is about fairness and letting both parties have the burden of proof how does that work exactly? Wouldn't they simply deny each other no matter what they find or wouldn't their own findings be corrupted by biases? As an analogy (please let me know if this analogy doesn't work), it was once impossible to fly to the moon. Would it be a fallacy to say a hundred years ago or more that flying to the moon or space exploration might be possible, it's just that science doesn't know or understand it yet? I don't know, I feel like people use fallacies the wrong ways. Why is it unreasonable to so many people to say that because science doesn't understand it, does not mean it doesn't exist or is not possible? Thanks in advance!

CMV: I believe that science doesn't fully understand everything, and that the things it does understand does not mean the things it doesn't don't exist. Often times I'll see people say things like: "Well, just because science doesn't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist." and someone replies "this is a perfect example of [insert title here] fallacy..." and then go onto give themselves a high-five like they just won an argument. I don't see the point in that. No one was asserting that science was false somehow. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that because science doesn't understand everything that we shouldn't treat those things as nonexistent or impossible. It doesn't mean one person or the other is incorrect about something, just that at our current level of understanding we simply don't know from a scientific perspective. And if this represents the "burden of proof" fallacy like I've seen people mention so many times shouldn't that be the case anyways? Shouldn't science carry the burden of proof? If science can't explain it, then what's wrong with letting it be until it can? And if this is about fairness and letting both parties have the burden of proof how does that work exactly? Wouldn't they simply deny each other no matter what they find or wouldn't their own findings be corrupted by biases? As an analogy (please let me know if this analogy doesn't work), it was once impossible to fly to the moon. Would it be a fallacy to say a hundred years ago or more that flying to the moon or space exploration might be possible, it's just that science doesn't know or understand it yet? I don't know, I feel like people use fallacies the wrong ways. Why is it unreasonable to so many people to say that because science doesn't understand it, does not mean it doesn't exist or is not possible? Thanks in advance!

t3_5xu7p6

CMV: Rock music is becoming increasingly obsolete and is being replaced by EDM and Hip Hop

Hey CMV, I would like to reface that I really like most music. I grew up playing instruments and I objectively appreciate all kids of music based on my own perceptions of quality regardless of genre. My view is based around pop culture. Rock bands encompassing all sub-genres no longer have the personality to compete for popularity with rappers and DJ's who have made their entire careers around their personality relating to their music. The amount of hip hop artists comparing themselves to rockstars of the past (i.e. Future calling himself Hendrix and Lil Uzi defending his rapping on air by considering himself a nouveau rock star as opposed to a old school rapper). Modern rap has taken the urban awareness and gangster mentalities from the 80's and 90's and added the flare of 70's and 80's rock bands. Also, I feel that the top production has shifted towards these genres due to the computer friendliness of not necessarily using live instruments. Someone could change my view either by convincing me that my own perception of quality towards rap and edm is unfounded or by showing me some relatively new (within 15 years) rock groups that have made as much cultural impact as newer rappers and DJs do now. _____ > *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: Rock music is becoming increasingly obsolete and is being replaced by EDM and Hip Hop. Hey CMV, I would like to reface that I really like most music. I grew up playing instruments and I objectively appreciate all kids of music based on my own perceptions of quality regardless of genre. My view is based around pop culture. Rock bands encompassing all sub-genres no longer have the personality to compete for popularity with rappers and DJ's who have made their entire careers around their personality relating to their music. The amount of hip hop artists comparing themselves to rockstars of the past (i.e. Future calling himself Hendrix and Lil Uzi defending his rapping on air by considering himself a nouveau rock star as opposed to a old school rapper). Modern rap has taken the urban awareness and gangster mentalities from the 80's and 90's and added the flare of 70's and 80's rock bands. Also, I feel that the top production has shifted towards these genres due to the computer friendliness of not necessarily using live instruments. Someone could change my view either by convincing me that my own perception of quality towards rap and edm is unfounded or by showing me some relatively new (within 15 years) rock groups that have made as much cultural impact as newer rappers and DJs do now.

t3_4tn84h

CMV: Cars should be equipped with short-range radios to communicate with nearby drivers

I'm somewhat new to driving, and if there's one major problem with it I've had, it's communication with other drivers. Miscommunications and lack of communication at all has led me into many near-accident situations, and I'm sure it's caused plenty of accidents for others. Waving, beeping, and flashing your lights at other drivers seems like a very inefficient and vague way to communicate with other drivers, and I feel that each car having a very short-range radio to communicate with a few of the cars in your vicinity would improve things greatly. However, I'm not married to this view, as I could see some problems with it, such as it itself being inefficient, technical issues, the danger of operating the radio while driving, etc. There's definitely downsides, and I'm here to see if they outweigh the benefits. Reddit, 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: Cars should be equipped with short-range radios to communicate with nearby drivers. I'm somewhat new to driving, and if there's one major problem with it I've had, it's communication with other drivers. Miscommunications and lack of communication at all has led me into many near-accident situations, and I'm sure it's caused plenty of accidents for others. Waving, beeping, and flashing your lights at other drivers seems like a very inefficient and vague way to communicate with other drivers, and I feel that each car having a very short-range radio to communicate with a few of the cars in your vicinity would improve things greatly. However, I'm not married to this view, as I could see some problems with it, such as it itself being inefficient, technical issues, the danger of operating the radio while driving, etc. There's definitely downsides, and I'm here to see if they outweigh the benefits. Reddit, change my view!

t3_6chh4q

CMV: If Hillary had been elected, there would have been a lot of scandals, like we're having now with Trump.

People are calling to impeach Donald Trump for his ties to Russia and firing the FBI director. Some editorials I've read have said he's more corrupt than Nixon. I think that if Hillary Clinton had gotten in the Whitehouse, she would have acted in ways that were unethical and drew a lot of serious criticism as well. Between the rigging of the DNC, deleting emails after she was subpoenaed, the Clinton Foundation, and Benghazi, she has a track record of being corrupt. I think that she would have gotten herself into hot water pretty quickly after getting into office (just like Trump did), and Republicans would probably be calling for her impeachment. Probably the left wing media, like Huffington Post and MSNBC would be defending her, and right wing media, like Breitbart and Fox News would be non-stop attacking everything she did. Change my view!

CMV: If Hillary had been elected, there would have been a lot of scandals, like we're having now with Trump. People are calling to impeach Donald Trump for his ties to Russia and firing the FBI director. Some editorials I've read have said he's more corrupt than Nixon. I think that if Hillary Clinton had gotten in the Whitehouse, she would have acted in ways that were unethical and drew a lot of serious criticism as well. Between the rigging of the DNC, deleting emails after she was subpoenaed, the Clinton Foundation, and Benghazi, she has a track record of being corrupt. I think that she would have gotten herself into hot water pretty quickly after getting into office (just like Trump did), and Republicans would probably be calling for her impeachment. Probably the left wing media, like Huffington Post and MSNBC would be defending her, and right wing media, like Breitbart and Fox News would be non-stop attacking everything she did. Change my view!

t3_5zftr6

CMV: Free speech should not have limitations.

Title is pretty self explanatory. If everyone is entitled to their opinion, then everyone should be entitled to discuss and/or share their opinion. Words (being it spoken, or on ink), unlike actions, do not have a direct effect on the world and therefore there is no need to have any restrictions on what can be said/written. For me there are three major arguments against this: - Your actions have must obide the law and so should your words, even though you are free. - Words can negatively affect people, so you should be responsible for the consequences of your words. - Ideas can be dangerous, and therefore controlled for the safety of society My biggest problem is that most of these arguments treat words like actions, whereas they are fundamentally different. The third argument is the one that I can at least see the reasoning behind. It is more of a personal "should we trade freedom for safety?" that has a lot more to do with philosophy, and therefore does not have a definitive answer, whereas the first two are by definition fallacious. So if you are going to change my mind I would advice sticking to no.3, but hey, you are free to talk about whichever one you like ;) _____ > *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: Free speech should not have limitations. Title is pretty self explanatory. If everyone is entitled to their opinion, then everyone should be entitled to discuss and/or share their opinion. Words (being it spoken, or on ink), unlike actions, do not have a direct effect on the world and therefore there is no need to have any restrictions on what can be said/written. For me there are three major arguments against this: - Your actions have must obide the law and so should your words, even though you are free. - Words can negatively affect people, so you should be responsible for the consequences of your words. - Ideas can be dangerous, and therefore controlled for the safety of society My biggest problem is that most of these arguments treat words like actions, whereas they are fundamentally different. The third argument is the one that I can at least see the reasoning behind. It is more of a personal "should we trade freedom for safety?" that has a lot more to do with philosophy, and therefore does not have a definitive answer, whereas the first two are by definition fallacious. So if you are going to change my mind I would advice sticking to no.3, but hey, you are free to talk about whichever one you like ;)

t3_280er6

CMV: I have no reason to believe there is no afterlife, science only allows me to believe nothing.

Not a christian afterlife, to be clear. I mean any continuation of my soul after the death of my body. People tend to believe that they have a scientific reason to believe there was nothing before their birth and nothing will follow their death. This is not true. Science has no basic theory for what happens, we just dont know, so you're not basing your beliefs on science, you're just not believing anything at all which to me is a massive disservice to yourself and your growth as a person. I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is a product of my brain rather than just facilitated by it or channeled through it. I can use logic and apply the dynamics of the physical universe to say that maybe I am part of a bigger cycle, just like the water which consists of most of my body, and perhaps I will be reborn. [Even big fancy scientific facts usually arent facts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge) so in the end you should just make up your own minds about some things.

CMV: I have no reason to believe there is no afterlife, science only allows me to believe nothing. Not a christian afterlife, to be clear. I mean any continuation of my soul after the death of my body. People tend to believe that they have a scientific reason to believe there was nothing before their birth and nothing will follow their death. This is not true. Science has no basic theory for what happens, we just dont know, so you're not basing your beliefs on science, you're just not believing anything at all which to me is a massive disservice to yourself and your growth as a person. I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is a product of my brain rather than just facilitated by it or channeled through it. I can use logic and apply the dynamics of the physical universe to say that maybe I am part of a bigger cycle, just like the water which consists of most of my body, and perhaps I will be reborn. [Even big fancy scientific facts usually arent facts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge) so in the end you should just make up your own minds about some things.

t3_1w2q7h

I think forcing kids to read classic novels in high school is counterproductive and turns people off reading again in the future. CMV.

When I was a freshman in high school, one of the required reading assignments was Brave New World. As I was reading it, I didn't understand why it was so special and hated having to do worksheets and essays on it. This was pretty much the case with all other novels I read throughout high school, and it made me hate reading. Since then, I have not read a single novel for pleasure. However, now that I've gotten a little older and understand more about the world, I finally get the message Brave New World was trying to make, and now realize that the book was a masterpiece. However, since I was being forced to read books I didn't understand a few years ago, it makes me not want to actually read it again. I get that making kids read in high school is trying to open their minds to literature, but since they haven't gained the life experiences or maturity yet, it just makes reading a chore instead of something pleasurable. CMV. EDIT: I mentioned that I had to use sparknotes to do the reading assignments. I admit that part of it was due to laziness. However if I hadn't used it, then my superficial interpretations of certain plot points would be entirely off because I hadn't picked up on the underlying themes. If I had written down my *actual* interpretations, then I would have been marked off. I don't consider using this resource as cheating. If you had a math problem that you didn't understand, and you looked on the internet for a different way of explaining it in simple English, would you consider that cheating?

I think forcing kids to read classic novels in high school is counterproductive and turns people off reading again in the future. CMV. When I was a freshman in high school, one of the required reading assignments was Brave New World. As I was reading it, I didn't understand why it was so special and hated having to do worksheets and essays on it. This was pretty much the case with all other novels I read throughout high school, and it made me hate reading. Since then, I have not read a single novel for pleasure. However, now that I've gotten a little older and understand more about the world, I finally get the message Brave New World was trying to make, and now realize that the book was a masterpiece. However, since I was being forced to read books I didn't understand a few years ago, it makes me not want to actually read it again. I get that making kids read in high school is trying to open their minds to literature, but since they haven't gained the life experiences or maturity yet, it just makes reading a chore instead of something pleasurable. CMV. EDIT: I mentioned that I had to use sparknotes to do the reading assignments. I admit that part of it was due to laziness. However if I hadn't used it, then my superficial interpretations of certain plot points would be entirely off because I hadn't picked up on the underlying themes. If I had written down my *actual* interpretations, then I would have been marked off. I don't consider using this resource as cheating. If you had a math problem that you didn't understand, and you looked on the internet for a different way of explaining it in simple English, would you consider that cheating?

t3_1ea17g

We shouldn't teach kids non-Bayesian statistics. CMV

The frequentest/Bayesian debate has been soundly won by the Bayesian camp. But this hasn't impacted the place where it's needed most. Schools. I don't particularly care if kids never understand exactly how to do the [drug test example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Drug_testing) on wiki. But it's important that they should have an intuition that the number of drug-takers in the population is relevant. It's important that people should have a rather clear idea in their heads of why "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

We shouldn't teach kids non-Bayesian statistics. CMV. The frequentest/Bayesian debate has been soundly won by the Bayesian camp. But this hasn't impacted the place where it's needed most. Schools. I don't particularly care if kids never understand exactly how to do the [drug test example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Drug_testing) on wiki. But it's important that they should have an intuition that the number of drug-takers in the population is relevant. It's important that people should have a rather clear idea in their heads of why "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."