Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_5u1aza

CMV: As someone who has been underweight most his life. It is NOT easier to put on weight than it is to lose weight.

I have been told over and over (by individuals who have no problem eating) that I have it so easy and I can eat as much as I want so whats the big deal? I am 6'3" and 180 lbs currently, and it was a struggle to get here. I frequent r/gainit and credit my weight gain to that sub. I used to weight 145 and it was not an easy journey as most people (normal eaters) would think. The big deal for me is that it isn't easy and I feel as though it is ignorant of the effort I must put in to gain weight. I have to force myself to eat, keep track of my calorie intake, remember to make meals, meal plan, budget, cook, not get caught up in my other hobbies. I do not buy into the "endo/ecto/meso" archetypes. I believe that I (and others) can control their intake and bodies, for the most part, digest and metabolize food the same way. I find that I cannot say losing weight is easy but for me it is. On one stretch, I consistently did not meet my caloric requirement and lost 10 pounds in a month. I know what it takes for me to lose weight but I would be falling into the same ignorant thought process because it is what works for me. - Edit: Thanks to everyone who replied. There is a lot of great responses that made me think about things and a lot of new information that I have never considered before. Overall I think that I have been misinterpreting these comments I have been getting from people as absolutes instead of generalizations that many of the below comments have pointed out.

CMV: As someone who has been underweight most his life. It is NOT easier to put on weight than it is to lose weight. I have been told over and over (by individuals who have no problem eating) that I have it so easy and I can eat as much as I want so whats the big deal? I am 6'3" and 180 lbs currently, and it was a struggle to get here. I frequent r/gainit and credit my weight gain to that sub. I used to weight 145 and it was not an easy journey as most people (normal eaters) would think. The big deal for me is that it isn't easy and I feel as though it is ignorant of the effort I must put in to gain weight. I have to force myself to eat, keep track of my calorie intake, remember to make meals, meal plan, budget, cook, not get caught up in my other hobbies. I do not buy into the "endo/ecto/meso" archetypes. I believe that I (and others) can control their intake and bodies, for the most part, digest and metabolize food the same way. I find that I cannot say losing weight is easy but for me it is. On one stretch, I consistently did not meet my caloric requirement and lost 10 pounds in a month. I know what it takes for me to lose weight but I would be falling into the same ignorant thought process because it is what works for me. - Edit: Thanks to everyone who replied. There is a lot of great responses that made me think about things and a lot of new information that I have never considered before. Overall I think that I have been misinterpreting these comments I have been getting from people as absolutes instead of generalizations that many of the below comments have pointed out.

t3_4iem2j

CMV: I don't think that making First Contact will cause dramatic upheaval in human society.

**EDIT: TO BE CLEAR, I AM INTERESTED IN THE HUMAN REACTION TO ALIENS, NOT IN THE ALIEN REACTION. PLEASE PROVIDE SOME SORT OF PROOF OR SUPPORTING LOGIC. THANKS.** First Contact is the discovery of alien life, and by dramatic upheaval, I mean something quick that causes society to breakdown. If we received radio transmissions from aliens tomorrow (or some other form of proof) that incontestably proved the existence of advanced alien life, I don"t think our lives would fundamentally change. The basics of living and being human would still be the same, and it would change nothing but high level government policy and a handful of doctrines for the time being. I don't think many people would riot or kill themselves or start new wars. I don't think that we'd be unified as a species or tolerate each other that much more or receive some sort of spiritual awakening. Each doctrine and philosophy would slightly adjust itself to account for the new possibility, but most intelligent people have probably already accounted for the vague possibility of life outside earth. The immediacy makes little difference. **Of course, in the long run, the human race would be changed significantly. But immediate term shifting of strategic priorities, political talking points, and art aren't what I mean by a dramatic upheaval. An upheaval to me is a mass panic or something like it.** I believe that people pretty much tend to stick together when shit goes down. For example, in response to major terrorist attacks, [people have been found to stick around and help. Genuine panic is actually quite rare.](http://www.sussex.ac.uk/affiliates/panic/Crowd%20behaviour%20in%20CBRN%20incidents.ppt) In this study on morale during WW2 and panic caused by modern terror incidents, [panic is usually a limited spike of quiet grief, and people really only tend to evacuate if forced to or if their houses are destroyed.](http://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Publications/Other_p/111.pdf) ~~EDIT: I'm assuming a peaceful sort of contact, like picking up radio signals or seeing a probe. If aliens come out shooting and use massively superior amounts of force, there would be significant levels of panic.~~ Even in that case, I think the amount of looting humans do in emergencies is exaggerated. Deltas are available for changing that view, too. _____ > *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 that making First Contact will cause dramatic upheaval in human society. **EDIT: TO BE CLEAR, I AM INTERESTED IN THE HUMAN REACTION TO ALIENS, NOT IN THE ALIEN REACTION. PLEASE PROVIDE SOME SORT OF PROOF OR SUPPORTING LOGIC. THANKS.** First Contact is the discovery of alien life, and by dramatic upheaval, I mean something quick that causes society to breakdown. If we received radio transmissions from aliens tomorrow (or some other form of proof) that incontestably proved the existence of advanced alien life, I don"t think our lives would fundamentally change. The basics of living and being human would still be the same, and it would change nothing but high level government policy and a handful of doctrines for the time being. I don't think many people would riot or kill themselves or start new wars. I don't think that we'd be unified as a species or tolerate each other that much more or receive some sort of spiritual awakening. Each doctrine and philosophy would slightly adjust itself to account for the new possibility, but most intelligent people have probably already accounted for the vague possibility of life outside earth. The immediacy makes little difference. **Of course, in the long run, the human race would be changed significantly. But immediate term shifting of strategic priorities, political talking points, and art aren't what I mean by a dramatic upheaval. An upheaval to me is a mass panic or something like it.** I believe that people pretty much tend to stick together when shit goes down. For example, in response to major terrorist attacks, [people have been found to stick around and help. Genuine panic is actually quite rare.](http://www.sussex.ac.uk/affiliates/panic/Crowd%20behaviour%20in%20CBRN%20incidents.ppt) In this study on morale during WW2 and panic caused by modern terror incidents, [panic is usually a limited spike of quiet grief, and people really only tend to evacuate if forced to or if their houses are destroyed.](http://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Publications/Other_p/111.pdf) ~~EDIT: I'm assuming a peaceful sort of contact, like picking up radio signals or seeing a probe. If aliens come out shooting and use massively superior amounts of force, there would be significant levels of panic.~~ Even in that case, I think the amount of looting humans do in emergencies is exaggerated. Deltas are available for changing that view, too.

t3_5gcx7y

CMV: Supermarket / store stockers should get paid commission for every item they put away.

[This guy would make bank on a commission-based wage. What motivates him into stocking THIS fast, when paid a low hourly wage?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYH3eh0AXI&spfreload=1) I am a former grocery stocker, and didn't make it in that job. I grew to hate it so much, [I'm making at least 4 songs about it in my parody songwriting aspirations: 1, 2, 6, and 18.](https://www.reddit.com/r/plans/comments/5de92j/the_son_of_way_songwriting_plans_parodies_filk/) I was only paid $7.70 an hour. No matter whether I put away items quickly, or slowly, I was still getting paid the same wage. Before I started, I thought stocking shelves was just the straight-up putting away of items. Then I was told to rotate items by expiration date. I was also told that the quota was to unpack 50-55 boxes an hour. I could rotate by expiration, or unpack 50-55 boxes an hour, but I couldn't do both. I asked them to switch me to a new department and position because I felt I could cut it better in any other position at the supermarket besides janitorial work and shelf-stocking. They told me to wait until my first 90 days passed. And they cut my hours because I didn't like my new job, and couldn't hack it fast enough. In order to motivate stockers better, they all need to be paid commission for every item they put away, and every box they open. It can be a penny per item, a nickel per box, and a dime per big box. If it causes prices to rise by 2 pennies per item, or 3, tops, who'll notice in this day and age? Wouldn't you be motivated to put items away faster if you stocked shelves, and got paid on a per-item commission? So many would. _____ > *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: Supermarket / store stockers should get paid commission for every item they put away. [This guy would make bank on a commission-based wage. What motivates him into stocking THIS fast, when paid a low hourly wage?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYH3eh0AXI&spfreload=1) I am a former grocery stocker, and didn't make it in that job. I grew to hate it so much, [I'm making at least 4 songs about it in my parody songwriting aspirations: 1, 2, 6, and 18.](https://www.reddit.com/r/plans/comments/5de92j/the_son_of_way_songwriting_plans_parodies_filk/) I was only paid $7.70 an hour. No matter whether I put away items quickly, or slowly, I was still getting paid the same wage. Before I started, I thought stocking shelves was just the straight-up putting away of items. Then I was told to rotate items by expiration date. I was also told that the quota was to unpack 50-55 boxes an hour. I could rotate by expiration, or unpack 50-55 boxes an hour, but I couldn't do both. I asked them to switch me to a new department and position because I felt I could cut it better in any other position at the supermarket besides janitorial work and shelf-stocking. They told me to wait until my first 90 days passed. And they cut my hours because I didn't like my new job, and couldn't hack it fast enough. In order to motivate stockers better, they all need to be paid commission for every item they put away, and every box they open. It can be a penny per item, a nickel per box, and a dime per big box. If it causes prices to rise by 2 pennies per item, or 3, tops, who'll notice in this day and age? Wouldn't you be motivated to put items away faster if you stocked shelves, and got paid on a per-item commission? So many would.

t3_1ep47j

I believe that America's two-party system ruins our democracy. CMV

There are lots of problems with the two-party system, but for the most part, it just creates conflict in the government. Democrats and Republicans treat government like it is a game. Instead of working together to compromise and create government policies that help our country, they simply spend their time attacking the other party. They would much rather make the other party look bad than do what is best for the country. It creates an "us against them" mentality. Only having two parties makes things black and white. You are either a Republican or a Democrat. You are either liberal, or conservative. When in reality, the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between. Both parties, especially Republicans, are constantly trying to appeal to their base, and completely ignore the moderates of America. As a result, there is constant gridlock in congress, and the congressional approval rating is at an all-time low. If we are dissatisfied with both parties, we don't really have any alternatives. This is because Democrats and Republicans have created a system where it is virtually impossible for a third party to gain significant popularity. If you do vote for a third party candidate, you are essentially "wasting" your vote. As a result, you end up voting for the candidate or the party that you dislike the least. Without a viable third party to choose from, our freedom to elect who we want is severely limited.

I believe that America's two-party system ruins our democracy. CMV. There are lots of problems with the two-party system, but for the most part, it just creates conflict in the government. Democrats and Republicans treat government like it is a game. Instead of working together to compromise and create government policies that help our country, they simply spend their time attacking the other party. They would much rather make the other party look bad than do what is best for the country. It creates an "us against them" mentality. Only having two parties makes things black and white. You are either a Republican or a Democrat. You are either liberal, or conservative. When in reality, the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between. Both parties, especially Republicans, are constantly trying to appeal to their base, and completely ignore the moderates of America. As a result, there is constant gridlock in congress, and the congressional approval rating is at an all-time low. If we are dissatisfied with both parties, we don't really have any alternatives. This is because Democrats and Republicans have created a system where it is virtually impossible for a third party to gain significant popularity. If you do vote for a third party candidate, you are essentially "wasting" your vote. As a result, you end up voting for the candidate or the party that you dislike the least. Without a viable third party to choose from, our freedom to elect who we want is severely limited.

t3_6cnwi1

CMV: Generation discrimination is as bad as racial, or any other kind of discrimination.

It seems that there's a lot of discrimination against generations. For instance, 'Millennials' are often stereotyped as lazy, entitled etc. To me, whole concept of judging a group of people by their age is no different to judging a group of people based on their race. What you're doing is treating a group of people differently based on the way a small minority of them act. For instance, the whole 'SJW' thing on campuses are generally just a loud minority of students, and the majority of students loathe the ideas put forward. Yet people like to use this as proof as how kids today are 'easily offended'. This is a terrible idea, and only separates us further. This is especially true when you judge an entire group of people and don't consider that circumstances are different from when you were growing up (the economy, for instance). Not to mention judging them when they are younger, and are not fully mature adults. Although this might seem like an extreme view, I genuinely think someone badmouthing Millennials in public is as bad as badmouthing black people in public. Although I've only mentioned young people, the same should apply to stereotyping older generations as well. There shouldn't be any double standards. I'm interested in hearing opposing viewpoints as to why you disagree; so CMV! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Generation discrimination is as bad as racial, or any other kind of discrimination. It seems that there's a lot of discrimination against generations. For instance, 'Millennials' are often stereotyped as lazy, entitled etc. To me, whole concept of judging a group of people by their age is no different to judging a group of people based on their race. What you're doing is treating a group of people differently based on the way a small minority of them act. For instance, the whole 'SJW' thing on campuses are generally just a loud minority of students, and the majority of students loathe the ideas put forward. Yet people like to use this as proof as how kids today are 'easily offended'. This is a terrible idea, and only separates us further. This is especially true when you judge an entire group of people and don't consider that circumstances are different from when you were growing up (the economy, for instance). Not to mention judging them when they are younger, and are not fully mature adults. Although this might seem like an extreme view, I genuinely think someone badmouthing Millennials in public is as bad as badmouthing black people in public. Although I've only mentioned young people, the same should apply to stereotyping older generations as well. There shouldn't be any double standards. I'm interested in hearing opposing viewpoints as to why you disagree; so CMV!

t3_1tdt1r

Some or All Government Employees and Family Members should be banned from the stock exchange and Investments while in office. CMV

I think that the stock exchange influences our congress to much in their decisions for themselves rather than the people. Private interests are a cancer in our government today and mostly revolve around money. This ban would have to extend to family as well due to prevent a loop hole and once again to keep money completely out of the equation when our politician are making decisions. This may be a bad comparison but lottery employees are not aloud to play the lottery, I believe theirs other bans the lottery has on others (please let me know if you know). This ban is because the workers have inside information or know how the system works (Statistical people). If our Congress and House have family and friends who own multiple large company converse they are sure to give insider trading information regardless if its legal or not. EDIT- Id like to clarify my statement of some/all employees. Local officials, and lower level uninfluenced government employees should still have the option to dabble in the stock exchange. Sorry if this has already been discussed please link me to the thread if so.

Some or All Government Employees and Family Members should be banned from the stock exchange and Investments while in office. CMV. I think that the stock exchange influences our congress to much in their decisions for themselves rather than the people. Private interests are a cancer in our government today and mostly revolve around money. This ban would have to extend to family as well due to prevent a loop hole and once again to keep money completely out of the equation when our politician are making decisions. This may be a bad comparison but lottery employees are not aloud to play the lottery, I believe theirs other bans the lottery has on others (please let me know if you know). This ban is because the workers have inside information or know how the system works (Statistical people). If our Congress and House have family and friends who own multiple large company converse they are sure to give insider trading information regardless if its legal or not. EDIT- Id like to clarify my statement of some/all employees. Local officials, and lower level uninfluenced government employees should still have the option to dabble in the stock exchange. Sorry if this has already been discussed please link me to the thread if so.

t3_2d8nmk

CMV: If Darts and Snooker are considered 'Sports' then Gaming should also be.

We have the term eSports but I think that is not really necessary. People say that gaming should not be a sport because I doesn't require much physical activity, but numerous other sports don't either. For example, darts, snooker, archery, bowls etc. Obviously, the tactical element is a big part of sports too, in pretty much all team sports tactics and teamwork is what separates different players in terms of skill. But in things like darts and archery, all you have to do is get the highest score possible. (yes I know that when you get to low numbers in darts you have to make sure you get right to 0 but that isn't really tactics). I would argue that gaming is one of the most tactical sports and requires so much teamwork and skills under pressure. Surely something like that is more of a sport than the above named? What it comes down to is that the sports I have mentioned and gaming both have **specific and intricate hand movements** as their primary physical skill. I gaming's tactics and teamwork takes it above and beyond just that. Now, there is the possibility of just downgrading the less active sports to, well, dwarf sports, like Pluto. Just a thought.

CMV: If Darts and Snooker are considered 'Sports' then Gaming should also be. We have the term eSports but I think that is not really necessary. People say that gaming should not be a sport because I doesn't require much physical activity, but numerous other sports don't either. For example, darts, snooker, archery, bowls etc. Obviously, the tactical element is a big part of sports too, in pretty much all team sports tactics and teamwork is what separates different players in terms of skill. But in things like darts and archery, all you have to do is get the highest score possible. (yes I know that when you get to low numbers in darts you have to make sure you get right to 0 but that isn't really tactics). I would argue that gaming is one of the most tactical sports and requires so much teamwork and skills under pressure. Surely something like that is more of a sport than the above named? What it comes down to is that the sports I have mentioned and gaming both have **specific and intricate hand movements** as their primary physical skill. I gaming's tactics and teamwork takes it above and beyond just that. Now, there is the possibility of just downgrading the less active sports to, well, dwarf sports, like Pluto. Just a thought.

t3_1dvwdg

Most religious conversion is done with sneaky emotional tricks, which atheists refuse to apply and cannot overwrite with logic and evidence alone. CMV

I stopped accepting the religious explanations my pastor gave for problems like "can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" and "if God loved all his children why did he flood the world?" when I was 8-10. I'm confident that the primary reason for this is that I was raised in a secular household with a sci-fi loving dad and a mom who, while catholic, kept her belief to herself. I don't know when, if ever, I would stop believing if my childhood was different. It's worth noting that I live in the northeast of USA. Every viable religion has some method(s) of converting nonbelievers, whether it be church services, community services, mission work, charity drives, or even door-to-door proselytizing. But one thing that they all have in common is that the religion fills an emotional need in newly-converted believers. I have never encountered a person who was convinced of theism *because of* the teleological argument (though some have become deists). They were convinced because the priest giving the argument told them to look at the world and all its beauty and just try to deny that there's a purpose to it all, or that if he just gave himself over to Jesus and stopped sinning that all of his problems would be solved, or that he'll definitely meet his wife in heaven as long as he keeps to the gospels. I'm not advocating that skeptics begin going door-to-door, and I'm happy that we generally *don't* proselytize skepticism. When we do charity drives, we don't make the beneficiaries sit through a sermon on Occam's Razor before giving up cans of food. I think that that sort of conversion/deconversion is unethical, whether an atheist or a believer does it. And from what I've read, most of the skeptics and atheists with blogs agree with me on this point. Debate points: * Is it not true that most conversion is a result of changes in **emotion** more than logical debate? * Can reason ever overcome faith, or must the emotional need that makes faith attractive be filled first? * Can you make a case for "saving" someone from their faith, like the fictional atheist Gavin did in *The Ledge*? (e.g. Manipulating someone's emotions on a deep level, introducing doubt and then offering a solution. Gavin went so far as to ruin a marriage.)

Most religious conversion is done with sneaky emotional tricks, which atheists refuse to apply and cannot overwrite with logic and evidence alone. CMV. I stopped accepting the religious explanations my pastor gave for problems like "can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" and "if God loved all his children why did he flood the world?" when I was 8-10. I'm confident that the primary reason for this is that I was raised in a secular household with a sci-fi loving dad and a mom who, while catholic, kept her belief to herself. I don't know when, if ever, I would stop believing if my childhood was different. It's worth noting that I live in the northeast of USA. Every viable religion has some method(s) of converting nonbelievers, whether it be church services, community services, mission work, charity drives, or even door-to-door proselytizing. But one thing that they all have in common is that the religion fills an emotional need in newly-converted believers. I have never encountered a person who was convinced of theism *because of* the teleological argument (though some have become deists). They were convinced because the priest giving the argument told them to look at the world and all its beauty and just try to deny that there's a purpose to it all, or that if he just gave himself over to Jesus and stopped sinning that all of his problems would be solved, or that he'll definitely meet his wife in heaven as long as he keeps to the gospels. I'm not advocating that skeptics begin going door-to-door, and I'm happy that we generally *don't* proselytize skepticism. When we do charity drives, we don't make the beneficiaries sit through a sermon on Occam's Razor before giving up cans of food. I think that that sort of conversion/deconversion is unethical, whether an atheist or a believer does it. And from what I've read, most of the skeptics and atheists with blogs agree with me on this point. Debate points: * Is it not true that most conversion is a result of changes in **emotion** more than logical debate? * Can reason ever overcome faith, or must the emotional need that makes faith attractive be filled first? * Can you make a case for "saving" someone from their faith, like the fictional atheist Gavin did in *The Ledge*? (e.g. Manipulating someone's emotions on a deep level, introducing doubt and then offering a solution. Gavin went so far as to ruin a marriage.)

t3_2bem0r

CMV: Killing an adult is worse than killing a child or baby

It is common practice to prioritise a child's life over and adult's. I think killing an adult is "worse" than killing a child or baby, change my view. An adult has friends and family they have known for a long time. There will be more grief, on average, for a lost adult. Child or baby has limited human functionality and brain power - something we seem to use to justify killing animals and bugs. A good point to discuss could be the effects of losing each on society, but the factors are very hard to weigh up. An adult is (usually) a current contributor to society whereas a child isn't, but has the potential to be. I believe this argument flips if you talk about injury rather than death, since injuring a child could cause a lifetime of suffering, forcing the child to live below their potential (not so confident on this point). Edit: ~~Post got removed for not replying quickly enough - sorry guys.~~ I want to add this in anyway, since many people say "both are wrong": Is it morally wrong for the captain of a ship to order lifeboat seats go to children rather than adults?

CMV: Killing an adult is worse than killing a child or baby. It is common practice to prioritise a child's life over and adult's. I think killing an adult is "worse" than killing a child or baby, change my view. An adult has friends and family they have known for a long time. There will be more grief, on average, for a lost adult. Child or baby has limited human functionality and brain power - something we seem to use to justify killing animals and bugs. A good point to discuss could be the effects of losing each on society, but the factors are very hard to weigh up. An adult is (usually) a current contributor to society whereas a child isn't, but has the potential to be. I believe this argument flips if you talk about injury rather than death, since injuring a child could cause a lifetime of suffering, forcing the child to live below their potential (not so confident on this point). Edit: ~~Post got removed for not replying quickly enough - sorry guys.~~ I want to add this in anyway, since many people say "both are wrong": Is it morally wrong for the captain of a ship to order lifeboat seats go to children rather than adults?

t3_2dezjs

CMV: I believe Israel does NOT have a right to exist.

I believe Israel does NOT have a right to exist (as any state). I believe the optimal solution, unfortunately probably not the one to be carried out, would be a single Palestinian state, where jews and palestinians could live in peace, with no reminiscence of apartheid. I believe the two-state solution is unfortunately already a product of the advances Israel has developed in the region. It will most certainly deepen the apartheid, segregation, gentrification, racism, etc. Attacks will hardly stop. I believe Israel should be heavily divested from, boycotted, sanctioned, rendered economically unviable by the countries of the world. I believe the jewish people should be welcome anywhere, as any people who do not seek to occupy and colonize, or exploit economically. All jewish people, from 1942 to 2014, should be protected from antisemitism. However, I disagree very strongly with the utilization of the word "antisemitism" to categorize those critical of Israel (as do many jewish people, who, by this logic, are themselves antisemitic). I don't believe the actions of Hamas are of special concern. Whereas I am against war everywhere, I recognize a people's right of self-defense to military occupation and ethnic cleansing. Demagogy aside, nobody likes to experience the death of loved ones. Thank you for reading and I hope we can have an honest and serious discussion. _____ > *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 Israel does NOT have a right to exist. I believe Israel does NOT have a right to exist (as any state). I believe the optimal solution, unfortunately probably not the one to be carried out, would be a single Palestinian state, where jews and palestinians could live in peace, with no reminiscence of apartheid. I believe the two-state solution is unfortunately already a product of the advances Israel has developed in the region. It will most certainly deepen the apartheid, segregation, gentrification, racism, etc. Attacks will hardly stop. I believe Israel should be heavily divested from, boycotted, sanctioned, rendered economically unviable by the countries of the world. I believe the jewish people should be welcome anywhere, as any people who do not seek to occupy and colonize, or exploit economically. All jewish people, from 1942 to 2014, should be protected from antisemitism. However, I disagree very strongly with the utilization of the word "antisemitism" to categorize those critical of Israel (as do many jewish people, who, by this logic, are themselves antisemitic). I don't believe the actions of Hamas are of special concern. Whereas I am against war everywhere, I recognize a people's right of self-defense to military occupation and ethnic cleansing. Demagogy aside, nobody likes to experience the death of loved ones. Thank you for reading and I hope we can have an honest and serious discussion.

t3_1ty4gu

I think that censoring profanity with asterisks (f*ck, sh*t, c*nt) is as offensive as spelling out the entire word since it's obvious what you mean. CMV

Ignoring any debate about swearing being offensive or not, I feel that the use of asterisks in this context is nothing but an attempt to appear more refined than those who swear freely. This also applies to the censoring of quotes sometimes found in media where the profanity may be a part of a much more offensive message but only the "bad" words are censored while the message remains obvious for everyone to see. I may even go as far as to say that it's more offensive, since it can be used to get around language filters online. 1 day after edit: My view has been partially changed, specifically in regards to censoring slurs and other offensive language as a way of disapproval. I still don't believe that censoring yourself in this specific fashion during written conversation on forums and such has any merit since the meaning and the tone remains the same (IMO) but I see now how it has a valid use in some situations.

I think that censoring profanity with asterisks (f*ck, sh*t, c*nt) is as offensive as spelling out the entire word since it's obvious what you mean. CMV. Ignoring any debate about swearing being offensive or not, I feel that the use of asterisks in this context is nothing but an attempt to appear more refined than those who swear freely. This also applies to the censoring of quotes sometimes found in media where the profanity may be a part of a much more offensive message but only the "bad" words are censored while the message remains obvious for everyone to see. I may even go as far as to say that it's more offensive, since it can be used to get around language filters online. 1 day after edit: My view has been partially changed, specifically in regards to censoring slurs and other offensive language as a way of disapproval. I still don't believe that censoring yourself in this specific fashion during written conversation on forums and such has any merit since the meaning and the tone remains the same (IMO) but I see now how it has a valid use in some situations.

t3_2cynth

CMV:Obama Can Have Almost No Effect on the Economy

We always hear on the news about "the economy under President _____". In election season, each candidate claims to be able to "fix the economy," and presidents get re-elected just because the economy has improved. However, right now in America we have a Congress who votes based on party lines. Therefore, it is unable to get anything done, so it cannot pass acts which could help create job growth and stimulate the economy. And yet, we choose to blame the president for all this? I believe it is illogical to pin the blame on someone who has tried to talk to Congress, but has fallen on deaf ears. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Obama Can Have Almost No Effect on the Economy. We always hear on the news about "the economy under President _____". In election season, each candidate claims to be able to "fix the economy," and presidents get re-elected just because the economy has improved. However, right now in America we have a Congress who votes based on party lines. Therefore, it is unable to get anything done, so it cannot pass acts which could help create job growth and stimulate the economy. And yet, we choose to blame the president for all this? I believe it is illogical to pin the blame on someone who has tried to talk to Congress, but has fallen on deaf ears.

t3_36gs5s

CMV: I believe there is no moral framework in which it is permissible to eat meat but not to have sex with animals.

Edit: I have offered a delta in this thread, but I would really like more responses, because the one I offered a delta to was for a bit of a pedantic point. Please don't let it dissuade you from answering. Also, the title should read: "there is no *consistent* moral framework". The mere existence of a framework is not a very interesting point to debate. A few things first: I do eat meat, and I don't want have sex with animals. I believe both eating meat and having sex with animals are wrong. I think that the reason that I eat meat despite believing it is wrong is that it's simply what I've been doing my whole life. Okay, so, the best argument I know for it being immoral to have sex with animals is that they are incapable of consent and that therefore sexual behaviour with animals is rape. I cannot imagine that any animal would give its consent to dying just in order to satisfy a person's appetite. Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference between acts of bestiality and some methods of animal husbandry. Consider this how-to on collecting bull semen for the purpose of analysis: http://www.wikihow.com/Collect-Semen-from-a-Bull-for-a-Breeding-Soundness-Exam How can anybody claim that a bull would consent to the insertion of an electric probe into its anus and how is that morally different from a zoophile inserting their penis into a bull's anus? I don't see a justification for either behavior on 'natural' grounds because while I think that both the consumption of meat and the desire to have sex with animals can come about naturally (that is to say, not artificially) there are plenty of things which occur naturally (rape, infanticide, kidnapping) that we all agree are immoral. After giving out three deltas, I think my view on the question as I posed it has been changed. I think if I could go back in time I would probably have said "CMV: If it is immoral to have sex with animals, then it is immoral to eat them" but as far as the existence of consistent moral frameworks justifying one of the behaviours but not the other, I am thoroughly convinced. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe there is no moral framework in which it is permissible to eat meat but not to have sex with animals. Edit: I have offered a delta in this thread, but I would really like more responses, because the one I offered a delta to was for a bit of a pedantic point. Please don't let it dissuade you from answering. Also, the title should read: "there is no *consistent* moral framework". The mere existence of a framework is not a very interesting point to debate. A few things first: I do eat meat, and I don't want have sex with animals. I believe both eating meat and having sex with animals are wrong. I think that the reason that I eat meat despite believing it is wrong is that it's simply what I've been doing my whole life. Okay, so, the best argument I know for it being immoral to have sex with animals is that they are incapable of consent and that therefore sexual behaviour with animals is rape. I cannot imagine that any animal would give its consent to dying just in order to satisfy a person's appetite. Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference between acts of bestiality and some methods of animal husbandry. Consider this how-to on collecting bull semen for the purpose of analysis: http://www.wikihow.com/Collect-Semen-from-a-Bull-for-a-Breeding-Soundness-Exam How can anybody claim that a bull would consent to the insertion of an electric probe into its anus and how is that morally different from a zoophile inserting their penis into a bull's anus? I don't see a justification for either behavior on 'natural' grounds because while I think that both the consumption of meat and the desire to have sex with animals can come about naturally (that is to say, not artificially) there are plenty of things which occur naturally (rape, infanticide, kidnapping) that we all agree are immoral. After giving out three deltas, I think my view on the question as I posed it has been changed. I think if I could go back in time I would probably have said "CMV: If it is immoral to have sex with animals, then it is immoral to eat them" but as far as the existence of consistent moral frameworks justifying one of the behaviours but not the other, I am thoroughly convinced.

t3_552xbv

CMV: Sean Hannity is a hypocrite.

I want to focus on [his interview with Newt Gingrich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3XZfkOrjNg) talking about the debate on Monday. The obvious hypocrisy is this: 1. There's a clear bias favoring Trump throughout the entire video. 2. He blames the "left-wing" media for supporting Clinton. I think this quote from the interview (2:07) summarizes it most precisely: > Hillary Clinton and her many friends in the mainstream media, they're launching an all out assault to falsely paint Donald Trump as sexist and misogynist. But like all their other attempts, this latest one is now falling apart. Invalid arguments that will not change my mind: * Everything Trump says is right, so Hannity has to support him. * The mainstream media and/ or Hillary is hypocritical as well. _____ > *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: Sean Hannity is a hypocrite. I want to focus on [his interview with Newt Gingrich](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3XZfkOrjNg) talking about the debate on Monday. The obvious hypocrisy is this: 1. There's a clear bias favoring Trump throughout the entire video. 2. He blames the "left-wing" media for supporting Clinton. I think this quote from the interview (2:07) summarizes it most precisely: > Hillary Clinton and her many friends in the mainstream media, they're launching an all out assault to falsely paint Donald Trump as sexist and misogynist. But like all their other attempts, this latest one is now falling apart. Invalid arguments that will not change my mind: * Everything Trump says is right, so Hannity has to support him. * The mainstream media and/ or Hillary is hypocritical as well.

t3_1ea2q1

I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW?

CMV*, that is. I'm of the opinion that using alcohol, marijuana, and really all other drugs for recreational purposes is always more detrimental than beneficial. To be more frank, I think that any time someone participates in drug/alcohol usage recreationally, they're making a bad choice. I'd like to get the conversation started so that we can dive into each others' minds on this. And maybe someone can even CMV? Edit: I guess what I'm mainly trying to convey is my belief that focusing on being content in sobriety is of utmost importance, rather than using a drug/drink to get to a 'satisfying' state. Edit 2: Whoa, thank you all for your responses so far.

I don't think there's a good reason for recreational marijuana and alcohol use. I think that you are almost always doing yourself more harm than good by using it. CMW?. CMV*, that is. I'm of the opinion that using alcohol, marijuana, and really all other drugs for recreational purposes is always more detrimental than beneficial. To be more frank, I think that any time someone participates in drug/alcohol usage recreationally, they're making a bad choice. I'd like to get the conversation started so that we can dive into each others' minds on this. And maybe someone can even CMV? Edit: I guess what I'm mainly trying to convey is my belief that focusing on being content in sobriety is of utmost importance, rather than using a drug/drink to get to a 'satisfying' state. Edit 2: Whoa, thank you all for your responses so far.

t3_3cvas1

CMV: The assumption that alien life exists is wildly optimistic

Its pretty common to encounter people, including a decent number of reputable astrophysicists, who believe that the odds of life existing on other planets are so high as to be a near-certainty. These assumptions, as far as I can tell, tend to be based on the size and age of the universe (i.e. huge and old), particularly the number of "earth-like" planets. But its my understanding that in fact knowing exactly how "earth-like" a planet is is pretty difficult, and that many planets listed as "earth-like" may not actually be earth-like in enough of the ways that matter--in other words, just because a planet is roughly earth-sized, roughly the right distance from a sun, and features heavy elements, doesn't actually mean that it in any way is earth-like *enough* to support life. In fact, it is entirely possible that planets which can support life are vanishingly rare, much rarer than most estimates based on "earth-like" planets seem to acknowledge. In addition, the odds that a planet which does meet earth-like criteria actually will develop life are basically totally unknown--anthropic bias and the fact that we literally only have only one model planet to observe makes actually nailing down the odds of abiogenesis on some other, non-earth planet very difficult to estimate. And while it is true that abiogenesis seems to have occured roughly soon after conditions on earth met the necessary preconditions as we understand them, it is also my understanding that as far as we can tell abiogenesis only happened once on earth, with all life on earth ultimately stemming from a common origin. If abiogenesis were really common once the necessary preconditions were met, why hasn't it kept happening? TL;DR I think most estimates of the number of planets which actually meet the necessary conditions for abiogenesis (rather than just being broadly earth-like), and for the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring once conditions have been met, are very possibly way too high, and that it is just as likely if not moreso that both planets which can support life and abiogenesis on such planets are infinitesimally rare. While I would never say with 100% certainty that alien life does not exist, I am unconvinced by those who say it almost certainly does. _____ > *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 assumption that alien life exists is wildly optimistic. Its pretty common to encounter people, including a decent number of reputable astrophysicists, who believe that the odds of life existing on other planets are so high as to be a near-certainty. These assumptions, as far as I can tell, tend to be based on the size and age of the universe (i.e. huge and old), particularly the number of "earth-like" planets. But its my understanding that in fact knowing exactly how "earth-like" a planet is is pretty difficult, and that many planets listed as "earth-like" may not actually be earth-like in enough of the ways that matter--in other words, just because a planet is roughly earth-sized, roughly the right distance from a sun, and features heavy elements, doesn't actually mean that it in any way is earth-like *enough* to support life. In fact, it is entirely possible that planets which can support life are vanishingly rare, much rarer than most estimates based on "earth-like" planets seem to acknowledge. In addition, the odds that a planet which does meet earth-like criteria actually will develop life are basically totally unknown--anthropic bias and the fact that we literally only have only one model planet to observe makes actually nailing down the odds of abiogenesis on some other, non-earth planet very difficult to estimate. And while it is true that abiogenesis seems to have occured roughly soon after conditions on earth met the necessary preconditions as we understand them, it is also my understanding that as far as we can tell abiogenesis only happened once on earth, with all life on earth ultimately stemming from a common origin. If abiogenesis were really common once the necessary preconditions were met, why hasn't it kept happening? TL;DR I think most estimates of the number of planets which actually meet the necessary conditions for abiogenesis (rather than just being broadly earth-like), and for the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring once conditions have been met, are very possibly way too high, and that it is just as likely if not moreso that both planets which can support life and abiogenesis on such planets are infinitesimally rare. While I would never say with 100% certainty that alien life does not exist, I am unconvinced by those who say it almost certainly does.

t3_6vzumd

CMV:The only way to achieve world peace is through a forceful conquering and assimilation of all demographic groups into a singular culture

As sophisticated as we like to believe ourselves to be, we are still slaves to our primal inhibitions. Greed, pride, ego, self righteousness - we cannot escape our basic reptilian instincts. We like to believe in the idea of beauracracy, and perhaps one day we will evolve to that higher consciousness, but as of now force and power are the only true laws of nature. Humanity will never achieve world peace (the permanent end to all wars, disputes and conflicts) until a singular demographic can forcefully conquer and assimilate every other demographic into a singular culture. Until one entity can forcefully exert their will to assimilate every other demographic to act, believe, think, speak and live like them, there will always be conflict between humans and our conflicting interests over earth's limited resources _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:The only way to achieve world peace is through a forceful conquering and assimilation of all demographic groups into a singular culture. As sophisticated as we like to believe ourselves to be, we are still slaves to our primal inhibitions. Greed, pride, ego, self righteousness - we cannot escape our basic reptilian instincts. We like to believe in the idea of beauracracy, and perhaps one day we will evolve to that higher consciousness, but as of now force and power are the only true laws of nature. Humanity will never achieve world peace (the permanent end to all wars, disputes and conflicts) until a singular demographic can forcefully conquer and assimilate every other demographic into a singular culture. Until one entity can forcefully exert their will to assimilate every other demographic to act, believe, think, speak and live like them, there will always be conflict between humans and our conflicting interests over earth's limited resources

t3_23l351

CMV: I don't think excessive or invasive airport security is a bad thing

I think preventing acts of terrorism is far more important than anyone's discomfort about being touched by strangers, or having their bags searched, or being randomly taken aside for questioning, or whatever. It's really that simple. I think it would be stupid to let millions of people board planes everyday without doing everything we can to make sure they're not going to get hijacked. Honestly, although I am less passionate about this, I think their ought to be armed security on board planes to thwart any sort of threats that do make it past security. Basically, I don't think we can be too careful with air travel. CMV. Edit: Okay, excessive was the wrong word. I'm doubt that actually confused anyone, but whatever. Pretend the title says "extensive" or invasive.

CMV: I don't think excessive or invasive airport security is a bad thing. I think preventing acts of terrorism is far more important than anyone's discomfort about being touched by strangers, or having their bags searched, or being randomly taken aside for questioning, or whatever. It's really that simple. I think it would be stupid to let millions of people board planes everyday without doing everything we can to make sure they're not going to get hijacked. Honestly, although I am less passionate about this, I think their ought to be armed security on board planes to thwart any sort of threats that do make it past security. Basically, I don't think we can be too careful with air travel. CMV. Edit: Okay, excessive was the wrong word. I'm doubt that actually confused anyone, but whatever. Pretend the title says "extensive" or invasive.

t3_3tg2ll

CMV: The Splain Is Real — while the words are sometimes used unfairly, the idea behind the words "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" is sound. Correctly used, they describe a subtype of argument from ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are not ad hominems.

When correctly used, "'splaining" refers to a specific type of logical fallacy, _argument from ignorance_, and thus ought to be considered legitimate in debate. When one splains one makes an unsubstantiated truth claim in an area which they have no authority in. How can a man know the experience of being a woman walking down the street? Even the most open minded and considerate man can not. He can listen to women who tell him, and imagine that he knows what it's like, but he can never know what it is like anymore than I can know what it's like to be you. So when a man tells a woman that their experience in walking down the street is parallel, and believes this because of his lack of experience and insight into her experience, this is the logical fallacy which is informally known as splaining. It is a subtype of argument from ignorance, _argumentum ad ignorantiam_. Mansplaining and whitesplaining are terms which are used to describe unsubstantiated claims about the experiences of sexism and racism when those claims are made by people who are not familiar with institutionalized (and often subconscious) sexism and racism in the ways which women and people of color are due to being subjected to them on a regular basis. >One looks in the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos and then uses this negative/null adult-sized kangaroo detection results in conjunction with the previously determined fact (or just plain old proposition) that adult-sized kangaroos, if present, cannot evade such detection, to deduce a new fact that there are indeed no adult-sized kangaroos present in the back seat of said car. >The second fact/proposition seems obvious, but without it, one still could not determine a "certain", i.e. 100% result. Because, after all, even after one has inspected his backseat and finding no kangaroos there, there still remains the possibility that e.g. a spacetime-faring alien/traveller from the future sits there whose society has, apart from mastering spacetime travel, a) invented an advanced cloaking device and b) keeps pet kangaroos and likes to bring them along on trips through spacetime Of course some things, while unseen (for whatever reason) to many, remain far more likely than spacetime traveling invisibility cloaked adult-sized kangaroos. To deny that there are individual experiences which are more and less likely to make one aware of certain phenomena would also be a good example of splaining, which is, put simply, a false presumption made for lack of better information and argued from as if it were fact. TL;DR: What splaining does, which is intellectually dishonest, is shift the burden of proof. In debate, unsubstantiated claims are worthless. Describing an opponents argument as splaining is a way of identifying a specific type of unsubstantiated claim and as such it is both applicable in debate and not an ad hominem. edit: where I use splaining here I do not mean to refer to the popular broader definition of "mansplaining" which includes basically all bullsh!tting that men sometimes do. I am referring rather to the more specific phenomena that occurs in discussions about inequality in which one party describes the experience of a group to which they do not belong. Thanks, /u/gnosticgnome, for bringing that to my attention. Edit2: power outage, will reply to comments later.

CMV: The Splain Is Real — while the words are sometimes used unfairly, the idea behind the words "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" is sound. Correctly used, they describe a subtype of argument from ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and are not ad hominems. When correctly used, "'splaining" refers to a specific type of logical fallacy, _argument from ignorance_, and thus ought to be considered legitimate in debate. When one splains one makes an unsubstantiated truth claim in an area which they have no authority in. How can a man know the experience of being a woman walking down the street? Even the most open minded and considerate man can not. He can listen to women who tell him, and imagine that he knows what it's like, but he can never know what it is like anymore than I can know what it's like to be you. So when a man tells a woman that their experience in walking down the street is parallel, and believes this because of his lack of experience and insight into her experience, this is the logical fallacy which is informally known as splaining. It is a subtype of argument from ignorance, _argumentum ad ignorantiam_. Mansplaining and whitesplaining are terms which are used to describe unsubstantiated claims about the experiences of sexism and racism when those claims are made by people who are not familiar with institutionalized (and often subconscious) sexism and racism in the ways which women and people of color are due to being subjected to them on a regular basis. >One looks in the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos and then uses this negative/null adult-sized kangaroo detection results in conjunction with the previously determined fact (or just plain old proposition) that adult-sized kangaroos, if present, cannot evade such detection, to deduce a new fact that there are indeed no adult-sized kangaroos present in the back seat of said car. >The second fact/proposition seems obvious, but without it, one still could not determine a "certain", i.e. 100% result. Because, after all, even after one has inspected his backseat and finding no kangaroos there, there still remains the possibility that e.g. a spacetime-faring alien/traveller from the future sits there whose society has, apart from mastering spacetime travel, a) invented an advanced cloaking device and b) keeps pet kangaroos and likes to bring them along on trips through spacetime Of course some things, while unseen (for whatever reason) to many, remain far more likely than spacetime traveling invisibility cloaked adult-sized kangaroos. To deny that there are individual experiences which are more and less likely to make one aware of certain phenomena would also be a good example of splaining, which is, put simply, a false presumption made for lack of better information and argued from as if it were fact. TL;DR: What splaining does, which is intellectually dishonest, is shift the burden of proof. In debate, unsubstantiated claims are worthless. Describing an opponents argument as splaining is a way of identifying a specific type of unsubstantiated claim and as such it is both applicable in debate and not an ad hominem. edit: where I use splaining here I do not mean to refer to the popular broader definition of "mansplaining" which includes basically all bullsh!tting that men sometimes do. I am referring rather to the more specific phenomena that occurs in discussions about inequality in which one party describes the experience of a group to which they do not belong. Thanks, /u/gnosticgnome, for bringing that to my attention. Edit2: power outage, will reply to comments later.

t3_1zi4h5

I believe single-gender classrooms would harm the quality of education in America. CMV

I believe this because: 1. Title IX = no discrimination SS classrooms ---> different learning outcomes/inequality ---> inequality=discrimination Brown v. Board of Education, “separate is inherently unequal” 2. Overall analysis of 184 studies including 1.6 million students around the world shows no significant difference Florida study shows coed classrooms catch up to SS when similar strategies are utilized ---> SS takes money from more effective initiatives 3. Single Sex Education reinforces that women can’t be the peers of men Heteronormativity/Social Inhibitions “A boy who has never been beaten by a girl on an algebra test could have major problems having a female supervisor” Educational philosophy that emphasizes gender difference creates gender difference. Complaints filed by ACLU, “male students sit on bouncy balls...girls are reprimanded for speaking out of turn” Only 14% of Americans definitely would consider putting their kids in single-gender classrooms 4. SS Education harms transgender Students Bad Socialization — Single-gender classes prevent students from learning basic social skills fostered by interacting with the opposite sex Cost — Single-gender classrooms, curricula development, and oversight overhead will strain and drain already scarce school resources Gender Stereotypes — lumping male and female students into undifferentiated masses reinforces gender stereotypes by assuming all males and all females act the same Heteronormativity — Single-gender classrooms rely on a presumption of heterosexuality that sends discriminatory, harmful messages to LGBTQ students about their sexual orientation

I believe single-gender classrooms would harm the quality of education in America. CMV. I believe this because: 1. Title IX = no discrimination SS classrooms ---> different learning outcomes/inequality ---> inequality=discrimination Brown v. Board of Education, “separate is inherently unequal” 2. Overall analysis of 184 studies including 1.6 million students around the world shows no significant difference Florida study shows coed classrooms catch up to SS when similar strategies are utilized ---> SS takes money from more effective initiatives 3. Single Sex Education reinforces that women can’t be the peers of men Heteronormativity/Social Inhibitions “A boy who has never been beaten by a girl on an algebra test could have major problems having a female supervisor” Educational philosophy that emphasizes gender difference creates gender difference. Complaints filed by ACLU, “male students sit on bouncy balls...girls are reprimanded for speaking out of turn” Only 14% of Americans definitely would consider putting their kids in single-gender classrooms 4. SS Education harms transgender Students Bad Socialization — Single-gender classes prevent students from learning basic social skills fostered by interacting with the opposite sex Cost — Single-gender classrooms, curricula development, and oversight overhead will strain and drain already scarce school resources Gender Stereotypes — lumping male and female students into undifferentiated masses reinforces gender stereotypes by assuming all males and all females act the same Heteronormativity — Single-gender classrooms rely on a presumption of heterosexuality that sends discriminatory, harmful messages to LGBTQ students about their sexual orientation

t3_2igtfr

CMV: Countries with Universal Healthcare fail to produce new vaccines, new medicines, new treatments, and are therefore inferior to the financially corrupt Privatized Healthcare System.

I don't think there's much contention that the privatized healthcare system of the United States frequently leaves people broken and without the care necessary to survive. It is heartless and bureaucratic, and frequently justifies the venom Reddit stores for it. But with Ebola, H1N1, rabies, and outbreaks of the past, I can't recall ever seeing another country with universal healthcare establish the necessary treatment plan and large scale manufacturing of medication to control the problem. YES I completely agree that million dollar medical bills for necessary procedures are outrageous, YES I completely understand that the birth of my own daughter shouldn't have to cost thousands of dollars ... but as corrupt as the financial side of privatized healthcare is, can't it be justified by the unmitigated success of their production? **tl;dr Self interest will always, always, ALWAYS yield more R&D and in the case of diseases where people die, does that not at least assuage SOME of the villainy that always gets draped over privatized healthcare? CMV**

CMV: Countries with Universal Healthcare fail to produce new vaccines, new medicines, new treatments, and are therefore inferior to the financially corrupt Privatized Healthcare System. I don't think there's much contention that the privatized healthcare system of the United States frequently leaves people broken and without the care necessary to survive. It is heartless and bureaucratic, and frequently justifies the venom Reddit stores for it. But with Ebola, H1N1, rabies, and outbreaks of the past, I can't recall ever seeing another country with universal healthcare establish the necessary treatment plan and large scale manufacturing of medication to control the problem. YES I completely agree that million dollar medical bills for necessary procedures are outrageous, YES I completely understand that the birth of my own daughter shouldn't have to cost thousands of dollars ... but as corrupt as the financial side of privatized healthcare is, can't it be justified by the unmitigated success of their production? **tl;dr Self interest will always, always, ALWAYS yield more R&D and in the case of diseases where people die, does that not at least assuage SOME of the villainy that always gets draped over privatized healthcare? CMV**

t3_2xvuty

CMV: The specific defenitions used for 'assault weapons' in laws that ban them are overly broad.

I think that laws that ban 'assault weapons' (especially rifles) are too liberal with what constitutes a dangerous feature. Using NY state's assault weapon ban as an example, an assault weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that has any of the following 'military' features: 1. Folding or telescoping stock 2. Protruding pistol grip 3. Thumbhole stock 4. Second protruding handgrip 5. Bayonet mount 6. Flash supressor 7. Muzzle brake 8. Threaded barrel designed to accomodate the above, or 9. Grenade launcher -------------------------------------- Here's where I feel the law is overly broad: 1. You want to ban folding stocks, okay fine (even though pistols are still legal, so...moot point?) But why ban telescoping stocks? According to federal law, a rifle with a telescoping stock still has to be over a certain minimal length (26"). So if it's legal to have a rifle be 26" long, why is it more dangerous/illegal to have one that can adjust between 30" and 26"? 2. Even though I feel this one is silly, I've seen the arguments that says this makes the rifle more controllable for a bad guy... so we'll let this one go. Even though the real impact is that you have to throw away the grip that comes stock with a rifle and buy a special one for ~$50 or so to replace it. 3. See above. 4. See above. 5. Does adding a knife to a rifle make it even deadlier? If a rifle lacks a bayonet lug, wouldn't duct taping a bowie knife to the end be just as effective? True it wouldn't hold up over the long term, but it would be just fine to kill a few people at least, which is what this law is designed to prevent. 6. Do bad guys shoot rifles in the dark from a concealed position often, or at all? Is this a problem; why ban this? 7. This can allow for faster follow up shots when shooting quickly, so, okay, fine. 8. On first glance this is okay, but in the real world many barrels come pre-threaded, and you have to pay a gunsmith ~$50 to permanently weld a cap on the threads. 9. Sure, why not. Grenades are already banned, but why not make it illegal twice? ------------------- So, to summarize: I feel that including telescoping stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet mounts in 'assault weapon' bans has little point.

CMV: The specific defenitions used for 'assault weapons' in laws that ban them are overly broad. I think that laws that ban 'assault weapons' (especially rifles) are too liberal with what constitutes a dangerous feature. Using NY state's assault weapon ban as an example, an assault weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that has any of the following 'military' features: 1. Folding or telescoping stock 2. Protruding pistol grip 3. Thumbhole stock 4. Second protruding handgrip 5. Bayonet mount 6. Flash supressor 7. Muzzle brake 8. Threaded barrel designed to accomodate the above, or 9. Grenade launcher -------------------------------------- Here's where I feel the law is overly broad: 1. You want to ban folding stocks, okay fine (even though pistols are still legal, so...moot point?) But why ban telescoping stocks? According to federal law, a rifle with a telescoping stock still has to be over a certain minimal length (26"). So if it's legal to have a rifle be 26" long, why is it more dangerous/illegal to have one that can adjust between 30" and 26"? 2. Even though I feel this one is silly, I've seen the arguments that says this makes the rifle more controllable for a bad guy... so we'll let this one go. Even though the real impact is that you have to throw away the grip that comes stock with a rifle and buy a special one for ~$50 or so to replace it. 3. See above. 4. See above. 5. Does adding a knife to a rifle make it even deadlier? If a rifle lacks a bayonet lug, wouldn't duct taping a bowie knife to the end be just as effective? True it wouldn't hold up over the long term, but it would be just fine to kill a few people at least, which is what this law is designed to prevent. 6. Do bad guys shoot rifles in the dark from a concealed position often, or at all? Is this a problem; why ban this? 7. This can allow for faster follow up shots when shooting quickly, so, okay, fine. 8. On first glance this is okay, but in the real world many barrels come pre-threaded, and you have to pay a gunsmith ~$50 to permanently weld a cap on the threads. 9. Sure, why not. Grenades are already banned, but why not make it illegal twice? ------------------- So, to summarize: I feel that including telescoping stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet mounts in 'assault weapon' bans has little point.

t3_2045vl

I think there's nothing inherently wrong with certain sexual taboos, such as pedophilia and incest. CMV

Most people define 'pedophilia' as having sex with legally underage persons. Personally I don't think sex with minors is morally bad as long as the minor completely has sufficient knowledge of sexual acts and understands the full consequences of sex and consents to it. I believe being able to consent depends on the state of mind, which could come at 18 or 16 or 14 or even 12, I don't believe people magically know everything there is about sex and it's consequences as soon as the sun circles them 18 times. And I don't believe incest is inherently wrong either. There's nothing wrong with family members having romantic or sexual relationships with each other as long as they consent to the relationship and sexual acts. I often hear people talking about power dynamics or whatever, that it's not okay because the parents have significant influence and power over their sons/daughters, but then again so do a lot of relationship these days; most traditional marriages have the man being the breadwinner and dominant member of the relationship. Also inbreeding can easily be solved with contraceptives as well as abortive procedures. Btw I'm neither interested in fucking any kids or my family members. This is just an opinion that has been going around in my head for a long time and don't find any fault to it.

I think there's nothing inherently wrong with certain sexual taboos, such as pedophilia and incest. CMV. Most people define 'pedophilia' as having sex with legally underage persons. Personally I don't think sex with minors is morally bad as long as the minor completely has sufficient knowledge of sexual acts and understands the full consequences of sex and consents to it. I believe being able to consent depends on the state of mind, which could come at 18 or 16 or 14 or even 12, I don't believe people magically know everything there is about sex and it's consequences as soon as the sun circles them 18 times. And I don't believe incest is inherently wrong either. There's nothing wrong with family members having romantic or sexual relationships with each other as long as they consent to the relationship and sexual acts. I often hear people talking about power dynamics or whatever, that it's not okay because the parents have significant influence and power over their sons/daughters, but then again so do a lot of relationship these days; most traditional marriages have the man being the breadwinner and dominant member of the relationship. Also inbreeding can easily be solved with contraceptives as well as abortive procedures. Btw I'm neither interested in fucking any kids or my family members. This is just an opinion that has been going around in my head for a long time and don't find any fault to it.

t3_2disc7

CMV: Joint custody arrangements are unhealthy for the children and selfish of the parents.

I understand that its good for children to see both of their parents. But, speaking from personal experience, there's no way they should be expected to pack always up and move back and forth every week or two, or whatever the parents/court decides. Having a place to settle down is important. One room to decorate, keep your things in, call home. Or retreat to when you need to get away. As a child I never had that, I was living in a different place every week. Both rooms had bare walls and random clothes everywhere because I didn't have one place to designate for things. At the time I just went with it... but as I grew older I finally realized this: I wasn't going back and forth so *I* could see both my parents, it was because my parents were selfish and wanted to maximize their time with me. It would have been a much healthier childhood if I lived with one parent and visited the other on weekends, etc. I think this remains true with all joint custodies, so if you disagree try and convince me. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Joint custody arrangements are unhealthy for the children and selfish of the parents. I understand that its good for children to see both of their parents. But, speaking from personal experience, there's no way they should be expected to pack always up and move back and forth every week or two, or whatever the parents/court decides. Having a place to settle down is important. One room to decorate, keep your things in, call home. Or retreat to when you need to get away. As a child I never had that, I was living in a different place every week. Both rooms had bare walls and random clothes everywhere because I didn't have one place to designate for things. At the time I just went with it... but as I grew older I finally realized this: I wasn't going back and forth so *I* could see both my parents, it was because my parents were selfish and wanted to maximize their time with me. It would have been a much healthier childhood if I lived with one parent and visited the other on weekends, etc. I think this remains true with all joint custodies, so if you disagree try and convince me.

t3_1j1u5b

I think referring to large numbers of black people as the "black community" is racist. CMV

I have yet to hear people refer to white people as the "white community." Why? Because just like black people, we're not some collective group that thinks the same way on everything. We're all individuals, and I think the same is true of any racial group, including black people. Not all issues facing individual black people are problems that are facing the "black community." Here's an example of what I mean. [In this article, Sheryll Cashin states:](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41810267/ns/us_news-life/) “You have a choice of whether you are willing to be around your people or go 180 degrees in the other direction,” she says. “To the higher income black people, if you don’t want to love and help your lower-income black brethren, why would you expect white people to? If you can’t do it, no one in society can do it. You can try to flee or you can be part of the solution.” Interesting, because [Sheryll Cashin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryll_D._Cashin) is a law professor at Georgetown instead of being a professor at a predominantly black college, and (most likely) does not live in a poor neighborhood of Washington D.C. Looks like she fled, and is now asking *other people* to be 'part of the solution' instead of doing it herself. Where's the criticism on her for leaving her "black brethren" behind? (Note: [I did find this article that criticized Sheryll's statement](http://www.whataboutourdaughters.com/waod/2011/3/2/georgetown-professor-sheryll-cashin-tells-middle-class-black.html)) Why should a black family that's 'made it,' stick around in a poor neighborhood? You'll never hear an author ridicule white people for moving out of a trailer park as "abandoning their white brethren." It's not as if all white people are rich, there's still plenty of poor white people throughout the country. So why does one ideal exist for one group and not for another? Why should black people be made to feel guilty for becoming successful and moving out of poor areas? That kind of went off on a tangent specific to Sheryll Cashin, and while I think what she said was bullshit, I'd still like to stick to the main point of referring to black people as the "black community." I think it's racist to treat black people as part of one monolithic group, instead of as individuals. So, CMV? Edit: You've given me a lot to think about. I'll be back in a few hours to discuss it more. Thank you :-)

I think referring to large numbers of black people as the "black community" is racist. CMV. I have yet to hear people refer to white people as the "white community." Why? Because just like black people, we're not some collective group that thinks the same way on everything. We're all individuals, and I think the same is true of any racial group, including black people. Not all issues facing individual black people are problems that are facing the "black community." Here's an example of what I mean. [In this article, Sheryll Cashin states:](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41810267/ns/us_news-life/) “You have a choice of whether you are willing to be around your people or go 180 degrees in the other direction,” she says. “To the higher income black people, if you don’t want to love and help your lower-income black brethren, why would you expect white people to? If you can’t do it, no one in society can do it. You can try to flee or you can be part of the solution.” Interesting, because [Sheryll Cashin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryll_D._Cashin) is a law professor at Georgetown instead of being a professor at a predominantly black college, and (most likely) does not live in a poor neighborhood of Washington D.C. Looks like she fled, and is now asking *other people* to be 'part of the solution' instead of doing it herself. Where's the criticism on her for leaving her "black brethren" behind? (Note: [I did find this article that criticized Sheryll's statement](http://www.whataboutourdaughters.com/waod/2011/3/2/georgetown-professor-sheryll-cashin-tells-middle-class-black.html)) Why should a black family that's 'made it,' stick around in a poor neighborhood? You'll never hear an author ridicule white people for moving out of a trailer park as "abandoning their white brethren." It's not as if all white people are rich, there's still plenty of poor white people throughout the country. So why does one ideal exist for one group and not for another? Why should black people be made to feel guilty for becoming successful and moving out of poor areas? That kind of went off on a tangent specific to Sheryll Cashin, and while I think what she said was bullshit, I'd still like to stick to the main point of referring to black people as the "black community." I think it's racist to treat black people as part of one monolithic group, instead of as individuals. So, CMV? Edit: You've given me a lot to think about. I'll be back in a few hours to discuss it more. Thank you :-)

t3_2b17wh

CMV: I describe everything distastefully feminine as "gay"

I've come around on my view of gay people. They're not the irritating stereotypes paraded around in the media. I quit using the word fag to describe somebody as irrationally sensitive, since "Bitch" or "Pussy" works just as well. But I haven't found a good replacement for gay, as in "MTV is gay" or "That Honda Leaf looks fucking gay" to describe an aesthetic. It's not strictly an aesthetic problem either. There's also the every day rule crazy soccer mom fascism. Shit like seat belt/helmet laws and public drinking/smoking bans are pretty fucking "gay". Somebody being charged as a sex offender for pissing on a bush is awful gay. Some times I have to say "I can't go to that town because it's too fucking gay". The mandatory 500 character rule around here is mighty gay as well. I can't say ugly or dumb, because it wouldn't be the correct or intuitive description. If there is a better word to match the description I'm open to changing my view.

CMV: I describe everything distastefully feminine as "gay". I've come around on my view of gay people. They're not the irritating stereotypes paraded around in the media. I quit using the word fag to describe somebody as irrationally sensitive, since "Bitch" or "Pussy" works just as well. But I haven't found a good replacement for gay, as in "MTV is gay" or "That Honda Leaf looks fucking gay" to describe an aesthetic. It's not strictly an aesthetic problem either. There's also the every day rule crazy soccer mom fascism. Shit like seat belt/helmet laws and public drinking/smoking bans are pretty fucking "gay". Somebody being charged as a sex offender for pissing on a bush is awful gay. Some times I have to say "I can't go to that town because it's too fucking gay". The mandatory 500 character rule around here is mighty gay as well. I can't say ugly or dumb, because it wouldn't be the correct or intuitive description. If there is a better word to match the description I'm open to changing my view.

t3_5ukf8c

CMV: There is no such thing as systemic racism in the United States. The media pushes race issues but fails to talk about how Asian Americans are doing the best.

There is definitely very strong class warfare going on. But race has nothing to do with it. It's the haves vs the have nots. If your rich it doesn't matter if you are black, Hispanic, white, Asian, etc. and the reverse is true. If your poor and lack education and resources in general it doesn't matter your race, your stuck in the system same as any other person. Liberal media is constantly pushing racism and I think it is just a tool they use. While I'm not denying racism exists, I just think you could only ever point to individual acts of racism and not actual institutional racism. But the media is trying to cram it down our throats to keep us divided. They also conveniently forget to mention the fact that Asian Americans are by far doing better then white people in the US.

CMV: There is no such thing as systemic racism in the United States. The media pushes race issues but fails to talk about how Asian Americans are doing the best. There is definitely very strong class warfare going on. But race has nothing to do with it. It's the haves vs the have nots. If your rich it doesn't matter if you are black, Hispanic, white, Asian, etc. and the reverse is true. If your poor and lack education and resources in general it doesn't matter your race, your stuck in the system same as any other person. Liberal media is constantly pushing racism and I think it is just a tool they use. While I'm not denying racism exists, I just think you could only ever point to individual acts of racism and not actual institutional racism. But the media is trying to cram it down our throats to keep us divided. They also conveniently forget to mention the fact that Asian Americans are by far doing better then white people in the US.

t3_1xnyia

I think Republicans' focus on the Benghazi attack is nothing more than a two-fer attempt to tar Obama and Hillary Clinton with a "scandal." CMV

I'm a pretty "high-information" voter and, though I lean left, I'm no Obama shill, and not a Hillary fan at all. Yet I've been reading about Benghazi for more than a year now, and I still don't even understand what it is that conservatives are alleging. I've read a few variations of the following: a) **Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack/blamed it on a video when he knew it was an al-Qaida plot all along.** Because...why? Admitting terrorists were behind it (as opposed to random assholes) would hurt his re-election chances? This isn't a plausible motive to me. How many people would've really changed their votes over something that happened in Libya? In an election that was all about the economy? And considering that Obama/Hillary helped topple Gadaffi and liberate Libya six months earlier without a single American dying? What's the point of lying and obfuscating about it? Isn't it more likely they were simply reacting to bad information in real time? b) **Obama and Hillary are hiding the facts about their prior knowledge/incompetent response that resulted in unnecessary and preventable deaths.** I would agree that this would be a scandal if proven, but many inquiries have been conducted by Congress, the media and the State Dept., and none have found any evidence that this is true. In fact, "60 Minutes" had to take the highly unusual and embarrassing step of retracting a story that alleged this. Yet conservatives remain *absolutely convinced* that there's something being hidden from the public. What is being hidden, and why? I'd really like to know what the point of this so-called conspiracy is. c) **Obama wanted Americans to die because he's a secret Muslim and al-Qaida supporter.** This is what I think about 33% of Benghazi obsessives actually believe, and this is what scummy right-wing pundits and politicians are darkly hinting at on talk radio and beyond. (You honestly can't CMV on this one) I think Benghazi was a tragic fuck-up and I'm glad people got fired and publicly shamed for it. However, it's not a scandal, and conservatives need to move on. CMV.

I think Republicans' focus on the Benghazi attack is nothing more than a two-fer attempt to tar Obama and Hillary Clinton with a "scandal." CMV. I'm a pretty "high-information" voter and, though I lean left, I'm no Obama shill, and not a Hillary fan at all. Yet I've been reading about Benghazi for more than a year now, and I still don't even understand what it is that conservatives are alleging. I've read a few variations of the following: a) **Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack/blamed it on a video when he knew it was an al-Qaida plot all along.** Because...why? Admitting terrorists were behind it (as opposed to random assholes) would hurt his re-election chances? This isn't a plausible motive to me. How many people would've really changed their votes over something that happened in Libya? In an election that was all about the economy? And considering that Obama/Hillary helped topple Gadaffi and liberate Libya six months earlier without a single American dying? What's the point of lying and obfuscating about it? Isn't it more likely they were simply reacting to bad information in real time? b) **Obama and Hillary are hiding the facts about their prior knowledge/incompetent response that resulted in unnecessary and preventable deaths.** I would agree that this would be a scandal if proven, but many inquiries have been conducted by Congress, the media and the State Dept., and none have found any evidence that this is true. In fact, "60 Minutes" had to take the highly unusual and embarrassing step of retracting a story that alleged this. Yet conservatives remain *absolutely convinced* that there's something being hidden from the public. What is being hidden, and why? I'd really like to know what the point of this so-called conspiracy is. c) **Obama wanted Americans to die because he's a secret Muslim and al-Qaida supporter.** This is what I think about 33% of Benghazi obsessives actually believe, and this is what scummy right-wing pundits and politicians are darkly hinting at on talk radio and beyond. (You honestly can't CMV on this one) I think Benghazi was a tragic fuck-up and I'm glad people got fired and publicly shamed for it. However, it's not a scandal, and conservatives need to move on. CMV.

t3_2wtckq

CMV: There is no good reason for a store to ban the concealed carry of firearms unless they have their own armed security (USA)

I believe that there is no good reason for stores to ban the concealed carry of firearms. My thinking boils down to one simple premise: Criminals ignore signs. By banning guns in your store, only criminals will have guns in your store. I specified concealed carry because I think it is reasonable to ban open carry. Some people are scared of seeing guns and you don't want to scare away customers. If a store has their own armed security (usually paired with metal detectors), I can see good reasons for this rule. For example, in the event of an incident, the security team will be able to sort out good/bad people more quickly. I specified "USA" because gun laws and culture vary widely between countries (although the basic argument holds true other places). In the USA, many law-abiding citizens own and legally carry firearms. Examples include Ikea, Target, and Whole Foods. These places do not seem to have armed security but they have a little sign on the door that says "gun free zone". I do not understand the purpose of this policy (other than PR). CMV! Edit: I want to emphasize a point that I barely touched on originally. I know that some stores do this for PR to look good. I am looking for even one good reason from a *safety/security* perspective to ban firearms. Edit 2: A couple great points have been made. The first is that even good people are prone to get in altercations. By banning guns, those altercations inside the store will almost always be non-lethal instead of lethal. The second point is that people with a concealed firearm may feel compelled to try to stop a robbery and the store would rather simply hand over the money. ∆ If there are other reasons, I would love to hear them. _____ > *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 no good reason for a store to ban the concealed carry of firearms unless they have their own armed security (USA). I believe that there is no good reason for stores to ban the concealed carry of firearms. My thinking boils down to one simple premise: Criminals ignore signs. By banning guns in your store, only criminals will have guns in your store. I specified concealed carry because I think it is reasonable to ban open carry. Some people are scared of seeing guns and you don't want to scare away customers. If a store has their own armed security (usually paired with metal detectors), I can see good reasons for this rule. For example, in the event of an incident, the security team will be able to sort out good/bad people more quickly. I specified "USA" because gun laws and culture vary widely between countries (although the basic argument holds true other places). In the USA, many law-abiding citizens own and legally carry firearms. Examples include Ikea, Target, and Whole Foods. These places do not seem to have armed security but they have a little sign on the door that says "gun free zone". I do not understand the purpose of this policy (other than PR). CMV! Edit: I want to emphasize a point that I barely touched on originally. I know that some stores do this for PR to look good. I am looking for even one good reason from a *safety/security* perspective to ban firearms. Edit 2: A couple great points have been made. The first is that even good people are prone to get in altercations. By banning guns, those altercations inside the store will almost always be non-lethal instead of lethal. The second point is that people with a concealed firearm may feel compelled to try to stop a robbery and the store would rather simply hand over the money. ∆ If there are other reasons, I would love to hear them.

t3_4bsn9p

CMV: Society should be more understanding about adultery.

Estimates for adultery in heterosexual relationships (both married and unmarried) can range from 30 percent to 80 percent if you examine STD transmission charts. Regardless of which statistics you buy into, one undeniable fact emerges: adultery is exceptionally common for both women and men. In light of the common nature of such statistics, I find it bizarre when people excessively denigrate others for cheating on their SO. Society is being a little obtuse on purpose with the subject. I'm not saying we should celebrate adultery or suggest it's no big deal in relationships. It certainly is a big deal, and the adulterer has had a moral failing to be sure. But the very common nature of adultery would also suggest it is a common moral failing. That fact would seem to limit the extrapolation we could make about a person in addition to this one situation. The person is not awful, though they did something awful. They can be judged, but only so far in light of its common nature. To head off the sure assumption, I have never cheated on my wife and this is not about guilt aleviation. I also recognize different people have the right to set different thresholds for what are acceptable in their own relationships and condemn accordingly. I'm speaking on a societal level. The cheating woman is not a whore that should be fired from her job as a kindergarten teacher because of her low morals. She made/is making a common moral mistake in one area of her life that may have dramatic consequences for her and her SO. That says nothing about her in other areas of life or her moral character overall. Given the complex nature of why adultery happens and the contexts in which it arise, the common nature of adultery would seem to limit the kind of character assumptions we could make about an adulterer. Sure we could make some, but they wouldn't tell us much about the person past one or two things. Further, extreme judgements from society given adultery's common status would say much more about society and how it deals with uncomfortable truths. I am prepared for your indignation.

CMV: Society should be more understanding about adultery. Estimates for adultery in heterosexual relationships (both married and unmarried) can range from 30 percent to 80 percent if you examine STD transmission charts. Regardless of which statistics you buy into, one undeniable fact emerges: adultery is exceptionally common for both women and men. In light of the common nature of such statistics, I find it bizarre when people excessively denigrate others for cheating on their SO. Society is being a little obtuse on purpose with the subject. I'm not saying we should celebrate adultery or suggest it's no big deal in relationships. It certainly is a big deal, and the adulterer has had a moral failing to be sure. But the very common nature of adultery would also suggest it is a common moral failing. That fact would seem to limit the extrapolation we could make about a person in addition to this one situation. The person is not awful, though they did something awful. They can be judged, but only so far in light of its common nature. To head off the sure assumption, I have never cheated on my wife and this is not about guilt aleviation. I also recognize different people have the right to set different thresholds for what are acceptable in their own relationships and condemn accordingly. I'm speaking on a societal level. The cheating woman is not a whore that should be fired from her job as a kindergarten teacher because of her low morals. She made/is making a common moral mistake in one area of her life that may have dramatic consequences for her and her SO. That says nothing about her in other areas of life or her moral character overall. Given the complex nature of why adultery happens and the contexts in which it arise, the common nature of adultery would seem to limit the kind of character assumptions we could make about an adulterer. Sure we could make some, but they wouldn't tell us much about the person past one or two things. Further, extreme judgements from society given adultery's common status would say much more about society and how it deals with uncomfortable truths. I am prepared for your indignation.

t3_2w4hle

CMV:I think the movie Interstellar would have been much better without a villain

I very much enjoyed the move Interstellar when I saw it last weekend. However, [Spoilers. Duh,] When Dr. Mann tried to kill the main character the movie sort of lost traction. The professor wasn't and issue because he wasn't being selfish except for that he wanted to save his daughter (which is kind of selfish). But Dr. Mann is evil because he had no reason to kill cooper because they wouldn't have killed him. But the main reason this movie didn't need a villain is that every movie has a villain or a bad guy to blame all of the issues on. This movie was based on the fact humans fucked up and now we are dealing with it. Human causes problem now human fixes it not a specific human but humans in general. I am sorry if this kind of jumps from point to point but I am 13 not a very good writer but I didn't see anyone discussing this so after talking to my dad about the subject I decided to put our rambling here. *Edit:1* I realize now that humans did not cause the crops to die _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I think the movie Interstellar would have been much better without a villain. I very much enjoyed the move Interstellar when I saw it last weekend. However, [Spoilers. Duh,] When Dr. Mann tried to kill the main character the movie sort of lost traction. The professor wasn't and issue because he wasn't being selfish except for that he wanted to save his daughter (which is kind of selfish). But Dr. Mann is evil because he had no reason to kill cooper because they wouldn't have killed him. But the main reason this movie didn't need a villain is that every movie has a villain or a bad guy to blame all of the issues on. This movie was based on the fact humans fucked up and now we are dealing with it. Human causes problem now human fixes it not a specific human but humans in general. I am sorry if this kind of jumps from point to point but I am 13 not a very good writer but I didn't see anyone discussing this so after talking to my dad about the subject I decided to put our rambling here. *Edit:1* I realize now that humans did not cause the crops to die

t3_4lyxlc

CMV: Most "non-traditional" sexualities are more like personality traits than actual sexualities

When I say "non-traditional", I mean anything that isn't heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and I guess pansexuality since it's basically the same thing as bisexuality (I hope no pansexuals jump down my throat for saying that, but you get where I'm coming from.) So, what I'm referring to are things like "demisexuality", "platoniromantic", "grey-asexuality" and such things. For those who don't know, demisexuality is apparently when someone is only sexually interested in someone after they have a connection with them, while someone that's platoniromantic doesn't feel any difference between romantic and platonic relationships, and someone that's grey-asexual sometimes isn't sexually attracted to anyone and sometimes is. All these sorts of "sexualities" don't really seem to fit the bill for me as far as what a sexuality is supposed to describe. For one thing, they almost require being paired with another, "normal", sexuality to describe what gender a person would be interested in. More than that, what's the difference between any of those and just dating preferences? Sometimes I feel less sexually attracted to people in general than I do at other times. Does that make me a "grey-asexual"? Would most people be "grey-asexuals" under that definition? And how is a "platoniromantic" any different than just an incredibly horny person? These are all rhetorical questions, obviously, but I'm just trying to get across that none of these "oddball" sexual orientations seem like they describe anything we usually expect a "sexuality" to describe. It'd be like making a sexuality for people that need to eat before having sex. Is that a sexuality, or would it just be a weirdly hungry guy? I'm not so convinced that it would be the former, but I feel like that puts me at odds with the academics that study this stuff, so I'd like to know where the flaws are in my thinking if there are any. > *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: Most "non-traditional" sexualities are more like personality traits than actual sexualities. When I say "non-traditional", I mean anything that isn't heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and I guess pansexuality since it's basically the same thing as bisexuality (I hope no pansexuals jump down my throat for saying that, but you get where I'm coming from.) So, what I'm referring to are things like "demisexuality", "platoniromantic", "grey-asexuality" and such things. For those who don't know, demisexuality is apparently when someone is only sexually interested in someone after they have a connection with them, while someone that's platoniromantic doesn't feel any difference between romantic and platonic relationships, and someone that's grey-asexual sometimes isn't sexually attracted to anyone and sometimes is. All these sorts of "sexualities" don't really seem to fit the bill for me as far as what a sexuality is supposed to describe. For one thing, they almost require being paired with another, "normal", sexuality to describe what gender a person would be interested in. More than that, what's the difference between any of those and just dating preferences? Sometimes I feel less sexually attracted to people in general than I do at other times. Does that make me a "grey-asexual"? Would most people be "grey-asexuals" under that definition? And how is a "platoniromantic" any different than just an incredibly horny person? These are all rhetorical questions, obviously, but I'm just trying to get across that none of these "oddball" sexual orientations seem like they describe anything we usually expect a "sexuality" to describe. It'd be like making a sexuality for people that need to eat before having sex. Is that a sexuality, or would it just be a weirdly hungry guy? I'm not so convinced that it would be the former, but I feel like that puts me at odds with the academics that study this stuff, so I'd like to know where the flaws are in my thinking if there are any. > *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_5rja6c

CMV: It is more beneficial to be without Morals, Empathy or Ethics in a society that thrives on them.

I am a pragmatist. When I vote, I vote for things I see as useful, and my personal standpoint is that any law is going to always negatively impact someone. I especially don't like to waste my time playing the comparative pity game. I believe that all bad situations are relative and that all walks of life, even the extremely sub 1% privileged walks of life all have their drawbacks relative to other walks of life in my acceptance that the world is not perfect, and that furthermore the government is a machine to make my life better. An altrusitic vote does not exist, whatever you vote for either benefits you materialistically or helps you sleep at night there is no in between, unless you are consciously discarding your vote in an act of complete randomness. All that being said, having Morals Empathy and Ethics are a detriment in a society that utilizes them, and that separating yourself from any combination of the three gives you clarity, objectivity and an edge because you are going to be better able to play the game of life by the actual rules, than the rules and boundaries you put in the way of your own two feet by adhering to any of the above. Everything should be a basic cost benefit for your situation and that should be the entire factor of decision making and nothing else. If something is good for you, it's best to pursue it and weather or not it is to the benefit or detriment of others is inconsequential, because your baseline assumption is that others will act in line with their own best interest, and that even if they do not your acting in your best interest while selfish, is not any more selfish than others doing the same. To Change My view, you have to prove in some conceivably objective capacity their is value for any of these things in a society that values them. My view is contingent strictly on not valuing these things in a society that values them. I understand that if everyone acted without Morals, Empathy and Ethics we'd be in a different circumstance, and so my view is not contingent on a "Well if everyone behaved like you." point of view because nowhere near 100% of people do, which is why it's to the advantage of someone without these things. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is more beneficial to be without Morals, Empathy or Ethics in a society that thrives on them. I am a pragmatist. When I vote, I vote for things I see as useful, and my personal standpoint is that any law is going to always negatively impact someone. I especially don't like to waste my time playing the comparative pity game. I believe that all bad situations are relative and that all walks of life, even the extremely sub 1% privileged walks of life all have their drawbacks relative to other walks of life in my acceptance that the world is not perfect, and that furthermore the government is a machine to make my life better. An altrusitic vote does not exist, whatever you vote for either benefits you materialistically or helps you sleep at night there is no in between, unless you are consciously discarding your vote in an act of complete randomness. All that being said, having Morals Empathy and Ethics are a detriment in a society that utilizes them, and that separating yourself from any combination of the three gives you clarity, objectivity and an edge because you are going to be better able to play the game of life by the actual rules, than the rules and boundaries you put in the way of your own two feet by adhering to any of the above. Everything should be a basic cost benefit for your situation and that should be the entire factor of decision making and nothing else. If something is good for you, it's best to pursue it and weather or not it is to the benefit or detriment of others is inconsequential, because your baseline assumption is that others will act in line with their own best interest, and that even if they do not your acting in your best interest while selfish, is not any more selfish than others doing the same. To Change My view, you have to prove in some conceivably objective capacity their is value for any of these things in a society that values them. My view is contingent strictly on not valuing these things in a society that values them. I understand that if everyone acted without Morals, Empathy and Ethics we'd be in a different circumstance, and so my view is not contingent on a "Well if everyone behaved like you." point of view because nowhere near 100% of people do, which is why it's to the advantage of someone without these things.

t3_23qeb3

CMV: Gender is bad and transgenderism exacerbates the problem.

"___ is for boys, ___ is for girls." Almost no one thinks that way anymore. (If you do think that way, please stop reading here.) Half the fans of the new Doctor Who series are women and half the fans of the new My Little Pony series are men. I was recently informed that gender and sex aren't the same thing and that gender refers specifically to the "____ is for boys, ___ is for girls" line of thinking. Okay, then. Gender doesn't exist. When I say that, it comes as a shock to the people I'm talking to. Why? Isn't this what feminism is all about? Why is gender suddenly real, and why are we suddenly able to choose it? These are rhetorical questions, of course. Gender isn't real and you can't choose 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: Gender is bad and transgenderism exacerbates the problem. "___ is for boys, ___ is for girls." Almost no one thinks that way anymore. (If you do think that way, please stop reading here.) Half the fans of the new Doctor Who series are women and half the fans of the new My Little Pony series are men. I was recently informed that gender and sex aren't the same thing and that gender refers specifically to the "____ is for boys, ___ is for girls" line of thinking. Okay, then. Gender doesn't exist. When I say that, it comes as a shock to the people I'm talking to. Why? Isn't this what feminism is all about? Why is gender suddenly real, and why are we suddenly able to choose it? These are rhetorical questions, of course. Gender isn't real and you can't choose it.

t3_36ty1x

CMV: Reddit's "hive mind" is creating a cycle that encourages unoriginal content rather than thoughtful comments

I have this opinion for a while now. I feel that Reddit is slowly becoming a place not for thoughtful comments or discussion, but rather a website for obtaining worthless internet points with unoriginal content. Even without considering submissions, I have found the comment sections to be very frustrating. I know that Reddit (occasionally, and often jokingly) acknowledges the "hive mind." However, this seems more as a means of allowing the user to seem not a part of the hive mind and therefore unique, rather than actually criticizing it and attempting to fix the problem. For instance, on a recent post pertaining to the Columbia rape ordeal with the girl carrying her mattress around, the link directed to an article with pictures of posters around the university claiming the girl is lying. There was no evidence or even speculation in the article that said she was/wasn't lying. However, in the comment section for the post, almost every single comment was able how terrible the "liar" was and how she deserved it. I immediately thought her claim was proven false, as everyone was so adamant. A quick google check did not confirm anything, except that there is not enough evidence. I did not even bother to comment explaining this, as previous commenters who deviated away from the "witch-hunt" were downvoted to oblivion. I am not making a comment on the actual event. As there is no evidence, I feel that I cannot assert that she was or wasn't raped. I know that the concept of false-rape accusations against males comes up quite frequently on Reddit. I completely agree that these claims can seriously hurt and damage an individual's social reputation and mental health. I don't have a problem with that. It just seems that Reddit has become infatuated with this concept and is making claims without any evidence; which is a bit hypocritical given the situation. Anyone who dares to voice their opposing opinion is immediately drowned out. I realize that not all of Reddit is like this. And of course, I will admit that I have been caught in the moment and contributed to some degree. However, I feel that a large portion is caught up in the hive mind and is not even aware of the issue. Please change my view. Thank you. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Reddit's "hive mind" is creating a cycle that encourages unoriginal content rather than thoughtful comments. I have this opinion for a while now. I feel that Reddit is slowly becoming a place not for thoughtful comments or discussion, but rather a website for obtaining worthless internet points with unoriginal content. Even without considering submissions, I have found the comment sections to be very frustrating. I know that Reddit (occasionally, and often jokingly) acknowledges the "hive mind." However, this seems more as a means of allowing the user to seem not a part of the hive mind and therefore unique, rather than actually criticizing it and attempting to fix the problem. For instance, on a recent post pertaining to the Columbia rape ordeal with the girl carrying her mattress around, the link directed to an article with pictures of posters around the university claiming the girl is lying. There was no evidence or even speculation in the article that said she was/wasn't lying. However, in the comment section for the post, almost every single comment was able how terrible the "liar" was and how she deserved it. I immediately thought her claim was proven false, as everyone was so adamant. A quick google check did not confirm anything, except that there is not enough evidence. I did not even bother to comment explaining this, as previous commenters who deviated away from the "witch-hunt" were downvoted to oblivion. I am not making a comment on the actual event. As there is no evidence, I feel that I cannot assert that she was or wasn't raped. I know that the concept of false-rape accusations against males comes up quite frequently on Reddit. I completely agree that these claims can seriously hurt and damage an individual's social reputation and mental health. I don't have a problem with that. It just seems that Reddit has become infatuated with this concept and is making claims without any evidence; which is a bit hypocritical given the situation. Anyone who dares to voice their opposing opinion is immediately drowned out. I realize that not all of Reddit is like this. And of course, I will admit that I have been caught in the moment and contributed to some degree. However, I feel that a large portion is caught up in the hive mind and is not even aware of the issue. Please change my view. Thank you.

t3_1v1byk

I think women's relationships with their adult daughters are doomed to mediocrity, at best. Please CMV!

First off, let me establish the fact that no, I am not an angst-ridden youth, and that is not why I'm posting this. Secondly, I'm only speaking about the current state of affairs in the West, since I don't know enough about life in other times and places to form opinions.  (Although I'd be interested to learn about mother-daughter relationships in other times and places, if someone else does know.) Thirdly, I would love NOT to believe this, but haven't had much luck finding scientific info on it, and in my own life experience, I personally don't know of any mother-adult daughter relationship that I'd call truly great. What would I call truly great?  Well, I've heard of mothers and adult daughters being best friends, although I've never seen it.  But I guess that would be pretty great as far as mother-daughter relationships go: --Best friend level closeness --Genuine warmth of feeling --True, unfaltering respect and admiration for oneanother as women Don't get me wrong; my relationship with my mom is not bad.  I think we're both pretty proud of what we've achieved considering the trouble we had getting along when I was a teenager.   We don't fight anymore.  We can give eachother space.  Sometimes we can have a heart-to-heart.  But I don't feel like she really understands me and I am glad we live in different cities.  I often feel irritated by what I perceive to be immaturity/shallowness on her part, and please don't make me feel like a bad person for saying that, as it is really not the way I'd like to feel.  The bottom line is that she is definitely not my main female role model.  I guess in certain respects, we just don't have much in common.  She felt pretty similarly about her own mother, and they had a pretty similar relationship.  I guess the thing that kills is that she was so determined not to be like her own mother and to do a better job, and yet, as different as she was, she failed to break the cycle of mediocre mother-daughter relationships.  ( The reason I find this unsettling is obviously b/c I would like to change this pattern...)    Friends and relatives I know well enough to know about their relationships with their mothers, either have bad relationships or decent-but-rather-cool relationships, like the one I have with my mom. If they respect their mothers, it is either in very specific and limited ways("I respect x,y, and z about her.") or in an overly generalized way they would probably even extend to most strangers("I respect her, but wouldn't want to be like her.") They "love", but don't adore one another. It strikes me as sad that all the cases I can think of leave so much to be desired.  I'm hoping it's just the people I know.  But if this IS pretty much always the case, can someone please at least shed some light on why? If, on the other hand, you know of situations where this is not the case, can you elaborate a bit?  Explain what you think is being done differently in cases where it's working a whole lot better? I'd like to improve my relationship with my own mother and ensure I have a better one with my daughter. Thanks.

I think women's relationships with their adult daughters are doomed to mediocrity, at best. Please CMV!. First off, let me establish the fact that no, I am not an angst-ridden youth, and that is not why I'm posting this. Secondly, I'm only speaking about the current state of affairs in the West, since I don't know enough about life in other times and places to form opinions.  (Although I'd be interested to learn about mother-daughter relationships in other times and places, if someone else does know.) Thirdly, I would love NOT to believe this, but haven't had much luck finding scientific info on it, and in my own life experience, I personally don't know of any mother-adult daughter relationship that I'd call truly great. What would I call truly great?  Well, I've heard of mothers and adult daughters being best friends, although I've never seen it.  But I guess that would be pretty great as far as mother-daughter relationships go: --Best friend level closeness --Genuine warmth of feeling --True, unfaltering respect and admiration for oneanother as women Don't get me wrong; my relationship with my mom is not bad.  I think we're both pretty proud of what we've achieved considering the trouble we had getting along when I was a teenager.   We don't fight anymore.  We can give eachother space.  Sometimes we can have a heart-to-heart.  But I don't feel like she really understands me and I am glad we live in different cities.  I often feel irritated by what I perceive to be immaturity/shallowness on her part, and please don't make me feel like a bad person for saying that, as it is really not the way I'd like to feel.  The bottom line is that she is definitely not my main female role model.  I guess in certain respects, we just don't have much in common.  She felt pretty similarly about her own mother, and they had a pretty similar relationship.  I guess the thing that kills is that she was so determined not to be like her own mother and to do a better job, and yet, as different as she was, she failed to break the cycle of mediocre mother-daughter relationships.  ( The reason I find this unsettling is obviously b/c I would like to change this pattern...)    Friends and relatives I know well enough to know about their relationships with their mothers, either have bad relationships or decent-but-rather-cool relationships, like the one I have with my mom. If they respect their mothers, it is either in very specific and limited ways("I respect x,y, and z about her.") or in an overly generalized way they would probably even extend to most strangers("I respect her, but wouldn't want to be like her.") They "love", but don't adore one another. It strikes me as sad that all the cases I can think of leave so much to be desired.  I'm hoping it's just the people I know.  But if this IS pretty much always the case, can someone please at least shed some light on why? If, on the other hand, you know of situations where this is not the case, can you elaborate a bit?  Explain what you think is being done differently in cases where it's working a whole lot better? I'd like to improve my relationship with my own mother and ensure I have a better one with my daughter. Thanks.

t3_1gfg14

I don't believe Obama should be blamed for NSA invasion of privacy because he doesn't hold the power to change it as President. CMV

I don't believe he can radically alter the course of bureaus, though I know he is leader of the executive branch, NSA and other powerful bureaus, such as CIA, FBI, have existed much longer than he's been in office, and operate outside the reach of president. I have a feeling this could be incorrect, but any discussion or criticism against Obama is vague and seems simplistic. I've heard plenty "he isn't doing a good job" but no "he ought to be doing this: XXX, but he isn't." So reddit, why am I incorrect?

I don't believe Obama should be blamed for NSA invasion of privacy because he doesn't hold the power to change it as President. CMV. I don't believe he can radically alter the course of bureaus, though I know he is leader of the executive branch, NSA and other powerful bureaus, such as CIA, FBI, have existed much longer than he's been in office, and operate outside the reach of president. I have a feeling this could be incorrect, but any discussion or criticism against Obama is vague and seems simplistic. I've heard plenty "he isn't doing a good job" but no "he ought to be doing this: XXX, but he isn't." So reddit, why am I incorrect?

t3_2gxzpu

CMV: Getting a hair transplant is good.

I'm 19, I've noticed receding hairline. Not a serious issue at the moment but I think it's good to prepare for the inevitable. I've looked in to finasteride and such but they're not guaranteed to work, they likely don't grow back the hair, only stops the balding. They have side effects and come costly in the long term. I looked in to hair transplants. These days you can get half your head transplanted for around $4k. They are permanent and they don't even look that bad these days. Look up Steve Carrell for example. I'm thinking of starting to save up for one when I need it. It's going to be even cheaper then. _____ > *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: Getting a hair transplant is good. I'm 19, I've noticed receding hairline. Not a serious issue at the moment but I think it's good to prepare for the inevitable. I've looked in to finasteride and such but they're not guaranteed to work, they likely don't grow back the hair, only stops the balding. They have side effects and come costly in the long term. I looked in to hair transplants. These days you can get half your head transplanted for around $4k. They are permanent and they don't even look that bad these days. Look up Steve Carrell for example. I'm thinking of starting to save up for one when I need it. It's going to be even cheaper then.

t3_3p1ip9

CMV: [racism] Promoting interracial mixing among humans is harmful, as it will give us a less diverse species and will wipe away white people in the long run.

People around the world have evolved different skin colors because natural selection gave each group the best one to best adapt to their environment. People in Finland would have less melanin because that's an advantage in Finland, just as people in Congo would have more for the same reason. Now, let's freeze time about a few years/centuries (don't know the specifics, sorry) after the dawn of man but before tools were invented. Each group has evolved to best fit their area it inhabits. In this context, suppose an individual from one area moves to another area and maybe even propagates their genetic material. Such traits, if inadequate to an area, would likely be wiped off in the short run if the genes were recessive, or in long run if they were dominant, as they would generate a disadvantaged offspring. (natural selection) Now, fast forward some millennia and today, with technology, we're able to make anyone who has the means to do so, able to live anywhere. We've effectively stopped natural selection. That also means that in mixing traits, there's nothing to potentially stop the propagation of dominant traits at the expense of recessive ones. Now being dark skin/hair/eyes and such dominant traits, if we promote interracial relationships, the result is likely gonna be the "extinction" of white people. Also, as of now, white people population growth is much slower than non-white and in some cases even negative. This would speed up the process even more. I believe all of this is bad because it would kill ~~diversity~~ aesthetic, skin color diversity among humans, in a number of generations people would all become some shade of brown and all have the same skin color, at least in places where racial mixing would be encouraged (i.e. western countries). _____ > *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: [racism] Promoting interracial mixing among humans is harmful, as it will give us a less diverse species and will wipe away white people in the long run. People around the world have evolved different skin colors because natural selection gave each group the best one to best adapt to their environment. People in Finland would have less melanin because that's an advantage in Finland, just as people in Congo would have more for the same reason. Now, let's freeze time about a few years/centuries (don't know the specifics, sorry) after the dawn of man but before tools were invented. Each group has evolved to best fit their area it inhabits. In this context, suppose an individual from one area moves to another area and maybe even propagates their genetic material. Such traits, if inadequate to an area, would likely be wiped off in the short run if the genes were recessive, or in long run if they were dominant, as they would generate a disadvantaged offspring. (natural selection) Now, fast forward some millennia and today, with technology, we're able to make anyone who has the means to do so, able to live anywhere. We've effectively stopped natural selection. That also means that in mixing traits, there's nothing to potentially stop the propagation of dominant traits at the expense of recessive ones. Now being dark skin/hair/eyes and such dominant traits, if we promote interracial relationships, the result is likely gonna be the "extinction" of white people. Also, as of now, white people population growth is much slower than non-white and in some cases even negative. This would speed up the process even more. I believe all of this is bad because it would kill ~~diversity~~ aesthetic, skin color diversity among humans, in a number of generations people would all become some shade of brown and all have the same skin color, at least in places where racial mixing would be encouraged (i.e. western countries).

t3_237c27

CMV: I don't think people should get married without knowing someone for at least a year

First of all I apologize if this has been asked before, I tried searching several things and nothing came up. I also recognize that this is a popular opinion on reddit so I'm not trying to pretend like I'm enlightened to some fact that society as a whole is ignorant of. Some background: I am twenty years old. I have a few acquaintances/ friends from high school who are now married. They all have one thing in common: the person they are now married to is someone they met less than a year before the wedding. I try to empathize with almost all viewpoints but this is something I can't wrap my head around. Because these are people I don't know very well I don't feel comfortable asking them why they feel they know this person well enough to marry them. So why not ask complete strangers! I just feel that especially with how young my peers and I are, so much changes in a year and you can't know if someone is lifetime compatible with you in such a short time. In all the successful marriages I know of where the parties were dating for less than a year, they at the very least had known each other longer than that. As far as online dating is concerned, I've never tried it myself but I think generally those sites ask questions which are important for long-term compatibility so there might be an exception there. Full disclosure: I am not a religious person who sees marriage as something you need to do, many of these people are so I recognize that I'm sure there's a disconnect there. Also almost all of these people are in the military (or their now spouse is) and I do not come from a military family so I'm sure I'm missing some sort of shared moral here as well. And finally, I do not want children, most of these people either had children before meeting this person or have had children since marrying the person and I believe all plan to have children at some point. CMV :) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think people should get married without knowing someone for at least a year. First of all I apologize if this has been asked before, I tried searching several things and nothing came up. I also recognize that this is a popular opinion on reddit so I'm not trying to pretend like I'm enlightened to some fact that society as a whole is ignorant of. Some background: I am twenty years old. I have a few acquaintances/ friends from high school who are now married. They all have one thing in common: the person they are now married to is someone they met less than a year before the wedding. I try to empathize with almost all viewpoints but this is something I can't wrap my head around. Because these are people I don't know very well I don't feel comfortable asking them why they feel they know this person well enough to marry them. So why not ask complete strangers! I just feel that especially with how young my peers and I are, so much changes in a year and you can't know if someone is lifetime compatible with you in such a short time. In all the successful marriages I know of where the parties were dating for less than a year, they at the very least had known each other longer than that. As far as online dating is concerned, I've never tried it myself but I think generally those sites ask questions which are important for long-term compatibility so there might be an exception there. Full disclosure: I am not a religious person who sees marriage as something you need to do, many of these people are so I recognize that I'm sure there's a disconnect there. Also almost all of these people are in the military (or their now spouse is) and I do not come from a military family so I'm sure I'm missing some sort of shared moral here as well. And finally, I do not want children, most of these people either had children before meeting this person or have had children since marrying the person and I believe all plan to have children at some point. CMV :)

t3_1nhzb0

I believe in 100% freedom of information CMV

I believe that the absolute freedom of [BIG,FAT,EDIT: academic, or artistic] information is a good thing because knowledge/enlightenment is not something that should have to be purchased. I think that any society that limits access to knowledge is practicing evil because it is society itself that benefits by providing unlimited knowledge to it's own people. You can respond to the above argument or keep reading and let me paint you a picture. Imagine a site that is a cross between netflix and the pirate bay. This site would have search features and a vast catalog of movies, images, music, art, books, blue prints, academic journals etc. You name it. All of it would be 100% legal and funded. Instead of seeing pornographic ads on the side bars of this site, you would see ads for "Breading Bad" and "The Flaming Lips." By clicking on the ad you'd be giving Vince Gilligan [and company] or Wayne Coyne [and company] your upvote! These creators are then funded according to the number of upvotes they received with the understanding that they use the money to create more projects. How these things would be funded is a topic of debate; However, I believe that the benefits of funding a free unlimited body of information dramatically outweigh the cost because the benefactors of such a project would be helping themselves by educating the world around them. Also, said benefactors have the opportunity to gain wealth by creating something popular and receiving more money as a direct result.

I believe in 100% freedom of information CMV. I believe that the absolute freedom of [BIG,FAT,EDIT: academic, or artistic] information is a good thing because knowledge/enlightenment is not something that should have to be purchased. I think that any society that limits access to knowledge is practicing evil because it is society itself that benefits by providing unlimited knowledge to it's own people. You can respond to the above argument or keep reading and let me paint you a picture. Imagine a site that is a cross between netflix and the pirate bay. This site would have search features and a vast catalog of movies, images, music, art, books, blue prints, academic journals etc. You name it. All of it would be 100% legal and funded. Instead of seeing pornographic ads on the side bars of this site, you would see ads for "Breading Bad" and "The Flaming Lips." By clicking on the ad you'd be giving Vince Gilligan [and company] or Wayne Coyne [and company] your upvote! These creators are then funded according to the number of upvotes they received with the understanding that they use the money to create more projects. How these things would be funded is a topic of debate; However, I believe that the benefits of funding a free unlimited body of information dramatically outweigh the cost because the benefactors of such a project would be helping themselves by educating the world around them. Also, said benefactors have the opportunity to gain wealth by creating something popular and receiving more money as a direct result.

t3_1v4tsu

I dont think the cult classics Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Pulp Fiction are anything amazing. CMV

I've watched Pulp Fiction and found it an okay movie. Its not the typical Hollywood cliched flicks but is still not anything artistic worthy of the praise it got. With the Holy Grail, I found it so poor that I cant even get through more than 15 minutes at a time. I still havent made it to the end. The jokes are something you'd expect of high school sketch comedy group performing a skit. Moreover the production was bad and seemed more of a hodge podge of scenes than a rich collection of skits. CMV.

I dont think the cult classics Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Pulp Fiction are anything amazing. CMV. I've watched Pulp Fiction and found it an okay movie. Its not the typical Hollywood cliched flicks but is still not anything artistic worthy of the praise it got. With the Holy Grail, I found it so poor that I cant even get through more than 15 minutes at a time. I still havent made it to the end. The jokes are something you'd expect of high school sketch comedy group performing a skit. Moreover the production was bad and seemed more of a hodge podge of scenes than a rich collection of skits. CMV.

t3_38jijq

CMV: Warning labels that state the obvious should be removed from consumer products.

On a hair dryer: "Do not use in a shower." If somebody's dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower, they're not going to pay much attention to a warning label! Really those things only exist because corporations are so afraid of frivolous lawsuits that could have been avoided if the consumer had only applied common sense in the first place. (Those lawsuits just drive up costs for everybody else, but that's a whole another story.) So I say corporations should be allowed to remove warning labels that would be obvious if one applies common sense without fear of litigation when Darwin strikes again.

CMV: Warning labels that state the obvious should be removed from consumer products. On a hair dryer: "Do not use in a shower." If somebody's dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower, they're not going to pay much attention to a warning label! Really those things only exist because corporations are so afraid of frivolous lawsuits that could have been avoided if the consumer had only applied common sense in the first place. (Those lawsuits just drive up costs for everybody else, but that's a whole another story.) So I say corporations should be allowed to remove warning labels that would be obvious if one applies common sense without fear of litigation when Darwin strikes again.

t3_3989wm

CMV:The US Constitution has failed in its mission to setup a limited government.

It is perfectly clear now that the government can do just about anything it wants in terms of redistribution of wealth. Medicare, Social security, Obamacare, Income Taxes, FEMA, Public accomodation sections of the Civil Rights Act - these have all been justified by "well the majority of the country thinks having these programs leads to better outcomes, so the government is going to implement these." When push comes to shove (when enough people start starving to death for example), there is nothing left to stop to government from saying we're going to confiscate 100 percent of your income over X dollars or confiscating your bank deposited wealth (as is done in certain countries today). This was not always so - see examples below where principled politicians refused to redistribute wealth in the face of a droughts, or refugees, or fire victims... http://www.liberalinstitute.com/CharityNotProperGovernmentFunction.html So, we should just stop pretending that we have any notion of a limited government or that its power to redistribute wealth has any limits. All it takes is for things to get bad enough to a point where the "tyranny of the majority" in the guise of democracy elects legislators who agree with the populace. So, the constitution of this country has failed in limiting the government. Thoughts? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:The US Constitution has failed in its mission to setup a limited government. It is perfectly clear now that the government can do just about anything it wants in terms of redistribution of wealth. Medicare, Social security, Obamacare, Income Taxes, FEMA, Public accomodation sections of the Civil Rights Act - these have all been justified by "well the majority of the country thinks having these programs leads to better outcomes, so the government is going to implement these." When push comes to shove (when enough people start starving to death for example), there is nothing left to stop to government from saying we're going to confiscate 100 percent of your income over X dollars or confiscating your bank deposited wealth (as is done in certain countries today). This was not always so - see examples below where principled politicians refused to redistribute wealth in the face of a droughts, or refugees, or fire victims... http://www.liberalinstitute.com/CharityNotProperGovernmentFunction.html So, we should just stop pretending that we have any notion of a limited government or that its power to redistribute wealth has any limits. All it takes is for things to get bad enough to a point where the "tyranny of the majority" in the guise of democracy elects legislators who agree with the populace. So, the constitution of this country has failed in limiting the government. Thoughts?

t3_22busg

CMV:Developers of e-sport games should balance their game not as a spectator sport, but as a game.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, & there are a few specific cases where I've seen the reverse happening. I think that unless the developer has specifically set out to make their game as a e-sport, games should be treated as games, enjoyablility & fun should always be put first. If they are making it an e-sport, then watchability & comentary should be considered before fun, etc. A few definitions: - Sport (for the purposes of argument, I'll assume e-sports are also sports) - An activity that requires a notable amount of skill to master, that also has a large community following, usually with tournaments & competitions. - Watchability - how interesting something appears as a third party would view it. It assumes the third part is somewhat familiar with the rules, but not necessarily having extensive knowledge. - Fun - How (positively) engaging something is for someone involved in the action. The net feeling, regardless of performance, is positive. **Tl;Dr** There should NOT be any changes "just to make things easier to watch", only changes that encourage fun gameplay. _____ > *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:Developers of e-sport games should balance their game not as a spectator sport, but as a game. I've been thinking about this for a while now, & there are a few specific cases where I've seen the reverse happening. I think that unless the developer has specifically set out to make their game as a e-sport, games should be treated as games, enjoyablility & fun should always be put first. If they are making it an e-sport, then watchability & comentary should be considered before fun, etc. A few definitions: - Sport (for the purposes of argument, I'll assume e-sports are also sports) - An activity that requires a notable amount of skill to master, that also has a large community following, usually with tournaments & competitions. - Watchability - how interesting something appears as a third party would view it. It assumes the third part is somewhat familiar with the rules, but not necessarily having extensive knowledge. - Fun - How (positively) engaging something is for someone involved in the action. The net feeling, regardless of performance, is positive. **Tl;Dr** There should NOT be any changes "just to make things easier to watch", only changes that encourage fun gameplay.

t3_1kon0k

The act of voting should require comprehensive tests in both civics and general intelligence. CMV

With several recent threads on the topic of voting, I thought I'd give my view that seems a bit contrarian here. What I believe is very simple and does not need much of an explanation: People should possess a certain knowledge on the topic of civics, and be able to meet a moderate standard of intelligence via testing before given the ability to vote. The test would be akin to a GED, which doesn't sound like much, yet it still has around a [40% failure rate](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/opinion/01sat2.html?_r=0), and the high school equivalent of civics. The reading material would be supplied for free online, and free, via textbooks through state and local governments working with local libraries. I'd like to stress that specifics of coursework and distribution are not what is most important to me and is not what I'm very interested in discussing--it would be difficult to change my view regarding trivial details of distributing the educational material--but the discussion should revolve around the philosophical and moral points of the topic at hand.

The act of voting should require comprehensive tests in both civics and general intelligence. CMV. With several recent threads on the topic of voting, I thought I'd give my view that seems a bit contrarian here. What I believe is very simple and does not need much of an explanation: People should possess a certain knowledge on the topic of civics, and be able to meet a moderate standard of intelligence via testing before given the ability to vote. The test would be akin to a GED, which doesn't sound like much, yet it still has around a [40% failure rate](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/opinion/01sat2.html?_r=0), and the high school equivalent of civics. The reading material would be supplied for free online, and free, via textbooks through state and local governments working with local libraries. I'd like to stress that specifics of coursework and distribution are not what is most important to me and is not what I'm very interested in discussing--it would be difficult to change my view regarding trivial details of distributing the educational material--but the discussion should revolve around the philosophical and moral points of the topic at hand.

t3_1mbnpg

I think bullies are evil, soulless creatures that should be stopped by force. CMV

Here's a bit of back story. I was constantly bullied as a kid. I was just one of those people who stood out as a victim. I couldn't meet a new group of people without being bullied by them to some extent. It was really bad up through middle school. By high school, it was over, but by then the damage was done and I think I may have mild PTSD from the whole thing. I still get flashbacks and intrusive thoughts about what I'd do if I could go back in time. So here's my belief. All bullies are sociopaths. Why would they do such horrible things to other kids unless they lacked the empathy necessary to understand what their actions were doing? When I was a kid, I would rat on the kids who bullied me and, even though they seemed remorseful when they got caught, a few days later, they'd be back at it. If they truly felt remorse, they wouldn't have kept bullying me. Therefore, I don't think they can feel remorse at all. They just like to put kids through pain because it's the only thing that gives them any sort of a positive feeling. Hence, sociopathy. So if they can't be reasoned with or disciplined via normal means, the only thing left is to fight fire with fire. Bullies should be the ones ostracized by society. I would feel nothing but joy if my kids came home and told me they broke a bully's arm, or drew blood in some way. Heck, I'd probably take them out to their favorite restaurant if they did that. That's the only way they can be stopped, because the only language they understand is force. If a kid is caught bullying more than once, I firmly believe they should be expelled right then and there. I also want to note that whenever I hear horrible stories about kids who committed suicide because of bullying, I feel that the bullies should have died instead. If they had died before the bullying got too bad, then the good, innocent kids would not have killed themselves. I also consider movies like Carrie and Chronicle to be tragic superhero films in which the heroes died before their hero work could be completed. And before you tell me things like "oh, they probably have a bad home life," I want to let you know that I don't give a shit. When I was being pushed down stairs and punched in the gut, would it have mattered if I had known those kids were probably being neglected or abused by their parents? Would that have helped me get out of that situation? No. If anything, their bad home lives made them into sociopathic sadists, and the damage is already done. We don't need to appeal to their humanity because they no longer have any, and we need to stop them before their actions do permanent damage to innocent bystanders (like the suicides I mentioned). That's more important than wondering what their home life is like. Lives are at stake here. Giving them a temporary injury or expelling them from school is a small price to pay when compared to the lives of innocent children. EDIT: Oh look, another dead child. This just affirms my views even more. Schools care nothing about the bullying problem, as they ignored the plight of this poor girl. Maybe if those kids had been tried for harassment and maybe got a restraining order against them or been arrested, she'd still be alive. http://www.medicaldaily.com/rebecca-ann-sedwick-bullied-12-year-old-commits-suicide-are-social-media-apps-breeding-ground-257124

I think bullies are evil, soulless creatures that should be stopped by force. CMV. Here's a bit of back story. I was constantly bullied as a kid. I was just one of those people who stood out as a victim. I couldn't meet a new group of people without being bullied by them to some extent. It was really bad up through middle school. By high school, it was over, but by then the damage was done and I think I may have mild PTSD from the whole thing. I still get flashbacks and intrusive thoughts about what I'd do if I could go back in time. So here's my belief. All bullies are sociopaths. Why would they do such horrible things to other kids unless they lacked the empathy necessary to understand what their actions were doing? When I was a kid, I would rat on the kids who bullied me and, even though they seemed remorseful when they got caught, a few days later, they'd be back at it. If they truly felt remorse, they wouldn't have kept bullying me. Therefore, I don't think they can feel remorse at all. They just like to put kids through pain because it's the only thing that gives them any sort of a positive feeling. Hence, sociopathy. So if they can't be reasoned with or disciplined via normal means, the only thing left is to fight fire with fire. Bullies should be the ones ostracized by society. I would feel nothing but joy if my kids came home and told me they broke a bully's arm, or drew blood in some way. Heck, I'd probably take them out to their favorite restaurant if they did that. That's the only way they can be stopped, because the only language they understand is force. If a kid is caught bullying more than once, I firmly believe they should be expelled right then and there. I also want to note that whenever I hear horrible stories about kids who committed suicide because of bullying, I feel that the bullies should have died instead. If they had died before the bullying got too bad, then the good, innocent kids would not have killed themselves. I also consider movies like Carrie and Chronicle to be tragic superhero films in which the heroes died before their hero work could be completed. And before you tell me things like "oh, they probably have a bad home life," I want to let you know that I don't give a shit. When I was being pushed down stairs and punched in the gut, would it have mattered if I had known those kids were probably being neglected or abused by their parents? Would that have helped me get out of that situation? No. If anything, their bad home lives made them into sociopathic sadists, and the damage is already done. We don't need to appeal to their humanity because they no longer have any, and we need to stop them before their actions do permanent damage to innocent bystanders (like the suicides I mentioned). That's more important than wondering what their home life is like. Lives are at stake here. Giving them a temporary injury or expelling them from school is a small price to pay when compared to the lives of innocent children. EDIT: Oh look, another dead child. This just affirms my views even more. Schools care nothing about the bullying problem, as they ignored the plight of this poor girl. Maybe if those kids had been tried for harassment and maybe got a restraining order against them or been arrested, she'd still be alive. http://www.medicaldaily.com/rebecca-ann-sedwick-bullied-12-year-old-commits-suicide-are-social-media-apps-breeding-ground-257124

t3_40k4cj

CMV: a large enough portion of the migrants/refugees coming to germany/sweden from the middle east/north africa are not culturally at a point they can successfully assimilate into a liberal democracy and as such european countries should seriously reconsider allowing them entry.

So my question is pretty much summed up in the title, in light of the events on [new years eve](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35277249) in cologne and the story that just came to light from that [music festival](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/world/europe/swedish-police-coverup-sexual-assault.html) in sweden combined with [the fact](https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/the-living-hell-for-swedish-women-5-muslims-commit-nearly-77-6-of-all-rape-crimes/) that muslim immigrants are committing hugely disproportionate levels of sexual assaults in that country, should germany and sweden should stop allowing migrants into their countries? (inb4 police are racist, these cops are purposefully minimizing and covering up the scale of these assaults specifically so as not to come across as racist) _____ > *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 large enough portion of the migrants/refugees coming to germany/sweden from the middle east/north africa are not culturally at a point they can successfully assimilate into a liberal democracy and as such european countries should seriously reconsider allowing them entry. So my question is pretty much summed up in the title, in light of the events on [new years eve](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35277249) in cologne and the story that just came to light from that [music festival](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/world/europe/swedish-police-coverup-sexual-assault.html) in sweden combined with [the fact](https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/the-living-hell-for-swedish-women-5-muslims-commit-nearly-77-6-of-all-rape-crimes/) that muslim immigrants are committing hugely disproportionate levels of sexual assaults in that country, should germany and sweden should stop allowing migrants into their countries? (inb4 police are racist, these cops are purposefully minimizing and covering up the scale of these assaults specifically so as not to come across as racist)

t3_2l8umc

CMV: American television audiences generally do not need adaptations of English speaking shows from other countries.

A common justification I see for American television networks making remakes/adaptations of English-speaking shows(I'm thinking mostly Australian and British as those are the main examples I'll be using) is that American audiences will be more able to relate to the adaptation as opposed to the original. I think that the general American audience can relate to most English-speaking shows that take place in English-speaking countries as well as they can to most American produced shows. I think that the general American audience is able to relate to English-speaking shows just fine. Accents, settings, and culture are not different enough in other English speaking countries to warrant American adaptations. I don't think all American adaptations are unwarranted, for example a miniseries or a show with a limited number of seasons then adapting it so that a network can extend its run is fine(I'm thinking of the American adaptation of the Office). Many American remakes though, such as the Inbetweeners, Skins, and Gracepoint, and the upcoming adaptation of the Australian series "The Slap" are not needed for the general American audience. _____ > *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: American television audiences generally do not need adaptations of English speaking shows from other countries. A common justification I see for American television networks making remakes/adaptations of English-speaking shows(I'm thinking mostly Australian and British as those are the main examples I'll be using) is that American audiences will be more able to relate to the adaptation as opposed to the original. I think that the general American audience can relate to most English-speaking shows that take place in English-speaking countries as well as they can to most American produced shows. I think that the general American audience is able to relate to English-speaking shows just fine. Accents, settings, and culture are not different enough in other English speaking countries to warrant American adaptations. I don't think all American adaptations are unwarranted, for example a miniseries or a show with a limited number of seasons then adapting it so that a network can extend its run is fine(I'm thinking of the American adaptation of the Office). Many American remakes though, such as the Inbetweeners, Skins, and Gracepoint, and the upcoming adaptation of the Australian series "The Slap" are not needed for the general American audience.

t3_4ncbh4

CMV: If Republican and Democrat party leaders got together and agreed to run a 'Do-Over' campaign for presidency with all new candidates, the American people in general would be okay with it.

Theres no good option for president this election. I don't understand why we as a country are bound by the inherently flawed system we made up over a hundred years ago. If we wrote laws once, we can re-write them. Instead of all of us being stuck with one of two terrible choices we could as a people say "that campaign season sucked, lets do a do over and try again." Trump, hillary, cruz and bernie can't run. basically a political Mulligan to get an actually good president. I believe that if this were to happen, MOST Americans (51%+) wouldn't be outraged. there would be people who are, but you're going to get that either way. So looking back we would all say, 'that was weird' and move on. EDIT: I'm not arguing that it should happen. don't try to convince me why it will never happen. I'm saying if it DID happen, people would be okay with 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 Republican and Democrat party leaders got together and agreed to run a 'Do-Over' campaign for presidency with all new candidates, the American people in general would be okay with it. Theres no good option for president this election. I don't understand why we as a country are bound by the inherently flawed system we made up over a hundred years ago. If we wrote laws once, we can re-write them. Instead of all of us being stuck with one of two terrible choices we could as a people say "that campaign season sucked, lets do a do over and try again." Trump, hillary, cruz and bernie can't run. basically a political Mulligan to get an actually good president. I believe that if this were to happen, MOST Americans (51%+) wouldn't be outraged. there would be people who are, but you're going to get that either way. So looking back we would all say, 'that was weird' and move on. EDIT: I'm not arguing that it should happen. don't try to convince me why it will never happen. I'm saying if it DID happen, people would be okay with it.

t3_2pckx5

CMV: All news media should be owned by the state.

The news is *very* important. More important than most people realise. A well-informed public makes good decisions as a society, so when the public isnt well-informed it creates big problems. When a news media company is run for profit it completely sacrifices every bit of journalistic integrity it has in order to add to the fortunes of billionaires. What starts to happen is it becomes entirely a product, and not only does getting the story straight doesnt matter anymore, but entire stories are never even pursued if it doesnt appeal to the masses. I think we can all agree that the majority of people are more interested in car chases than serious journalism, and thats fine, but when you hand the news over to a corporation you end up with your news full of fucking car chases. It basically destroys what journalism is supposed to be and it's really important that that doesnt happen. _____ > *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: All news media should be owned by the state. The news is *very* important. More important than most people realise. A well-informed public makes good decisions as a society, so when the public isnt well-informed it creates big problems. When a news media company is run for profit it completely sacrifices every bit of journalistic integrity it has in order to add to the fortunes of billionaires. What starts to happen is it becomes entirely a product, and not only does getting the story straight doesnt matter anymore, but entire stories are never even pursued if it doesnt appeal to the masses. I think we can all agree that the majority of people are more interested in car chases than serious journalism, and thats fine, but when you hand the news over to a corporation you end up with your news full of fucking car chases. It basically destroys what journalism is supposed to be and it's really important that that doesnt happen.

t3_1y3i28

I don't want to have children. CMV

As an almost 30 year old female, I've known almost my whole life that I never wanted children of my own. I haven’t even started my life yet, why would I bring another life into the world when I don’t even have my shit together? I don't have the patience, the money, or the stability. I also just recently started college again, so another thing I don't have is time. Hell, I'm not even in a stable relationship. My friends are having kids left and right, so I have plenty of love to give those little monsters - then hand them right back to the parents when I'm done. Personally, I don't think I'm mature enough, nor will I ever be.

I don't want to have children. CMV. As an almost 30 year old female, I've known almost my whole life that I never wanted children of my own. I haven’t even started my life yet, why would I bring another life into the world when I don’t even have my shit together? I don't have the patience, the money, or the stability. I also just recently started college again, so another thing I don't have is time. Hell, I'm not even in a stable relationship. My friends are having kids left and right, so I have plenty of love to give those little monsters - then hand them right back to the parents when I'm done. Personally, I don't think I'm mature enough, nor will I ever be.

t3_3c79ax

CMV: "Objectivism" is the most optimal way to go through life.

I have been a liberal (using the binary American political scale for simplicity) for my entire adult life. I have advocated for the rights of homosexuals, women, and other groups; however, I do not feel like this stance has benefited me in the slightest. In fact, given my regional location (the South or Southeast United States) it has probably hurt me personally more than anything. I have not read Ayn Rand, nor do I ever intend to, as I consider her philosophy to be frankly immoral. Moral people should look out for their fellow humans. However, I believe that I would be better served by pursuing my own rational self-interest rather than spending even an ounce of my resources on the betterment of others who will just attribute my good deed to their god anyway most likely. Donating to charity might prevent a child from dying from cancer, but I am not a child and I don't have cancer, so that extra dollar from my pocket is better spent being used as tax on my latest board game purchase. This could be extended to other people that I consider friends, but I think it is a better use of my resources for me to aid my own comfort than to save a stranger's life. Things that will not change my view: * "You aren't really describing objectivism! It really is a more nuanced..." I don't care. I am not here to argue the definition of objectivism. * "My wife/child/other family member was saved by..." Are you related to me? Probably not as I have never had these sorts of problems, so I don't care. It is good that your family member didn't die, but that has nothing to do with me. * "What if you needed help?" I probably wouldn't get it unless I was able to provide it for myself. _____ > *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: "Objectivism" is the most optimal way to go through life. I have been a liberal (using the binary American political scale for simplicity) for my entire adult life. I have advocated for the rights of homosexuals, women, and other groups; however, I do not feel like this stance has benefited me in the slightest. In fact, given my regional location (the South or Southeast United States) it has probably hurt me personally more than anything. I have not read Ayn Rand, nor do I ever intend to, as I consider her philosophy to be frankly immoral. Moral people should look out for their fellow humans. However, I believe that I would be better served by pursuing my own rational self-interest rather than spending even an ounce of my resources on the betterment of others who will just attribute my good deed to their god anyway most likely. Donating to charity might prevent a child from dying from cancer, but I am not a child and I don't have cancer, so that extra dollar from my pocket is better spent being used as tax on my latest board game purchase. This could be extended to other people that I consider friends, but I think it is a better use of my resources for me to aid my own comfort than to save a stranger's life. Things that will not change my view: * "You aren't really describing objectivism! It really is a more nuanced..." I don't care. I am not here to argue the definition of objectivism. * "My wife/child/other family member was saved by..." Are you related to me? Probably not as I have never had these sorts of problems, so I don't care. It is good that your family member didn't die, but that has nothing to do with me. * "What if you needed help?" I probably wouldn't get it unless I was able to provide it for myself.

t3_1k9n7p

The recent law regarding homosexuality in Russia is a sign of much worse things to come in Russia. CMV.

This law will have an increasingly disastrous effect the longer it is held in place, and here's why. * Having a law where you can be fined for, and possibly sent to jail for being a homosexual is an extremely dangerous slipper slope for society. It is similar to Nazi Germany, just with a different target group, although I'm sure homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis also. It gives the violent anti-homosexuals an extreme amount of power, because they now have the government on their side. I imagine there will be issues where the people who might be against homosexuality, but not violently against it, will be recruited into the ranks of the violent through something like this. "Dimitri, do you know Vladimir? He is a homosexual. My other friends and I are going to go beat him up, do you want to come?" "No? Dimitri are you a homosexual sympathizer, or even worse a homosexual?" *Dimitri then goes and commits violent acts with the group so he can avoid possible repercussions."* Now that is an over-simplified description of it, but I'm sure you get the general idea. It's just like Nazi Germany or any conflict between Communists and Fascists, where they are constantly looking for "sympathizers", who are basically people who don't want to go out and commit these acts. This undoubtedly puts more pressure on them to increase these acts. * The lack of going after the people who commit violent crimes against homosexuals will only fuel the problem and make it more of an issue. This is why I think that the issues we see in Russia regarding homosexuality are going to get worse and worse over time, instead of either... staying the same, or improving. Anyways, please change my view to help give me a more positive outlook.

The recent law regarding homosexuality in Russia is a sign of much worse things to come in Russia. CMV. This law will have an increasingly disastrous effect the longer it is held in place, and here's why. * Having a law where you can be fined for, and possibly sent to jail for being a homosexual is an extremely dangerous slipper slope for society. It is similar to Nazi Germany, just with a different target group, although I'm sure homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis also. It gives the violent anti-homosexuals an extreme amount of power, because they now have the government on their side. I imagine there will be issues where the people who might be against homosexuality, but not violently against it, will be recruited into the ranks of the violent through something like this. "Dimitri, do you know Vladimir? He is a homosexual. My other friends and I are going to go beat him up, do you want to come?" "No? Dimitri are you a homosexual sympathizer, or even worse a homosexual?" *Dimitri then goes and commits violent acts with the group so he can avoid possible repercussions."* Now that is an over-simplified description of it, but I'm sure you get the general idea. It's just like Nazi Germany or any conflict between Communists and Fascists, where they are constantly looking for "sympathizers", who are basically people who don't want to go out and commit these acts. This undoubtedly puts more pressure on them to increase these acts. * The lack of going after the people who commit violent crimes against homosexuals will only fuel the problem and make it more of an issue. This is why I think that the issues we see in Russia regarding homosexuality are going to get worse and worse over time, instead of either... staying the same, or improving. Anyways, please change my view to help give me a more positive outlook.

t3_5x3zcq

CMV: The importance\need of any artist (musicians, actors, etc.) in society

The question is pretty clear. I don't understand the importance of professional artists, be it in any field. The reasons why I think this way are : 1. They are highly overpaid and treated almost as gods by so many people. People dying to get a signature or a picture of a famous actor or singer but the people who are actually important in a society get overshadowed. The doctors, scientists, researchers which save lives and advance the human race are more important to society. Not only do the musicians, actors etc, get more attention than they deserve, they also encourage it. 2. They contribute nothing to the society. There is no need for any particular artist. Sure, they have entertainment value and everybody likes to hear songs and watch movies but if some famous artist was not born, nobody would lose anything. 3. (A little controversial) There success is largely based on luck or connections in the industry. They work very little. One or two songs written in one year, a lot of times written by other people, mostly auto tuned. 4. (A little controversial) Not only do they earn a lot of money, they usually promote and sponsor high cost and unnecessary products in industries like fashion. Promoting and releasing new very expensive useless shoes etc. is a particular example. 5. A lot of artists participate in actions that might lead others to believe that they are spoiled teenagers and have little care or regard for their society and even their fans. Getting everything easily and not working hard to achieve their goals, their actions sometimes even disrespect people outright. 6. They are very influential even though most of the time, they lack necessary qualifications. for example, a certain singer tweeting about flat earth and people actually believing him. 7. They get special treatment. Please note that I am not talking about anyone in particular, I am talking about professional artists from all industries, these include actors, singers, artists who paint etc. A few of these may be applied to other occupations as well, like sportsmen and other athletes. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The importance\need of any artist (musicians, actors, etc.) in society. The question is pretty clear. I don't understand the importance of professional artists, be it in any field. The reasons why I think this way are : 1. They are highly overpaid and treated almost as gods by so many people. People dying to get a signature or a picture of a famous actor or singer but the people who are actually important in a society get overshadowed. The doctors, scientists, researchers which save lives and advance the human race are more important to society. Not only do the musicians, actors etc, get more attention than they deserve, they also encourage it. 2. They contribute nothing to the society. There is no need for any particular artist. Sure, they have entertainment value and everybody likes to hear songs and watch movies but if some famous artist was not born, nobody would lose anything. 3. (A little controversial) There success is largely based on luck or connections in the industry. They work very little. One or two songs written in one year, a lot of times written by other people, mostly auto tuned. 4. (A little controversial) Not only do they earn a lot of money, they usually promote and sponsor high cost and unnecessary products in industries like fashion. Promoting and releasing new very expensive useless shoes etc. is a particular example. 5. A lot of artists participate in actions that might lead others to believe that they are spoiled teenagers and have little care or regard for their society and even their fans. Getting everything easily and not working hard to achieve their goals, their actions sometimes even disrespect people outright. 6. They are very influential even though most of the time, they lack necessary qualifications. for example, a certain singer tweeting about flat earth and people actually believing him. 7. They get special treatment. Please note that I am not talking about anyone in particular, I am talking about professional artists from all industries, these include actors, singers, artists who paint etc. A few of these may be applied to other occupations as well, like sportsmen and other athletes.

t3_2xz2le

CMV HeForShe is a bad campaign name

I understand that there is a need for gender equality but "he for she" is a terrible campaign name; because no matter the content, men will look at it and be turned off the idea of it. Much like national health care was called Obamacare meaning conservatives were even more motivated to be against it, suggesting that a gender equality campaign is basically "He'll do it for her" says to guys that it's *them* who have to do something, implying responsibility, which in turn implies a fault. Now I'm not arguing about men having it better or women being oppressed, cause you could argue for days about that stuff. But I will argue making men feel guilty before the offset isn't a good way of reaching out. Much like the rabbi in Israel who asked where the big jewish conspiracy met, telling men they're a part of a patriarchy is going to make them think "No I'm not, I'm for women." But when someone tells them off for something they haven't done, what's their motivation to continue? An infinitely better campaign would be "Him and Her" which is a lot more neutral which is what you want when recruiting people. Whether or not the campaign is neutral or fair is another matter. But a bad title implies a bad campaign so the former should be improved first.

CMV HeForShe is a bad campaign name. I understand that there is a need for gender equality but "he for she" is a terrible campaign name; because no matter the content, men will look at it and be turned off the idea of it. Much like national health care was called Obamacare meaning conservatives were even more motivated to be against it, suggesting that a gender equality campaign is basically "He'll do it for her" says to guys that it's *them* who have to do something, implying responsibility, which in turn implies a fault. Now I'm not arguing about men having it better or women being oppressed, cause you could argue for days about that stuff. But I will argue making men feel guilty before the offset isn't a good way of reaching out. Much like the rabbi in Israel who asked where the big jewish conspiracy met, telling men they're a part of a patriarchy is going to make them think "No I'm not, I'm for women." But when someone tells them off for something they haven't done, what's their motivation to continue? An infinitely better campaign would be "Him and Her" which is a lot more neutral which is what you want when recruiting people. Whether or not the campaign is neutral or fair is another matter. But a bad title implies a bad campaign so the former should be improved first.

t3_2w3fmh

CMV: While I'm responsible for what I say, how others take it is their responsibility and I shouldn't care.

I hold this view because I really don't think it's my problem how other people react to what I say. I can spend all the time in the world thinking through what I'm going to say but at the end of the day I have no control how others feel about it and I believe that exempts me from being responsible for how they feel. If I say something that hurts someone, that's their problem and not mine. I can't control the feelings I create in people regardless of how hard I try, nor can I control how the act on those feelings. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to care, nor should I care, about how what I say might affect others. People are responsible for their own feelings, not other people's feelings. CMV. EDIT: ∆ _____ > *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: While I'm responsible for what I say, how others take it is their responsibility and I shouldn't care. I hold this view because I really don't think it's my problem how other people react to what I say. I can spend all the time in the world thinking through what I'm going to say but at the end of the day I have no control how others feel about it and I believe that exempts me from being responsible for how they feel. If I say something that hurts someone, that's their problem and not mine. I can't control the feelings I create in people regardless of how hard I try, nor can I control how the act on those feelings. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to care, nor should I care, about how what I say might affect others. People are responsible for their own feelings, not other people's feelings. CMV. EDIT: ∆

t3_4f6m55

CMV: Conservative 'traditional values' are inherently flawed due to them being traditional, that is, of the past.

In terms of politics it seems to me that the extent that traditional values is espoused is the extent that social progress is slowed. Slowed, but never stopped. It was a traditional value to own a slave, until progressive measures overhauled that traditional value. Being gay was a crime due to traditional values until progressive measured overhauled the law. To make a pretty poor analogy it's progressive politics is a ship moving out to sea. However, depending on the country, each ship has an anchor trailing across the ocean floor, it's size and weight dependent upon how much traditional values are adhered to. Tradition does not necessarily equal a good thing. Why do some conservatives lean so heavily on traditional values? Why do some people believe that going against tradition is a bad idea? Day to day I am in a lot of liberal social circles, so I'd love to hear someone else's perspective on this issue. Thank you very much.

CMV: Conservative 'traditional values' are inherently flawed due to them being traditional, that is, of the past. In terms of politics it seems to me that the extent that traditional values is espoused is the extent that social progress is slowed. Slowed, but never stopped. It was a traditional value to own a slave, until progressive measures overhauled that traditional value. Being gay was a crime due to traditional values until progressive measured overhauled the law. To make a pretty poor analogy it's progressive politics is a ship moving out to sea. However, depending on the country, each ship has an anchor trailing across the ocean floor, it's size and weight dependent upon how much traditional values are adhered to. Tradition does not necessarily equal a good thing. Why do some conservatives lean so heavily on traditional values? Why do some people believe that going against tradition is a bad idea? Day to day I am in a lot of liberal social circles, so I'd love to hear someone else's perspective on this issue. Thank you very much.

t3_2m0lve

CMV: If a rule or law is being broken, and no one is negatively affected by it, there should be no attempt to stop it.

If I am not negatively affecting someone else, why should I be stopped from doing something? The thing that happened to me that triggered this CMV is as follows: I've been giving my friend a ride to work, dropping him off then picking him up. I arrived a few minutes early, and pulled into one of 5 available handicap spots, which I am legally aloud to park in due to muscular dystrophy. I thought that since there are multiple spots available, I wouldn't be depriving someone else that would need it. Before my friend came outside, the factory's security guard approached my car and told me I can't park there. I had my blue placard perfectly visible, yet because I never had to stand up in front of him, he went so far as to tell me that I'm not handicapped (to be fair, you wouldn't think I was unless you saw me stand or walk). I wasn't depriving anyone of that spot, and I wasn't parked illegally either, yet I was still forced to move under threats of being arrested/detained while my car was towed. _____ > *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 a rule or law is being broken, and no one is negatively affected by it, there should be no attempt to stop it. If I am not negatively affecting someone else, why should I be stopped from doing something? The thing that happened to me that triggered this CMV is as follows: I've been giving my friend a ride to work, dropping him off then picking him up. I arrived a few minutes early, and pulled into one of 5 available handicap spots, which I am legally aloud to park in due to muscular dystrophy. I thought that since there are multiple spots available, I wouldn't be depriving someone else that would need it. Before my friend came outside, the factory's security guard approached my car and told me I can't park there. I had my blue placard perfectly visible, yet because I never had to stand up in front of him, he went so far as to tell me that I'm not handicapped (to be fair, you wouldn't think I was unless you saw me stand or walk). I wasn't depriving anyone of that spot, and I wasn't parked illegally either, yet I was still forced to move under threats of being arrested/detained while my car was towed.

t3_4vuxcq

CMV: Capital Punishment is never justified.

I think that the state executing a criminal for their crimes cannot be justified. First, the criminal could be proven innocent after the time in which they are executed, and constitutes for around 4% of those criminals that are executed. If capital punishment was not enforced, these people would have been able to live out their lives with government compensation. Second, it's an easy way out. Some criminals may commit their crimes and regard death as preferable to life in prison, and therefore do not suffer the punishment of their crimes in terms of being held in custody for the rest of their lives - whereas killing these criminals does not allow them to suffer any form of punishment. (We are unaware of what happens in the afterlife, if there is one at all.) Lastly, what if these criminals have a specific cause? The state killing them merely makes them a martyr to their cause and may encourage others to follow the same cause likewise. Even if their cause does not spread, then dying for their cause is their desire regardless and do not suffer for this. However, I believe the state does possess authority to kill (such as in wartime), and have no issues with this. But I do not believe that criminals should be killed due to the reasons of uncertainty of guilt, a desire to die rather than be imprisoned, and martyrdom. **EDIT** 3am here, will reply more tomorrow. _____ > *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: Capital Punishment is never justified. I think that the state executing a criminal for their crimes cannot be justified. First, the criminal could be proven innocent after the time in which they are executed, and constitutes for around 4% of those criminals that are executed. If capital punishment was not enforced, these people would have been able to live out their lives with government compensation. Second, it's an easy way out. Some criminals may commit their crimes and regard death as preferable to life in prison, and therefore do not suffer the punishment of their crimes in terms of being held in custody for the rest of their lives - whereas killing these criminals does not allow them to suffer any form of punishment. (We are unaware of what happens in the afterlife, if there is one at all.) Lastly, what if these criminals have a specific cause? The state killing them merely makes them a martyr to their cause and may encourage others to follow the same cause likewise. Even if their cause does not spread, then dying for their cause is their desire regardless and do not suffer for this. However, I believe the state does possess authority to kill (such as in wartime), and have no issues with this. But I do not believe that criminals should be killed due to the reasons of uncertainty of guilt, a desire to die rather than be imprisoned, and martyrdom. **EDIT** 3am here, will reply more tomorrow.

t3_69pi0e

CMV: The "born this way" argument is not the strongest argument, but the one with the least bad repercussions

I'm trying to word this the right way, because it's a bit complex: First off, I don't like the "born this way" argument with regards to homosexuality. I think that it's actually a bit homophobic, and here's why: if your argument for being the way that you are is that you're genetically pre-programmed to be that way, it's something of an acknowledgment that it's a bad thing to be. The more moral argument is "it's anyone's right to love who they want to love (within reason) and it's closed-minded to question that." So I wondered, why is this argument such a popular one? And then it hit me: because of the ramifications of a non-genetic argument. If being gay truly isn't genetic, and it's actually a choice, then cultural conservatives would have a justification for changing the culture in order to prevent people from "going gay". This basically involves re-marginalizing gay people, so it's clear that this is the more harmful (to gay people) argument, even if it's ultimately a step towards a more tolerant society. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The "born this way" argument is not the strongest argument, but the one with the least bad repercussions. I'm trying to word this the right way, because it's a bit complex: First off, I don't like the "born this way" argument with regards to homosexuality. I think that it's actually a bit homophobic, and here's why: if your argument for being the way that you are is that you're genetically pre-programmed to be that way, it's something of an acknowledgment that it's a bad thing to be. The more moral argument is "it's anyone's right to love who they want to love (within reason) and it's closed-minded to question that." So I wondered, why is this argument such a popular one? And then it hit me: because of the ramifications of a non-genetic argument. If being gay truly isn't genetic, and it's actually a choice, then cultural conservatives would have a justification for changing the culture in order to prevent people from "going gay". This basically involves re-marginalizing gay people, so it's clear that this is the more harmful (to gay people) argument, even if it's ultimately a step towards a more tolerant society.

t3_5l5xpk

CMV: Climate change won't affect me. I shouldn't care.

People talk so much about global warming and climate change now, and I don't personally understand why these people care so much. I don't see how climate change will affect me, living in a first world country, or them either, and pretty much any common person. Having access to fresh water will never be an issue, maybe merely an inconvenience with possibly higher prices for all sorts of resources. I don't think I would ever visit the poles in my lifetime. Species going extinct doesn't affect humans, mainly just other animals, and if there was a chain reaction throughout the whole chain, humans have enough ingenuity for other sources of food. Why is climate change important to you? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Climate change won't affect me. I shouldn't care. People talk so much about global warming and climate change now, and I don't personally understand why these people care so much. I don't see how climate change will affect me, living in a first world country, or them either, and pretty much any common person. Having access to fresh water will never be an issue, maybe merely an inconvenience with possibly higher prices for all sorts of resources. I don't think I would ever visit the poles in my lifetime. Species going extinct doesn't affect humans, mainly just other animals, and if there was a chain reaction throughout the whole chain, humans have enough ingenuity for other sources of food. Why is climate change important to you?

t3_1mzgpk

I don't see anything wrong with payday lending companies. CMV

Ive seen a lot of hatred recently towards payday loan companies and I don't understand it. These companies offer fast loans to get you out of an unusual financial bind that can usually be covered by your next paycheck. Yes they offer insanely high interest rates but they're not intended to be long term loans. A lot of people seem to think they should be illegal but I don't understand why. Personally I think that if you sign up for a loan without knowing how much you'll probably need to pay then it's your own fault if you can't afford it and not that of the company that provides the service. Furthermore I think these companies offer a valuable service to certain people that for whatever reason need money fast but have no other forms of credit to use. I think the sob/hate stories that come from their practices usually come from people who misused the loan. Please feel free to enlighten me to the gate some people feel towards these companies and CMV.

I don't see anything wrong with payday lending companies. CMV. Ive seen a lot of hatred recently towards payday loan companies and I don't understand it. These companies offer fast loans to get you out of an unusual financial bind that can usually be covered by your next paycheck. Yes they offer insanely high interest rates but they're not intended to be long term loans. A lot of people seem to think they should be illegal but I don't understand why. Personally I think that if you sign up for a loan without knowing how much you'll probably need to pay then it's your own fault if you can't afford it and not that of the company that provides the service. Furthermore I think these companies offer a valuable service to certain people that for whatever reason need money fast but have no other forms of credit to use. I think the sob/hate stories that come from their practices usually come from people who misused the loan. Please feel free to enlighten me to the gate some people feel towards these companies and CMV.

t3_6sobzt

CMV: Jake Paul is representative of a cultural shift in the Trump era

I think that Jake Paul and the Team 10 drama is representative of a cultural shift from the Obama era to the Trump era. It represents a return to consumerist euphoria now that the 2008 economic crisis is far enough away that people no longer feel the brunt of it. There is still anxiety about jobs but it is about technological unemployment rather than about a bad state of the economy and people no longer care about the 1% as much. Arguably SJW pseudo-politics were an early manifestation of this cultural shift but Jake Paul represents a brand new consumeristic celebrity culture that was not present in the pseudo-political SJW movement. _____ > *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: Jake Paul is representative of a cultural shift in the Trump era. I think that Jake Paul and the Team 10 drama is representative of a cultural shift from the Obama era to the Trump era. It represents a return to consumerist euphoria now that the 2008 economic crisis is far enough away that people no longer feel the brunt of it. There is still anxiety about jobs but it is about technological unemployment rather than about a bad state of the economy and people no longer care about the 1% as much. Arguably SJW pseudo-politics were an early manifestation of this cultural shift but Jake Paul represents a brand new consumeristic celebrity culture that was not present in the pseudo-political SJW movement.

t3_1d8d8s

I believe that striving for more advanced technology is the ultimate cause for humanity CMV

Humans have created roads, cities, machines and factories literally out of sticks and rocks. Humans should exploit all resources, whether it be animal, plant or mineral to continue to create these things and the wonders of technology. Nothing should hinder the advancement of mankind. Research and technology shouldn't be stopped by morals of other people if the research in itself does not hurt anyone without their consent. (It may hurt them WITH their consent). Maybe this mindset would give us environmental issues but that is just another factor to include. I.E. We still wouldn't burn the amazon for farmland since it produces oxygen and it allows us to study and sample rare species. And we still wouldn't stop creating art since it has psychological benefits. I think others would think that this is a horrible thing to believe but I just can't find a solid argument against it. So, please change my view.

I believe that striving for more advanced technology is the ultimate cause for humanity CMV. Humans have created roads, cities, machines and factories literally out of sticks and rocks. Humans should exploit all resources, whether it be animal, plant or mineral to continue to create these things and the wonders of technology. Nothing should hinder the advancement of mankind. Research and technology shouldn't be stopped by morals of other people if the research in itself does not hurt anyone without their consent. (It may hurt them WITH their consent). Maybe this mindset would give us environmental issues but that is just another factor to include. I.E. We still wouldn't burn the amazon for farmland since it produces oxygen and it allows us to study and sample rare species. And we still wouldn't stop creating art since it has psychological benefits. I think others would think that this is a horrible thing to believe but I just can't find a solid argument against it. So, please change my view.

t3_73hqly

CMV: Heterosexual relationships are heavily one-sided in favor of women, and men get nothing out of them by comparison.

So I'll say right ahead that I have pretty much no romantic experience. I hope I'm not coming off as sexist, I don't wish to blame anyone for anything. This is just how society (all societies) are built. Basically, lately I've been getting pressured, mainly by my parents, to get off my butt and find a girlfriend already. Because that's what normal people do, and it's an amazing and essential part of the human experience, right? Well, how could I ever look forward to that? I'm not asexual or aromantic in the sightest, but whenever I see any despiction at all of a heterosexual romantic relationship, whether fictional or real, it's always, without fault, shown as nothing but a huge chore for the man. In a heterosexual relationship, I have to: Take all courtship-related risks, face rejection, plan most if not all dates, make most decisions, be a rock for my partner, be protective, take charge in dangerous or violent situations, and step up whenever someone says something bad to my partner, among a myriad of other things. On the other hand, I can't expect any of that for myself. I must give, give and give, and expect nothing but maybe sex in return. Speaking of sex, it also seems like a complete waste of time. Pretty much every despiction of sex I've ever seen (and I'm not talking about just porn, but *any* despiction, including every description of sex I've seen experienced people make) shows sex as something that the man does to the woman. Men act, and women are acted upon. Most positions involve the man moving the most, "doing the fucking", taking charge, telling the woman what to do, moving her into position, not to mention initiating it to begin with, being responsible for the other person's orgasm, and even *having to work out to be able to perform properly, something no woman has to do*. I've even seen women complain that they don't like being on top because they get tired. Can you imagine how fast a man would be dumped if he said he didn't like being on top, because he can't physically perform? And all of this for what? For the benefit of not being considered a kissless virgin? Honestly, what am I missing? Where's the magical part? I suppose I'm addressing this mostly to the experienced and succesful men of reddit. What do you get out of it? Do you just enjoy having all the responsibilities? Do you just enjoy being in charge? Is that why I don't want to make the effort, because I'm a freak who doesn't enjoy being the leading party? Because I'm not masculine, and thus I don't enjoy the pressure and the burden? Or am I missing something? Please, change my view. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Heterosexual relationships are heavily one-sided in favor of women, and men get nothing out of them by comparison. So I'll say right ahead that I have pretty much no romantic experience. I hope I'm not coming off as sexist, I don't wish to blame anyone for anything. This is just how society (all societies) are built. Basically, lately I've been getting pressured, mainly by my parents, to get off my butt and find a girlfriend already. Because that's what normal people do, and it's an amazing and essential part of the human experience, right? Well, how could I ever look forward to that? I'm not asexual or aromantic in the sightest, but whenever I see any despiction at all of a heterosexual romantic relationship, whether fictional or real, it's always, without fault, shown as nothing but a huge chore for the man. In a heterosexual relationship, I have to: Take all courtship-related risks, face rejection, plan most if not all dates, make most decisions, be a rock for my partner, be protective, take charge in dangerous or violent situations, and step up whenever someone says something bad to my partner, among a myriad of other things. On the other hand, I can't expect any of that for myself. I must give, give and give, and expect nothing but maybe sex in return. Speaking of sex, it also seems like a complete waste of time. Pretty much every despiction of sex I've ever seen (and I'm not talking about just porn, but *any* despiction, including every description of sex I've seen experienced people make) shows sex as something that the man does to the woman. Men act, and women are acted upon. Most positions involve the man moving the most, "doing the fucking", taking charge, telling the woman what to do, moving her into position, not to mention initiating it to begin with, being responsible for the other person's orgasm, and even *having to work out to be able to perform properly, something no woman has to do*. I've even seen women complain that they don't like being on top because they get tired. Can you imagine how fast a man would be dumped if he said he didn't like being on top, because he can't physically perform? And all of this for what? For the benefit of not being considered a kissless virgin? Honestly, what am I missing? Where's the magical part? I suppose I'm addressing this mostly to the experienced and succesful men of reddit. What do you get out of it? Do you just enjoy having all the responsibilities? Do you just enjoy being in charge? Is that why I don't want to make the effort, because I'm a freak who doesn't enjoy being the leading party? Because I'm not masculine, and thus I don't enjoy the pressure and the burden? Or am I missing something? Please, change my view.

t3_2wtbgw

CMV on tattoos

My (30) wife (26) loves tattoos and wants more all the time. She has 3 at the moment. I personally hate when she starts talking about getting a new one because we fight for days when she does. I cannot see paying the money or having a picture permanently put on your body. They are frowned upon in the religion I must closely associate with but I'm not very religious. My parents always talked bad about tattoos and now I can't help but dislike them. I disagree with most people's tattoo choosing process and think most reasons behind a person's tattoo could be just as effective with a picture or some other memento they could see. So, for my wife and my marriage, please change my opinion on tattoos. Edit : thought I'd add some info I do not stop my wife from getting them. However if she asks I'm not going to lie about my opinion either. Which may get her to rethink getting a tattoo. My opinion is relevant. It is my opinion and in my life that means something to me. So I am not going to simply swallow everything said to me without some back and forth. My wife is free to do as she wishes and I do not stop her. However, upon entering a marriage we agree to listen to each other and try to see the other persons view as well. Which is why she has 3 tattoos despite my hating the idea and the permanent marks upon my beautiful wife's body. Edit 2: I would life to thank courier-2 for good advice. What I took from it is that I don't have to agree just respect my wife. I am going to try to look more this way at it. I still do not like them out agree with them though. Edit 3: thanks to waffenmeister and bassskilla I have come to the conclusion that this is my personal taste and not necessarily my view. I'm content with this. I'm still going to read and reply to comments posted. Thanks to all for advice /opinions/views

CMV on tattoos. My (30) wife (26) loves tattoos and wants more all the time. She has 3 at the moment. I personally hate when she starts talking about getting a new one because we fight for days when she does. I cannot see paying the money or having a picture permanently put on your body. They are frowned upon in the religion I must closely associate with but I'm not very religious. My parents always talked bad about tattoos and now I can't help but dislike them. I disagree with most people's tattoo choosing process and think most reasons behind a person's tattoo could be just as effective with a picture or some other memento they could see. So, for my wife and my marriage, please change my opinion on tattoos. Edit : thought I'd add some info I do not stop my wife from getting them. However if she asks I'm not going to lie about my opinion either. Which may get her to rethink getting a tattoo. My opinion is relevant. It is my opinion and in my life that means something to me. So I am not going to simply swallow everything said to me without some back and forth. My wife is free to do as she wishes and I do not stop her. However, upon entering a marriage we agree to listen to each other and try to see the other persons view as well. Which is why she has 3 tattoos despite my hating the idea and the permanent marks upon my beautiful wife's body. Edit 2: I would life to thank courier-2 for good advice. What I took from it is that I don't have to agree just respect my wife. I am going to try to look more this way at it. I still do not like them out agree with them though. Edit 3: thanks to waffenmeister and bassskilla I have come to the conclusion that this is my personal taste and not necessarily my view. I'm content with this. I'm still going to read and reply to comments posted. Thanks to all for advice /opinions/views

t3_4ald9x

CMV: There should not be a "pathway to citizenship" for people who illegally immigrated to the US as adults

I think that, with over 12 million illegal immigrants currently resident in the US, it would be hugely impractical to deport all of them. Additionally, mass deportations would raise serious moral dilemmas by separating parents from their children, etc. Therefore, I think there needs to be some process instituted to allow some illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. However, I do not think that anyone who illegally immigrated as an adult should be allowed to acquire citizenship. There are far too many people around the world who play by the rules and *aren't* able to come here, that it is fundamentally unfair to allow someone who cheated and broke the rules to get the privilege of citizenship. Additionally, it makes no sense for a nation that respects the rule of law to take people who flagrantly broke the rules and reward them in this way. (Note that I'm not discussing people who were brought here as minors. I believe there should be a process for so-called DREAMers who meet certain requirements to become citizens.) 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: There should not be a "pathway to citizenship" for people who illegally immigrated to the US as adults. I think that, with over 12 million illegal immigrants currently resident in the US, it would be hugely impractical to deport all of them. Additionally, mass deportations would raise serious moral dilemmas by separating parents from their children, etc. Therefore, I think there needs to be some process instituted to allow some illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. However, I do not think that anyone who illegally immigrated as an adult should be allowed to acquire citizenship. There are far too many people around the world who play by the rules and *aren't* able to come here, that it is fundamentally unfair to allow someone who cheated and broke the rules to get the privilege of citizenship. Additionally, it makes no sense for a nation that respects the rule of law to take people who flagrantly broke the rules and reward them in this way. (Note that I'm not discussing people who were brought here as minors. I believe there should be a process for so-called DREAMers who meet certain requirements to become citizens.) Change my view.

t3_2am3iw

CMV: I am going on Birthright soon, and I don't think I should boycott Israel.

I am going on a Birthright trip soon, and I am feeling very conflicted about going. I am pretty liberal in most ways, but I don't understand a whole lot about international politics, although I try. Obviously, I've been hearing a lot about the conflict on the West Bank, because I don't completely live under a rock. While I think that Israel does what it has to do a lot of the time, and I do think that liberal media often misrepresents Israel, I do not approve of the settlements. Some of my more educated liberal acquaintances are advocating a boycott of Israeli products and companies. They do not know I am going to go on this trip, and I am embarrassed to tell them. Is it wrong for me to go on the trip? I don't want to cancel, because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me to see Israel and meet some interesting new people. But oh, the guilt. Guide me? (I may be slow to respond to comments, but I will read everything)

CMV: I am going on Birthright soon, and I don't think I should boycott Israel. I am going on a Birthright trip soon, and I am feeling very conflicted about going. I am pretty liberal in most ways, but I don't understand a whole lot about international politics, although I try. Obviously, I've been hearing a lot about the conflict on the West Bank, because I don't completely live under a rock. While I think that Israel does what it has to do a lot of the time, and I do think that liberal media often misrepresents Israel, I do not approve of the settlements. Some of my more educated liberal acquaintances are advocating a boycott of Israeli products and companies. They do not know I am going to go on this trip, and I am embarrassed to tell them. Is it wrong for me to go on the trip? I don't want to cancel, because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for me to see Israel and meet some interesting new people. But oh, the guilt. Guide me? (I may be slow to respond to comments, but I will read everything)

t3_3bjzgb

CMV: As a Mississippian, this is how I feel about our flag.

As a southerner I would like to tell you that Mississippi's state flag does not represent hatred of our black brothers and sisters. White hoods and burning crosses do that. The fact is.. those poor men.. thousands and thousands.. our kinsmen.. had to fight to protect our families and our land. 99.9 percent of those men came from dirt poor families and they could have cared less about helping the rich slave owners. These men marched hungry and barefoot through harsh elements with no medicine... losing blood, limbs, and ultimately their lives. Many were mere babies crying out for their mamas with their last breath. For this reason and their sacrifice I revere our flag. ----------------- I understand the current reddit mentality is against anything confederate in nature because of that horrendous church shooting. But, I'm posting here of all places to try to get an actual civil conversation going that lets people know why so many southerners don't want it gone. I also hope that anyone that feels differently can explain why in a civil manner without simply devolving into a "you're wrong and you should feel bad" situation. ----- edit: I'm really trying to respond to all of you but I seem to be typing slow. I'll get to you eventually because I really want to understand other viewpoints on the subject. edit 2: My view has been changed. Thank you.

CMV: As a Mississippian, this is how I feel about our flag. As a southerner I would like to tell you that Mississippi's state flag does not represent hatred of our black brothers and sisters. White hoods and burning crosses do that. The fact is.. those poor men.. thousands and thousands.. our kinsmen.. had to fight to protect our families and our land. 99.9 percent of those men came from dirt poor families and they could have cared less about helping the rich slave owners. These men marched hungry and barefoot through harsh elements with no medicine... losing blood, limbs, and ultimately their lives. Many were mere babies crying out for their mamas with their last breath. For this reason and their sacrifice I revere our flag. ----------------- I understand the current reddit mentality is against anything confederate in nature because of that horrendous church shooting. But, I'm posting here of all places to try to get an actual civil conversation going that lets people know why so many southerners don't want it gone. I also hope that anyone that feels differently can explain why in a civil manner without simply devolving into a "you're wrong and you should feel bad" situation. ----- edit: I'm really trying to respond to all of you but I seem to be typing slow. I'll get to you eventually because I really want to understand other viewpoints on the subject. edit 2: My view has been changed. Thank you.

t3_1lyjb4

I think that while males still have male privilege, that they are considerably more bound by gender roles than women are in Western society. CMV.

I believe that this is the case because men must conform to a strict ideal of masculinity or face ridicule. Women can pretty much "be themselves" and no one will care. A girl studies a lot to get into a good college? She'll still have plenty of friends, and no one will ridicule her. If she's reasonably attractive, she might even get a boyfriend. A boy does the same thing-he'll be teased and made fun of as a nerd, and will have trouble finding a girlfriend unless he looks like Channing Tatum. A girl plays sports? She gets encouraged to do so. A guy is interested in fashion? He'll be the target of merciless teasing. A woman wants to go to Wall Street? Everyone will praise her for her tenacity. A guy wants to be a kindergarten teacher? ZOMG HE MUST BE A PEDOPHILE. This is without even getting into intersectionality. A man is poor? He's a deadbeat loser. A woman is poor? Oh, she deserves our sympathy. People talk about the Trayvon Martin case in racial terms, but does anyone think he would have been shot if he were a black female? While lesbians aren't exactly welcomed with open arms, a teenage girl who fucks up a routine sports play is not going to be called a dyke the way a male teen would be called a faggot. While it's true that men in Western society are still overrepresented in the uppermost reaches of society (CEOs, politicians, etc.) and are defined less by their appearance then women are, I can't help but feel like while men are given male privilege, we pay a very high price for it. I also feel that this is the cause of men being outperformed by women in education. If guys study too much, we're nerds. 90% of our teachers will be women. If 90% of teachers were men, feminists would be screaming their heads about a lack of female role models. Well, the chickens of the reverse scenario are coming home to roost. (For those who are curious, I am American and from the Northeast Corridor.)

I think that while males still have male privilege, that they are considerably more bound by gender roles than women are in Western society. CMV. I believe that this is the case because men must conform to a strict ideal of masculinity or face ridicule. Women can pretty much "be themselves" and no one will care. A girl studies a lot to get into a good college? She'll still have plenty of friends, and no one will ridicule her. If she's reasonably attractive, she might even get a boyfriend. A boy does the same thing-he'll be teased and made fun of as a nerd, and will have trouble finding a girlfriend unless he looks like Channing Tatum. A girl plays sports? She gets encouraged to do so. A guy is interested in fashion? He'll be the target of merciless teasing. A woman wants to go to Wall Street? Everyone will praise her for her tenacity. A guy wants to be a kindergarten teacher? ZOMG HE MUST BE A PEDOPHILE. This is without even getting into intersectionality. A man is poor? He's a deadbeat loser. A woman is poor? Oh, she deserves our sympathy. People talk about the Trayvon Martin case in racial terms, but does anyone think he would have been shot if he were a black female? While lesbians aren't exactly welcomed with open arms, a teenage girl who fucks up a routine sports play is not going to be called a dyke the way a male teen would be called a faggot. While it's true that men in Western society are still overrepresented in the uppermost reaches of society (CEOs, politicians, etc.) and are defined less by their appearance then women are, I can't help but feel like while men are given male privilege, we pay a very high price for it. I also feel that this is the cause of men being outperformed by women in education. If guys study too much, we're nerds. 90% of our teachers will be women. If 90% of teachers were men, feminists would be screaming their heads about a lack of female role models. Well, the chickens of the reverse scenario are coming home to roost. (For those who are curious, I am American and from the Northeast Corridor.)

t3_5rj5re

CMV: Immigrants are not welcome anymore in USA

This is not only about Trump's policies. H1-B visa reform is not due to Trump only. It was planned before. 1) H1-B visa will be regulated and rumor says it will be given to the immigrants with top salaries. This will make the hiring process like an auction. Scientists can never make it through, since their salaries cannot compete with the companies. 2) This will force companies to either move overseas or hire fewer immigrants. USA is quite open to immigration right now since all generations have some contact with immigrants. However if immigration is cut in the future, next generations in USA will be less open to immigration. 3) Even discussing (rumoring) something like this is sending a message to everyone that "you are not welcome here". I am an immigrant in USA. I worked my butt off to come here, worked my butt off to finish PhD in a top school, worked hard to network here and adapt the culture here, became a good scientist, then brought my wife and she is about to finish an MBA. We made our every plan to stay here. Our plan is (was) to settle here and not turn back to the country we came from, which is a shithole right now. It is hard, yes, however we also worked hard. We were about to apply to H1 visa and obtain a greencard afterwards. Now all for nothing it seems. I want to thank all US friends who defended this, however if legislation passes, there is not much we can do. We feel very bad right now, because if I turn back (to Turkey) probably I will not be able to find a job or even be jailed due to my political positions. Which means I have just wasted my years in USA.

CMV: Immigrants are not welcome anymore in USA. This is not only about Trump's policies. H1-B visa reform is not due to Trump only. It was planned before. 1) H1-B visa will be regulated and rumor says it will be given to the immigrants with top salaries. This will make the hiring process like an auction. Scientists can never make it through, since their salaries cannot compete with the companies. 2) This will force companies to either move overseas or hire fewer immigrants. USA is quite open to immigration right now since all generations have some contact with immigrants. However if immigration is cut in the future, next generations in USA will be less open to immigration. 3) Even discussing (rumoring) something like this is sending a message to everyone that "you are not welcome here". I am an immigrant in USA. I worked my butt off to come here, worked my butt off to finish PhD in a top school, worked hard to network here and adapt the culture here, became a good scientist, then brought my wife and she is about to finish an MBA. We made our every plan to stay here. Our plan is (was) to settle here and not turn back to the country we came from, which is a shithole right now. It is hard, yes, however we also worked hard. We were about to apply to H1 visa and obtain a greencard afterwards. Now all for nothing it seems. I want to thank all US friends who defended this, however if legislation passes, there is not much we can do. We feel very bad right now, because if I turn back (to Turkey) probably I will not be able to find a job or even be jailed due to my political positions. Which means I have just wasted my years in USA.

t3_6mcslc

CMV: It should not be a sin to have sex before marriage.

I think that it should not be looked down upon that people have sex before marriage. I think I can get behind the idea that it is something special/sacred that you should only give to someone you love and marry. However, this does not account for people not having any sexual chemistry that can cause problems between people and it also goes under the assumption that you can only love one person in your lifetime when I also believe that you can love many. I think that it is very practical to have sex before marriage as you want to cover all your bases with somebody including sexual chemistry if you want to commit your life to them.

CMV: It should not be a sin to have sex before marriage. I think that it should not be looked down upon that people have sex before marriage. I think I can get behind the idea that it is something special/sacred that you should only give to someone you love and marry. However, this does not account for people not having any sexual chemistry that can cause problems between people and it also goes under the assumption that you can only love one person in your lifetime when I also believe that you can love many. I think that it is very practical to have sex before marriage as you want to cover all your bases with somebody including sexual chemistry if you want to commit your life to them.

t3_4302ti

CMV: grammar is immoral

like surely its completely terrible to tell people how they can and cant express themselves? like surely the point of communication is to communicate? if you can get a message across, why should you care how its presented?? grammar nazis seem to take pleasure in being "right" when really this sort of censorship serves no real purpose. like i think its completely wrong to look at communication as some sort of scientific thing. surely the best mode of communication is one that feels authentic? stuff like this shouldnt be bound by rules bc its only really limiting your own expression. people of reddit... why do you believe grammar important?? EDIT: awarded a ∆ bc of this comment from /u/uncle2fire >Like I said, grammar isn't supposed to be oppressive. It's a way of organizing words so that they make sense together, and convey a meaning to a listener/reader. If it makes sense, like your sentence above: >no, it doesnt need 2 be oppressive. but it is oppressive bc its considered "---->." there r many ways that i could ungrammatically-correctly communicate 2 u and u would understand. Then it's following grammatical rules, and is therefore grammatical. Grammar Nazis are what we call linguistic prescriptivists. They usually take arbitrary rules and treat them like law. This is not how grammar is supposed to be used or understood. while i used grammar incorrectly in that case - i would still like to hear arguments why [linguistic prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription) is important as that was what my arguemnt was really about to begin with. _____ > *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: grammar is immoral. like surely its completely terrible to tell people how they can and cant express themselves? like surely the point of communication is to communicate? if you can get a message across, why should you care how its presented?? grammar nazis seem to take pleasure in being "right" when really this sort of censorship serves no real purpose. like i think its completely wrong to look at communication as some sort of scientific thing. surely the best mode of communication is one that feels authentic? stuff like this shouldnt be bound by rules bc its only really limiting your own expression. people of reddit... why do you believe grammar important?? EDIT: awarded a ∆ bc of this comment from /u/uncle2fire >Like I said, grammar isn't supposed to be oppressive. It's a way of organizing words so that they make sense together, and convey a meaning to a listener/reader. If it makes sense, like your sentence above: >no, it doesnt need 2 be oppressive. but it is oppressive bc its considered "---->." there r many ways that i could ungrammatically-correctly communicate 2 u and u would understand. Then it's following grammatical rules, and is therefore grammatical. Grammar Nazis are what we call linguistic prescriptivists. They usually take arbitrary rules and treat them like law. This is not how grammar is supposed to be used or understood. while i used grammar incorrectly in that case - i would still like to hear arguments why [linguistic prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription) is important as that was what my arguemnt was really about to begin with.

t3_1rzect

I believe the pope is getting way too much credit for doing what any pope is supposed to do, CMV

As probably all of you have noticed, the current pope is big news. He is a loved man, because he helps te poor, speaks out against greed and generally does sweet stuff (like the current front page post about the pope going out at night to sit with the homeless). The fact that this is considered special and great, bothers me greatly; what I get from the hype is that the pope's behaviour is considered uncommon, that we should take him as an example. Is giving some money to the poor and saying we shouldn't be greedy really that special? I don't believe he is going out of his way to do great things, I'd say it's more a PR-stunt of small 'nice' deeds the pope does. In fact, he could do a *lot* more if he were really serious about changing the world. Homosexuals are still condemned by the church, people are still having sex without condoms and spreading aids in Africa because the church says you can't use condoms, the church is still filthy rich and evades taxes in almost all countries, the church is still spending very little of this money on real relief. I typed this out rather quickly, if something is unclear, let me know. I'm interested to see what you guys think.

I believe the pope is getting way too much credit for doing what any pope is supposed to do, CMV. As probably all of you have noticed, the current pope is big news. He is a loved man, because he helps te poor, speaks out against greed and generally does sweet stuff (like the current front page post about the pope going out at night to sit with the homeless). The fact that this is considered special and great, bothers me greatly; what I get from the hype is that the pope's behaviour is considered uncommon, that we should take him as an example. Is giving some money to the poor and saying we shouldn't be greedy really that special? I don't believe he is going out of his way to do great things, I'd say it's more a PR-stunt of small 'nice' deeds the pope does. In fact, he could do a *lot* more if he were really serious about changing the world. Homosexuals are still condemned by the church, people are still having sex without condoms and spreading aids in Africa because the church says you can't use condoms, the church is still filthy rich and evades taxes in almost all countries, the church is still spending very little of this money on real relief. I typed this out rather quickly, if something is unclear, let me know. I'm interested to see what you guys think.

t3_4gjrvr

CMV: "If everyone did this" is not a valid moral argument.

> If everyone did X, the world would be in a worse state. Therefore doing X is wrong. I don't consider this a valid moral argument. If the impact of a single person doing X is minuscule (possibly under the condition that someone is already doing X), it isn't significantly immoral to do X. Of course publicly supporting that you should do X in front of a significant audience is not touched by this principle, since the result of that would be a whole group of people starting to do X, which in itself is more than a minuscule consequence. In the same way I don't consider this a valid moral argument either: > If everyone did X, the world would be in a better state. Therefore doing X a moral duty. Again, if the impact of a single person doing X is minuscule (possibly under the condition that someone already isn't doing X), it is in a practical context irrelevant whether I personally do X or don't do X. Here's some examples: * If all people in a democracy that are against right- or left-wing extremism would stop voting in an election, then extremists would win the vote, which would be devastating for democracy and our society. Since my personal vote will very likely not change the outcome of the election though, not voting is not significantly immoral. * If everyone was eating too much meat, more animals would be slaughtered and more farmland and water would be used inefficiently. Since me becoming a vegetarian and not buying meat at the grocery store would very likely not change the number of animals being killed though, eating meat is not significantly immoral. * If no one would have looked at the Fappening pictures, it wouldn't have had a negative impact on the celebrities who were victims of the leak. Since me personally looking at those pictures doesn't impact the victims in a significant way, doing so is not significantly immoral. * If everyone were to find ways to avoid paying taxes, the state would go bankrupt. Since me personally avoiding taxes doesn't significantly impact the state's budget, doing so is not significantly immoral. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: "If everyone did this" is not a valid moral argument. > If everyone did X, the world would be in a worse state. Therefore doing X is wrong. I don't consider this a valid moral argument. If the impact of a single person doing X is minuscule (possibly under the condition that someone is already doing X), it isn't significantly immoral to do X. Of course publicly supporting that you should do X in front of a significant audience is not touched by this principle, since the result of that would be a whole group of people starting to do X, which in itself is more than a minuscule consequence. In the same way I don't consider this a valid moral argument either: > If everyone did X, the world would be in a better state. Therefore doing X a moral duty. Again, if the impact of a single person doing X is minuscule (possibly under the condition that someone already isn't doing X), it is in a practical context irrelevant whether I personally do X or don't do X. Here's some examples: * If all people in a democracy that are against right- or left-wing extremism would stop voting in an election, then extremists would win the vote, which would be devastating for democracy and our society. Since my personal vote will very likely not change the outcome of the election though, not voting is not significantly immoral. * If everyone was eating too much meat, more animals would be slaughtered and more farmland and water would be used inefficiently. Since me becoming a vegetarian and not buying meat at the grocery store would very likely not change the number of animals being killed though, eating meat is not significantly immoral. * If no one would have looked at the Fappening pictures, it wouldn't have had a negative impact on the celebrities who were victims of the leak. Since me personally looking at those pictures doesn't impact the victims in a significant way, doing so is not significantly immoral. * If everyone were to find ways to avoid paying taxes, the state would go bankrupt. Since me personally avoiding taxes doesn't significantly impact the state's budget, doing so is not significantly immoral. CMV.

t3_1ifyvc

I am an American nationalist, CMV.

i'm proud to be caucasian, and i reject any notion that by harboring disappointment in some of my forefathers actions that i must be held culpable to, or live at the expense of those whom they wronged. i refuse to apologize for being born into circumstances better than most; circumstances not a product of chance but rather the hard work, success, and love of my parents. some whine and call this privilege, so be it, i call it heritage. And with the blood bestowed to me by parents and the accumulated knowledge of my human experience, I will continue this legacy. this is not supremacism, i am making no universal statements on the superiority or mediocrity of any group of people: i merely believe that all people have a right to freedom, self-determination, and the preservation of their culture and traditions.

I am an American nationalist, CMV. i'm proud to be caucasian, and i reject any notion that by harboring disappointment in some of my forefathers actions that i must be held culpable to, or live at the expense of those whom they wronged. i refuse to apologize for being born into circumstances better than most; circumstances not a product of chance but rather the hard work, success, and love of my parents. some whine and call this privilege, so be it, i call it heritage. And with the blood bestowed to me by parents and the accumulated knowledge of my human experience, I will continue this legacy. this is not supremacism, i am making no universal statements on the superiority or mediocrity of any group of people: i merely believe that all people have a right to freedom, self-determination, and the preservation of their culture and traditions.

t3_22befh

CMV:I think "yellow fever" where non-Asians exclusively seek out Asians for romantic partners is a shallow and negative thing based on harmful generalizations and stereotypes

To be clear, I'm talking about non-Asian people who openly admit they prefer to date Asians. To only date Asians in an Asian-majority country or community is something different because of the statistics of that dating pool. When someone manages to consistently only pursue Asians in an area where they are a minority, it is significant. I hear "I'm interested in the culture" or "I like the way they look" as explanations, but I've never seen one of these people go after partners of just one country/culture. They don't exclusively date Chinese instead of Japanese or Vietnamese, Thai, Filipino, etc. It's any and all Asians, which to me says it isn't a cultural understanding or appreciation because these cultures are different. This would also make it seem it isn't a certain "aesthetic" because not only is there a lot of variation in faces and builds from person to person, this is especially true for East Asian vs Southeast Asian vs Polynesian ethnic groups. The only common features I can think of is dark hair and dark eyes, but that isn't exclusive to Asians. Because of the above, I think "yellow fever" is the result of that idea of the docile, submissive Asian or Asian people as sexualized "Asian schoolgirl"/"K-pop idol" tropes, and I think those are harmful stereotypes. The way I look at it, it just seems like a form of objectification. It erases the individual identity of the potential partner based on generalizations, stereotypes, and fantasies, so I don't see how it's healthy or fair. In short, it's right to find it "creepy". _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I think "yellow fever" where non-Asians exclusively seek out Asians for romantic partners is a shallow and negative thing based on harmful generalizations and stereotypes. To be clear, I'm talking about non-Asian people who openly admit they prefer to date Asians. To only date Asians in an Asian-majority country or community is something different because of the statistics of that dating pool. When someone manages to consistently only pursue Asians in an area where they are a minority, it is significant. I hear "I'm interested in the culture" or "I like the way they look" as explanations, but I've never seen one of these people go after partners of just one country/culture. They don't exclusively date Chinese instead of Japanese or Vietnamese, Thai, Filipino, etc. It's any and all Asians, which to me says it isn't a cultural understanding or appreciation because these cultures are different. This would also make it seem it isn't a certain "aesthetic" because not only is there a lot of variation in faces and builds from person to person, this is especially true for East Asian vs Southeast Asian vs Polynesian ethnic groups. The only common features I can think of is dark hair and dark eyes, but that isn't exclusive to Asians. Because of the above, I think "yellow fever" is the result of that idea of the docile, submissive Asian or Asian people as sexualized "Asian schoolgirl"/"K-pop idol" tropes, and I think those are harmful stereotypes. The way I look at it, it just seems like a form of objectification. It erases the individual identity of the potential partner based on generalizations, stereotypes, and fantasies, so I don't see how it's healthy or fair. In short, it's right to find it "creepy".

t3_5iv996

CMV: It doesn't make sense to debate abortion until the definition of a person or human life is defined

Just for context, I'm not religious in any way. I'm not approaching the abortion debate from a religious perspective. I find debating abortion without defining what a person or human life is first about as valuable as debating the existence of god. It's value begins and ends at being an intellectual exercise; No solution or conclusion can be made from the debate because there is no agreed upon standard that human life begins. - The fetus/embryo is obviously a life or life form, but both sides already agree it is acceptable to kill life (no one freaks out if a weed is uprooted, or bacteria is killed) - In order to be pro-choice, one must believe that the fetus is not a person. But why would the fetus in the womb not be a person, and then minutes later when it leaves the womb it is now a person that can't be killed? What's changed besides the environment it's in? It'd be like saying it's not okay to murder someone who is in a store, but it is okay to do so if they are in a house. - In order to be pro-life, one must believe that the embryo is a human life or a person. But why? What makes that collection of cells a person? And why would the moment of conception by the point at which a person has been created? Why stop there? Since sperm cells will also create a person, should it be illegal for someone to masturbate? Why is the death penalty acceptable since it will kill the host's sperm cells? Ultimately a debate about abortion is about the wrong thing. The debate should be about personhood, and when that begins. Both sides can probably already agree that it isn't okay to murder people, so resolving the abortion debate should be as simple as simply defining what a person is. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It doesn't make sense to debate abortion until the definition of a person or human life is defined. Just for context, I'm not religious in any way. I'm not approaching the abortion debate from a religious perspective. I find debating abortion without defining what a person or human life is first about as valuable as debating the existence of god. It's value begins and ends at being an intellectual exercise; No solution or conclusion can be made from the debate because there is no agreed upon standard that human life begins. - The fetus/embryo is obviously a life or life form, but both sides already agree it is acceptable to kill life (no one freaks out if a weed is uprooted, or bacteria is killed) - In order to be pro-choice, one must believe that the fetus is not a person. But why would the fetus in the womb not be a person, and then minutes later when it leaves the womb it is now a person that can't be killed? What's changed besides the environment it's in? It'd be like saying it's not okay to murder someone who is in a store, but it is okay to do so if they are in a house. - In order to be pro-life, one must believe that the embryo is a human life or a person. But why? What makes that collection of cells a person? And why would the moment of conception by the point at which a person has been created? Why stop there? Since sperm cells will also create a person, should it be illegal for someone to masturbate? Why is the death penalty acceptable since it will kill the host's sperm cells? Ultimately a debate about abortion is about the wrong thing. The debate should be about personhood, and when that begins. Both sides can probably already agree that it isn't okay to murder people, so resolving the abortion debate should be as simple as simply defining what a person is.

t3_6b9vui

CMV: Evolutionary perspective on hyper-metabolism

We all have at least one friend who seems to be able to eat ungodly amounts of any type of food and still never gain a pound. The phenomenon of these high metabolisers always fascinated me and I often wondered how that 'gift' fairs from the standpoint of evolution. It seems that people who are unable to form any fat deposits from caloric surplus would be at a large disadvantage in situations of food scarcity and can only benefit from their capability now, in a highly unnatural setting where food resources are abundant. If a population sample found itself in a state of famine, the perpetually slender ones would surely die off the fastest. Maintaining their minimal body mass appears to require higher caloric intake than the average person, and with no excess fat deposits they would find themselves in a difficult predicament. Meanwhile, those who typically struggle with weight gain could survive off far less food for far longer. Their bodies by default require less energy and have the option of tapping in to pre-existing reservoirs of energy. So I wonder whether super-metabolisms are actually a result of a genetic mutation which produces freaks of nature who could have never survived at any other time in history but now. Granted, my hypothesis is a lay one so I am curious whether it has any substance.

CMV: Evolutionary perspective on hyper-metabolism. We all have at least one friend who seems to be able to eat ungodly amounts of any type of food and still never gain a pound. The phenomenon of these high metabolisers always fascinated me and I often wondered how that 'gift' fairs from the standpoint of evolution. It seems that people who are unable to form any fat deposits from caloric surplus would be at a large disadvantage in situations of food scarcity and can only benefit from their capability now, in a highly unnatural setting where food resources are abundant. If a population sample found itself in a state of famine, the perpetually slender ones would surely die off the fastest. Maintaining their minimal body mass appears to require higher caloric intake than the average person, and with no excess fat deposits they would find themselves in a difficult predicament. Meanwhile, those who typically struggle with weight gain could survive off far less food for far longer. Their bodies by default require less energy and have the option of tapping in to pre-existing reservoirs of energy. So I wonder whether super-metabolisms are actually a result of a genetic mutation which produces freaks of nature who could have never survived at any other time in history but now. Granted, my hypothesis is a lay one so I am curious whether it has any substance.

t3_1q2oz0

I believe we exist only in a computer simulation created by another more technologically advanced sentient race. CMV

Until the next paradigm shift in computer power takes place (i.e. carbon nanotubes, etc.) Moore’s Law will continue to innovate and eventually blur the lines between video graphics and reality. Within the next 200 years homo Sapiens will be able to generate a simulated reality indistinguishable from what we live in today. With the laws of physics based on mathematics and computers powerful enough to generate and maintain those laws. Eventually (within the next 200 years) humans will find a theory to unify the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Integrated with computer code powerful we will have the tools to build a Universe with universal constant laws. If homo Sapiens will be able to generate a simulated Universe within the next 200 years then other sentient races have done so already. The probability of homo Sapiens beings the only sentient beings to exist at this very moment in 'time' is next to impossible. Firstly, if you take the approximate age of the known Universe 13.8 billion years and the age of our galaxy (Milky Way13.2b), and solar system age (Sun ~4.6b and Earth ~4.54b). Given the fact that the transition between unicellular organisms and multicellular took ~3.2 billion years to achieve on Earth. And given an additional ~500million years to present day until homo Sapiens came along (~200kya). With that being said, life could’ve evolved at a much faster pace on other older galaxies and older solar systems. This means other Earth-like planets harboring technologically advanced sentient species have already achieved greater technological advancements then us. And have already begun simulating Universe. Like the one we live in today. Please CMV.

I believe we exist only in a computer simulation created by another more technologically advanced sentient race. CMV. Until the next paradigm shift in computer power takes place (i.e. carbon nanotubes, etc.) Moore’s Law will continue to innovate and eventually blur the lines between video graphics and reality. Within the next 200 years homo Sapiens will be able to generate a simulated reality indistinguishable from what we live in today. With the laws of physics based on mathematics and computers powerful enough to generate and maintain those laws. Eventually (within the next 200 years) humans will find a theory to unify the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Integrated with computer code powerful we will have the tools to build a Universe with universal constant laws. If homo Sapiens will be able to generate a simulated Universe within the next 200 years then other sentient races have done so already. The probability of homo Sapiens beings the only sentient beings to exist at this very moment in 'time' is next to impossible. Firstly, if you take the approximate age of the known Universe 13.8 billion years and the age of our galaxy (Milky Way13.2b), and solar system age (Sun ~4.6b and Earth ~4.54b). Given the fact that the transition between unicellular organisms and multicellular took ~3.2 billion years to achieve on Earth. And given an additional ~500million years to present day until homo Sapiens came along (~200kya). With that being said, life could’ve evolved at a much faster pace on other older galaxies and older solar systems. This means other Earth-like planets harboring technologically advanced sentient species have already achieved greater technological advancements then us. And have already begun simulating Universe. Like the one we live in today. Please CMV.

t3_1kkzei

CMV: Power is good. Greed is good.

I believe power is good because it allows one who has proper self-control and a proper feel of responsibility to do godly things. Like fund research for immortality, or create a gigantic statue just to have it destroyed, to show how much power they have. I believe *controlled* greed is good because it leads to a craving for more everything. Controlled, I believe it leads to a constant reminder of what one should do with their life as opposed to what they are doing right now. Why do I believe this? Because I want to be perfect, I want to be godly. I want to get to the point where people work for me, where I would just have to say the word "make this" and this would be done without any effort done in my part. Change my view, please. Tell me how and why this is wrong. EDIT: Thank you for your inputs. I'm sorry I didn't get to reply early enough now :( But thank you again, I will go over each comment and consider. :)

CMV: Power is good. Greed is good. I believe power is good because it allows one who has proper self-control and a proper feel of responsibility to do godly things. Like fund research for immortality, or create a gigantic statue just to have it destroyed, to show how much power they have. I believe *controlled* greed is good because it leads to a craving for more everything. Controlled, I believe it leads to a constant reminder of what one should do with their life as opposed to what they are doing right now. Why do I believe this? Because I want to be perfect, I want to be godly. I want to get to the point where people work for me, where I would just have to say the word "make this" and this would be done without any effort done in my part. Change my view, please. Tell me how and why this is wrong. EDIT: Thank you for your inputs. I'm sorry I didn't get to reply early enough now :( But thank you again, I will go over each comment and consider. :)

t3_24sel2

CMV: Motion pictures as we know them are rapidly on their way out and therefore, there is no point in me becoming a filmmaker, at least not in the traditional sense.

I love movies. If you look at my post history you will find that out very quickly. I also love making movies. I attended a conference a year ago at NYU where I met with some of the best and brightest of their graduate film studies program, as well as some well-known figures of current film scholarship, and the moribund state of modern cinema was a theme that hung over the whole thing. Many prominent filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg believe that the tradition of "going to the movies" will soon fall out of favor and become a luxury, rather than an every day thing. TV is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling. YouTube, Vine, and other such services make anyone with an iPhone into a filmmaker. Blogs make anyone a critic. I personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature-length cinematic productions. It looks like if I want to do what I want, I no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them. Instead I have to find my way to a TV series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial. I think that in order to find any success in the industry, I have to be on the cutting-edge of innovation, or else risk being buried along with a dying medium. 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: Motion pictures as we know them are rapidly on their way out and therefore, there is no point in me becoming a filmmaker, at least not in the traditional sense. I love movies. If you look at my post history you will find that out very quickly. I also love making movies. I attended a conference a year ago at NYU where I met with some of the best and brightest of their graduate film studies program, as well as some well-known figures of current film scholarship, and the moribund state of modern cinema was a theme that hung over the whole thing. Many prominent filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg believe that the tradition of "going to the movies" will soon fall out of favor and become a luxury, rather than an every day thing. TV is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling. YouTube, Vine, and other such services make anyone with an iPhone into a filmmaker. Blogs make anyone a critic. I personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature-length cinematic productions. It looks like if I want to do what I want, I no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them. Instead I have to find my way to a TV series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial. I think that in order to find any success in the industry, I have to be on the cutting-edge of innovation, or else risk being buried along with a dying medium. CMV.

t3_2673lh

CMV: Straighten out 200m and 400m races in track.

Currently it's not a fair contest as runners in the inside and outside lanes are disadvantaged. It's also not a true measure of human speed at covering those distances, unlike the 100m which is a straight line. With straight 200m and 400m, outside lanes would still be a bit disadvantaged, vision-wise, but far less so. And curvature would be a total nonfactor. No room for this in the stadium? So hold those races elsewhere, or start them outside the stadium. It wouldn't be practical always, but could be done at least at the Olympics and major events. Edit: Also this would make for more satisfying spectating, as it's easier to read the progress of the race if all runners have the same starting line. _____ > *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: Straighten out 200m and 400m races in track. Currently it's not a fair contest as runners in the inside and outside lanes are disadvantaged. It's also not a true measure of human speed at covering those distances, unlike the 100m which is a straight line. With straight 200m and 400m, outside lanes would still be a bit disadvantaged, vision-wise, but far less so. And curvature would be a total nonfactor. No room for this in the stadium? So hold those races elsewhere, or start them outside the stadium. It wouldn't be practical always, but could be done at least at the Olympics and major events. Edit: Also this would make for more satisfying spectating, as it's easier to read the progress of the race if all runners have the same starting line.

t3_4u8ifq

CMV: The DNC email dump is a non-story. Nothing shocking has been revealed at all.

The current consensus on Reddit (or at least on r/politics) is that the recent Wikileaks dump of DNC emails is proof of corruption at the highest levels. I don't agree with this consensus at all. I don't see anything that shocking there. Bernie was never really a Democrat and didn't do anything for the party so naturally they supported Hillary. There aren't any emails about actual corruption, like screwing with polls or stopping Bernie supporters from voting. Just strategies to defeat him. I can't imagine anyone reading this is truly surprised by what they find. Like the email I keep seeing people talk about is the one where a DNC official discusses the possibility of labeling Bernie as an atheist. But that strategy was never used! It was one official talking about it as a possibility... which is exactly what I'd expect to see in these emails, a number of strategies that never came to fruition. Just thinking of an idea and not following through counts as corruption? I think people want this to be a big deal but I don't think it is. What are the shocking revelations here? Just to anticipate one counter-argument... Someone elsewhere brought up the emails between the DNC and MSNBC as proof that the DNC forced MSNBC to change their stance on Bernie. I haven't seen any sort of evidence that these emails are what changed MSNBC's stance. Every email is just like "hey we need to talk about this." I don't even know what the timeline is on MSNBC's supposed change. Did it happen soon after these emails? But weren't the emails spread out over weeks and months? Maybe MSNBC changed their stance after seeing that Sanders was definitely not going to win? It's any number of things that could have happened. But the Reddit assumption is there was a shady meeting in an undisclosed location where the DNC chair and the president of MSNBC shook hands and probably a big briefcase of money was handed over or something. There is zero question in my mind that our political system and the media have elements of corruption. In fact I support Bernie 100% in his efforts to get money out of politics. I just don't see anything in this email dump that tells me anything I didn't already know. That being said, I am fully capable of changing my view on this subject. Did I miss some truly shocking revelation? _____ > *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 DNC email dump is a non-story. Nothing shocking has been revealed at all. The current consensus on Reddit (or at least on r/politics) is that the recent Wikileaks dump of DNC emails is proof of corruption at the highest levels. I don't agree with this consensus at all. I don't see anything that shocking there. Bernie was never really a Democrat and didn't do anything for the party so naturally they supported Hillary. There aren't any emails about actual corruption, like screwing with polls or stopping Bernie supporters from voting. Just strategies to defeat him. I can't imagine anyone reading this is truly surprised by what they find. Like the email I keep seeing people talk about is the one where a DNC official discusses the possibility of labeling Bernie as an atheist. But that strategy was never used! It was one official talking about it as a possibility... which is exactly what I'd expect to see in these emails, a number of strategies that never came to fruition. Just thinking of an idea and not following through counts as corruption? I think people want this to be a big deal but I don't think it is. What are the shocking revelations here? Just to anticipate one counter-argument... Someone elsewhere brought up the emails between the DNC and MSNBC as proof that the DNC forced MSNBC to change their stance on Bernie. I haven't seen any sort of evidence that these emails are what changed MSNBC's stance. Every email is just like "hey we need to talk about this." I don't even know what the timeline is on MSNBC's supposed change. Did it happen soon after these emails? But weren't the emails spread out over weeks and months? Maybe MSNBC changed their stance after seeing that Sanders was definitely not going to win? It's any number of things that could have happened. But the Reddit assumption is there was a shady meeting in an undisclosed location where the DNC chair and the president of MSNBC shook hands and probably a big briefcase of money was handed over or something. There is zero question in my mind that our political system and the media have elements of corruption. In fact I support Bernie 100% in his efforts to get money out of politics. I just don't see anything in this email dump that tells me anything I didn't already know. That being said, I am fully capable of changing my view on this subject. Did I miss some truly shocking revelation?

t3_4xrtev

CMV: American race relations, and in particular, relations between black people and the police aren't going to get any better any time soon, if ever.

Black people were enslaved in North America for roughly 250 years (I'm going back to the colonies). After the civil war black people on paper were given civil rights. However when reconstitution ended, black people went back to being oppressed until roughly the 1960s. No one enforced the 14th or 15th amendments. Hell, the Plessy case was basically the court saying "equal protection clause? nah screw that because we don't like black people." My point is it took roughly 250 years for America to say "you know what? Maybe we shouldn't enslave black people." (And that ONLY happened because the south thought Lincoln was gonna take their slaves, who knows how much longer slavery would've lasted if that they stayed in the union). And it took roughly 100 more years for the USA to actually ENFORCE the civil rights amendments passed post civil war. Now we live in an era where de jure slavery and Jim Crow is dead. But this is the era of mass incaracarion and massive wealth inequality between black people and white people. (Those two things being the main racial issues of this time, in my opinion). Point being, mass incarcaration isn't going to end anytime soon. It makes too much money. Poor black areas aren't going to look much different in 2040 than they do now. Kids there just don't have much opportunity at all to be successful, being the victims of their circumstance. Since the drug war and racist policing (read the DOJ report on Baltimore) won't end, there are gonna still be tons of black people that distrust law enforcement. I'm not saying people shouldn't *try* to make things better, of course they should. But if history is any indicator, we will all be dead and gone before this country sees any serious improvements in the lives of distressed black people. I think I should clarify that this comes from the perspective of a middle class white person.

CMV: American race relations, and in particular, relations between black people and the police aren't going to get any better any time soon, if ever. Black people were enslaved in North America for roughly 250 years (I'm going back to the colonies). After the civil war black people on paper were given civil rights. However when reconstitution ended, black people went back to being oppressed until roughly the 1960s. No one enforced the 14th or 15th amendments. Hell, the Plessy case was basically the court saying "equal protection clause? nah screw that because we don't like black people." My point is it took roughly 250 years for America to say "you know what? Maybe we shouldn't enslave black people." (And that ONLY happened because the south thought Lincoln was gonna take their slaves, who knows how much longer slavery would've lasted if that they stayed in the union). And it took roughly 100 more years for the USA to actually ENFORCE the civil rights amendments passed post civil war. Now we live in an era where de jure slavery and Jim Crow is dead. But this is the era of mass incaracarion and massive wealth inequality between black people and white people. (Those two things being the main racial issues of this time, in my opinion). Point being, mass incarcaration isn't going to end anytime soon. It makes too much money. Poor black areas aren't going to look much different in 2040 than they do now. Kids there just don't have much opportunity at all to be successful, being the victims of their circumstance. Since the drug war and racist policing (read the DOJ report on Baltimore) won't end, there are gonna still be tons of black people that distrust law enforcement. I'm not saying people shouldn't *try* to make things better, of course they should. But if history is any indicator, we will all be dead and gone before this country sees any serious improvements in the lives of distressed black people. I think I should clarify that this comes from the perspective of a middle class white person.

t3_1g1hhf

I'm an anarchist that votes under the current system. CMV

I'm an anarchist, as a group they don't vote because the current "democracy" is not representative for the people. I agree with that, but don't want to hand over power to the right, so I try to find a party that subscribes most of my ideas. I was having an argument, in which it became clear that maybe my vote keeps the system "approved" (50%+1), although on the other hand, even if voter turnout drops below 50% the system will not stop existing (which is the main reason I vote, that they don't care about turnout, as long as *someone* is going to vote). I live in Spain, but the same problem persists in many countries. What is the view I want you to change (or try to)? Voting as an anarchist (not on the political ideology, but the voting itself).

I'm an anarchist that votes under the current system. CMV. I'm an anarchist, as a group they don't vote because the current "democracy" is not representative for the people. I agree with that, but don't want to hand over power to the right, so I try to find a party that subscribes most of my ideas. I was having an argument, in which it became clear that maybe my vote keeps the system "approved" (50%+1), although on the other hand, even if voter turnout drops below 50% the system will not stop existing (which is the main reason I vote, that they don't care about turnout, as long as *someone* is going to vote). I live in Spain, but the same problem persists in many countries. What is the view I want you to change (or try to)? Voting as an anarchist (not on the political ideology, but the voting itself).

t3_68j2wr

CMV: Communism is the only solution to the world's problems.

So let me provide some backstory. I've always been a fairly left-leaning person politically. About 5 years or so ago I began to read about and study Communism. Not in a classroom sense, but in a "I agree with this" kind of way. So to summarize my 'current' views: Workers around the world have been oppressed by the overruling bourgeoisie class for far too long. Because of taught behaviours such as greed and racism, the bourgeoisie is responsible for the death of millions of people each and every day. Peaceful efforts by the working population have resulted in no progress, leaving only a global violent revolt as the only solution. Until this happens, man kind will make little to no progress. So why am I here? I feel as though mentioning I am communist raises a couple of issues. The first is the onslaught of arguments everyone uses against Communism (Human nature, death counts, etc.) As soon as these arguments come up it kills any chance to have a proper debate on political beliefs. So the first issue I have is the word 'Communism' has too much of a negative connotation to it and associating myself with it ruins any chance to have proper political discussions. Issue number two is quite simply I don't know if I believe in Communism anymore. To elaborate, I don't think my views have changed. I believe in and are a strong advocate for large governments. Health care is a right, not a privilege. There is plenty to go around. When peaceful protests fail, the workers should turn to violent revolts. Etc. etc. But.. I don't think I should associate myself with communism nor advocate for it. The reason for this is I feel I've become profoundly close minded in my views of world politics. It seems now whenever politics comes up and I have a discussion, it always turns south. I get caught up in things, start getting more drastic about my views. To give an example, I once argued with someone on why I dislike all of the Marvel films. It ended with me going on about how working class is oppressed and Disney is wasting money instead of feeding the poor or something like that. I believe I've become close minded through Communism because its such a hated political system and, as a result, you either become firm or take shit from everyone for your views. I don't want to be close minded as it goes against everything I believe in. So I want to change my perspective on political beliefs. I don't see myself abandoning socialist values and programs. That is just who I am as an individual. But I can't keep being such a close minded person who can't even have a simple debate because of my irrationality. I need to abandon Communism - even if it once gave me the hope I needed to go day to day. But I don't know how to go about this. _____ > *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: Communism is the only solution to the world's problems. So let me provide some backstory. I've always been a fairly left-leaning person politically. About 5 years or so ago I began to read about and study Communism. Not in a classroom sense, but in a "I agree with this" kind of way. So to summarize my 'current' views: Workers around the world have been oppressed by the overruling bourgeoisie class for far too long. Because of taught behaviours such as greed and racism, the bourgeoisie is responsible for the death of millions of people each and every day. Peaceful efforts by the working population have resulted in no progress, leaving only a global violent revolt as the only solution. Until this happens, man kind will make little to no progress. So why am I here? I feel as though mentioning I am communist raises a couple of issues. The first is the onslaught of arguments everyone uses against Communism (Human nature, death counts, etc.) As soon as these arguments come up it kills any chance to have a proper debate on political beliefs. So the first issue I have is the word 'Communism' has too much of a negative connotation to it and associating myself with it ruins any chance to have proper political discussions. Issue number two is quite simply I don't know if I believe in Communism anymore. To elaborate, I don't think my views have changed. I believe in and are a strong advocate for large governments. Health care is a right, not a privilege. There is plenty to go around. When peaceful protests fail, the workers should turn to violent revolts. Etc. etc. But.. I don't think I should associate myself with communism nor advocate for it. The reason for this is I feel I've become profoundly close minded in my views of world politics. It seems now whenever politics comes up and I have a discussion, it always turns south. I get caught up in things, start getting more drastic about my views. To give an example, I once argued with someone on why I dislike all of the Marvel films. It ended with me going on about how working class is oppressed and Disney is wasting money instead of feeding the poor or something like that. I believe I've become close minded through Communism because its such a hated political system and, as a result, you either become firm or take shit from everyone for your views. I don't want to be close minded as it goes against everything I believe in. So I want to change my perspective on political beliefs. I don't see myself abandoning socialist values and programs. That is just who I am as an individual. But I can't keep being such a close minded person who can't even have a simple debate because of my irrationality. I need to abandon Communism - even if it once gave me the hope I needed to go day to day. But I don't know how to go about this.

t3_68i6u1

CMV: Eating and generally learning about food from other cultures does virtually nothing to educate you or broaden your mind with respect to said cultures

It's almost impossible to have any kind of discussion about the culture of another land without talking about food. We all agree that travelling is an enriching experience, as is meeting people totally different from your self. The same is said of eating foreign food (especially when you're actually in the land). When talking about immigration/multiculturalism, a lot is said about the different kinds of restaurants we benefit from, how we can try things we've never tried before. How greater choice is so enriching. And I just don't get it. If you want culture, just pick up a book. Talk to somebody. Go online. From an historical anthropological point of view, I know looking at food is a good jumping point in learning about religion, what tools were available at the time, what crops people had, what the main trade was etc. That's fine. What I'm talking about is the modern day treatment like my immigration example (and please, no immigration debates). Dropping a lot of foreign-style restaurants into your city does practically zero in adding any real understanding or appreciation of a culture. Yes, people who live close to the sea have a lot of seafood - great. Some people use their hands instead of utensils - good to know. With art you can tell a story, show what people value, reveal facts. Food is just food. I'm open to change because a lot of people seem to think otherwise and my passionless utilitarian view of food may be clouding my judgment. When it comes to social stuff I can sometimes miss the obvious.

CMV: Eating and generally learning about food from other cultures does virtually nothing to educate you or broaden your mind with respect to said cultures. It's almost impossible to have any kind of discussion about the culture of another land without talking about food. We all agree that travelling is an enriching experience, as is meeting people totally different from your self. The same is said of eating foreign food (especially when you're actually in the land). When talking about immigration/multiculturalism, a lot is said about the different kinds of restaurants we benefit from, how we can try things we've never tried before. How greater choice is so enriching. And I just don't get it. If you want culture, just pick up a book. Talk to somebody. Go online. From an historical anthropological point of view, I know looking at food is a good jumping point in learning about religion, what tools were available at the time, what crops people had, what the main trade was etc. That's fine. What I'm talking about is the modern day treatment like my immigration example (and please, no immigration debates). Dropping a lot of foreign-style restaurants into your city does practically zero in adding any real understanding or appreciation of a culture. Yes, people who live close to the sea have a lot of seafood - great. Some people use their hands instead of utensils - good to know. With art you can tell a story, show what people value, reveal facts. Food is just food. I'm open to change because a lot of people seem to think otherwise and my passionless utilitarian view of food may be clouding my judgment. When it comes to social stuff I can sometimes miss the obvious.

t3_3h8zog

CMV: I believe Pedophiles deserve the same rights as a Homosexual.

For many years, homosexuals were penalised and even killed, simply for being a homosexual, regardless of whether they acted upon their urges or not. This still happens today. We also see many pedophiles being penalised simply for being a pedophile, regardless of whether or not they've acted upon their urges. If someone is revealed to be a pedophile, they are instantly put on the sex-offenders list. Even if they have not performed an illegal act. It is my belief that only criminals should be punished for crimes. Intent =/= Action. Similarly Pedophile =/= Child-Molester. There ARE child-molesting pedophiles, of course, and I do believe they should be reprimanded. They have committed a crime. Similarly, I do believe that possession and distribution of child pornography is a punishable crime. If there is a victim, there is a crime. Possessing child porn means you condone the acts depicted. There are many pedophiles who have not committed a crime such as molestation or looked at child porn. Yet they are penalised if found out! What have they done wrong? In a similar strain I believe lolicon (drawn depictions of child porn) should be legal, as there is no victim (so long as it wasn't traced from/inspired by real child-porn). Same goes for underage erotica (that is entirely fictitious). Both of these are protected by free-speech, and neither have a victim. If anything, they provide an outlet for sexual frustration. So why are so many websites banning such content on 'Legal Grounds'? _____ > *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 Pedophiles deserve the same rights as a Homosexual. For many years, homosexuals were penalised and even killed, simply for being a homosexual, regardless of whether they acted upon their urges or not. This still happens today. We also see many pedophiles being penalised simply for being a pedophile, regardless of whether or not they've acted upon their urges. If someone is revealed to be a pedophile, they are instantly put on the sex-offenders list. Even if they have not performed an illegal act. It is my belief that only criminals should be punished for crimes. Intent =/= Action. Similarly Pedophile =/= Child-Molester. There ARE child-molesting pedophiles, of course, and I do believe they should be reprimanded. They have committed a crime. Similarly, I do believe that possession and distribution of child pornography is a punishable crime. If there is a victim, there is a crime. Possessing child porn means you condone the acts depicted. There are many pedophiles who have not committed a crime such as molestation or looked at child porn. Yet they are penalised if found out! What have they done wrong? In a similar strain I believe lolicon (drawn depictions of child porn) should be legal, as there is no victim (so long as it wasn't traced from/inspired by real child-porn). Same goes for underage erotica (that is entirely fictitious). Both of these are protected by free-speech, and neither have a victim. If anything, they provide an outlet for sexual frustration. So why are so many websites banning such content on 'Legal Grounds'?

t3_61u63t

CMV: Young children should not be allowed to have their own portable devices (i.e iPads, iPhone, tablets/phones in general).

(Note that my own definition of a "young child" is around the ages of 1 to 11.) Reddit, please change my view. Every time I see a little kid with their own electronic device, usually an iPad, an iPhone, or a parent letting their child use their phone, I die a little inside. To me, it shows irresponsibility. Whether the device is bought just for them or being lent to them for some time, I see it as bad parenting. An easy way to distract them from you, so you don't have to pay attention to them. They can get lost in the virtual world for so long, and eventually (going to my main point), it dominates them. It just takes control of their lives. The child gets to a point where they *expect* to be allowed to use the device whenever or wherever they want. If the device is taken away for whatever reason, they scream, they cry, they throw a huge fit, and it's horrendous. I'm sick of seeing it. I see no positive points for giving any kind of devices to these kids. "But educational apps?" I hear you say. That doesn't make a difference. Unless the parent/guardian is constantly watching the kid to make sure they don't exit the app to do something else, it's not going to work. The kids are glued to the screen watching dumb YouTube videos or playing random free-to-play games. Or even worse - parents that put their credit card numbers on the App Store/Play Store just to buy a game for their spoiled brat, only for them to forget about it and, weeks later, see a huge-ass bill on their statement with them realizing in shock that they left their number on, allowing the kid to make tons and tons of microtransactions. It's extremely stressful for parents. The only solution I see for any of this is to supervise your kid at all times whenever they use a device, but this is not exactly an efficient solution that every parent can do, which is unfortunate. And that's what I think. Letting young children use devices takes control of their lives and I see absolutely no positives to it. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Young children should not be allowed to have their own portable devices (i.e iPads, iPhone, tablets/phones in general). (Note that my own definition of a "young child" is around the ages of 1 to 11.) Reddit, please change my view. Every time I see a little kid with their own electronic device, usually an iPad, an iPhone, or a parent letting their child use their phone, I die a little inside. To me, it shows irresponsibility. Whether the device is bought just for them or being lent to them for some time, I see it as bad parenting. An easy way to distract them from you, so you don't have to pay attention to them. They can get lost in the virtual world for so long, and eventually (going to my main point), it dominates them. It just takes control of their lives. The child gets to a point where they *expect* to be allowed to use the device whenever or wherever they want. If the device is taken away for whatever reason, they scream, they cry, they throw a huge fit, and it's horrendous. I'm sick of seeing it. I see no positive points for giving any kind of devices to these kids. "But educational apps?" I hear you say. That doesn't make a difference. Unless the parent/guardian is constantly watching the kid to make sure they don't exit the app to do something else, it's not going to work. The kids are glued to the screen watching dumb YouTube videos or playing random free-to-play games. Or even worse - parents that put their credit card numbers on the App Store/Play Store just to buy a game for their spoiled brat, only for them to forget about it and, weeks later, see a huge-ass bill on their statement with them realizing in shock that they left their number on, allowing the kid to make tons and tons of microtransactions. It's extremely stressful for parents. The only solution I see for any of this is to supervise your kid at all times whenever they use a device, but this is not exactly an efficient solution that every parent can do, which is unfortunate. And that's what I think. Letting young children use devices takes control of their lives and I see absolutely no positives to it.

t3_3ffta7

CMV: Auto manufacturers should make their vehicles' headlights shut off when the car shuts off

Headlights are mostly useful for improving the driver's vision while driving in low-light conditions and for increasing the visibility of the driver's car in low-light or foggy conditions. While stationary, the only non-malicious use of a car's headlights (I.E. other than parking the car and turning on the headlights/high beams in an attempt to confuse or blind oncoming drivers) is to light up an area for somebody on foot. However, a flashlight would be much more effective for this purpose. With the lack of usefulness of stationary headlights in mind, cars should be designed such that the headlights turn off when the car is turned off in order to prevent the car battery from running down. Edit: To clarify, I don't feel that this behavior needs to be the *only* way to activate headlights. I see no issue with there being an option to have the headlights on when the car is off, but I feel that the "auto" mode (headlights on when car is on, headlights off when car is off) should be at least as accessible as the always-on mode in all vehicles that have both. Deltas: * [Always-on behavior in addition to auto-off behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto7tnn?context=1) * [Headlights on a timer](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8c9k?context=3) * [Stopping on the side of a country road in low visibility conditions](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8zsu?context=3) _____ > *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: Auto manufacturers should make their vehicles' headlights shut off when the car shuts off. Headlights are mostly useful for improving the driver's vision while driving in low-light conditions and for increasing the visibility of the driver's car in low-light or foggy conditions. While stationary, the only non-malicious use of a car's headlights (I.E. other than parking the car and turning on the headlights/high beams in an attempt to confuse or blind oncoming drivers) is to light up an area for somebody on foot. However, a flashlight would be much more effective for this purpose. With the lack of usefulness of stationary headlights in mind, cars should be designed such that the headlights turn off when the car is turned off in order to prevent the car battery from running down. Edit: To clarify, I don't feel that this behavior needs to be the *only* way to activate headlights. I see no issue with there being an option to have the headlights on when the car is off, but I feel that the "auto" mode (headlights on when car is on, headlights off when car is off) should be at least as accessible as the always-on mode in all vehicles that have both. Deltas: * [Always-on behavior in addition to auto-off behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto7tnn?context=1) * [Headlights on a timer](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8c9k?context=3) * [Stopping on the side of a country road in low visibility conditions](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8zsu?context=3)

t3_5cbq8m

CMV: Non-white voters, were the primary difference in this election going Trump over Clinton.

Data comes from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html If the above data is correct, given that Obama beat Romney, according to the above Trump out performed Romney by 11% of Asian voters, 8% of Hispanic/Latino voters, 7% of black voters and only 1% of other, white voters. Wouldn't this indicate that the difference between Obama/Clinton vs Romney/Trump was primarily in the non-white vote? The simplest negation to this I could think of would be a sufficient disparity of voter turn-out between white, and non-white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, certainly there is some reason to believe that attempts at party specific voter suppression have been made (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-voter-suppression.html) however at the moment I have been unable to find hard data on the success of said measures, and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately (as minority vote is disproportionately in favour of Democratic candidates). Which would predict a lower minority turnout, but not a higher % of the minority vote that did turn out supporting the republican candidate which is reported by the initial article. So, I am left with the position that the data I have (largest change between Obama and Trump was the non-white vote) is contradictory to the discussion I hear (Trump won because of the white vote), something is amiss, so for now I hold the position the discussion I hear (Trump won because of the white vote) is incorrect, change my view. Edit: The numbers I indicated (1%, 7%, 8% 11%) are misleading [or at least I had misread them], they are net change for the democrats and thus include votes for a third party so more accurately: Trump got 1% less of the white vote (-0.2% change instead of the +1 I indicated) Trump got 2% more of the black vote (33% change instead of the +7 I indicated) Trump got 2% more of the Latino/Hispanic vote (7.4% change instead of the +8 I indicated) Trump got 3% more of the Asian vote (11.5% change instead of the 11 I indicated [woot I accidently got one right]) I think that actually strengthens my point though as Trump got less of the white vote according to the data than Romney. Second Edit: I will probably be slower to respond now, I have just learned we lost Leonard Cohen today. Fuck 2016. _____ > *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: Non-white voters, were the primary difference in this election going Trump over Clinton. Data comes from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html If the above data is correct, given that Obama beat Romney, according to the above Trump out performed Romney by 11% of Asian voters, 8% of Hispanic/Latino voters, 7% of black voters and only 1% of other, white voters. Wouldn't this indicate that the difference between Obama/Clinton vs Romney/Trump was primarily in the non-white vote? The simplest negation to this I could think of would be a sufficient disparity of voter turn-out between white, and non-white voters changing between 2012 and 2016, certainly there is some reason to believe that attempts at party specific voter suppression have been made (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-voter-suppression.html) however at the moment I have been unable to find hard data on the success of said measures, and most of the measures I have seen are identified as targeting minorities primarily and thus democrats disproportionately (as minority vote is disproportionately in favour of Democratic candidates). Which would predict a lower minority turnout, but not a higher % of the minority vote that did turn out supporting the republican candidate which is reported by the initial article. So, I am left with the position that the data I have (largest change between Obama and Trump was the non-white vote) is contradictory to the discussion I hear (Trump won because of the white vote), something is amiss, so for now I hold the position the discussion I hear (Trump won because of the white vote) is incorrect, change my view. Edit: The numbers I indicated (1%, 7%, 8% 11%) are misleading [or at least I had misread them], they are net change for the democrats and thus include votes for a third party so more accurately: Trump got 1% less of the white vote (-0.2% change instead of the +1 I indicated) Trump got 2% more of the black vote (33% change instead of the +7 I indicated) Trump got 2% more of the Latino/Hispanic vote (7.4% change instead of the +8 I indicated) Trump got 3% more of the Asian vote (11.5% change instead of the 11 I indicated [woot I accidently got one right]) I think that actually strengthens my point though as Trump got less of the white vote according to the data than Romney. Second Edit: I will probably be slower to respond now, I have just learned we lost Leonard Cohen today. Fuck 2016.

t3_1ys2g6

I believe that the world is gynocentric, CMV.

By gynocentric, I of course mean that the world revolves (socially, not literally) around the needs and wants of women. I believe that men are seen as disposable tools, like working animals that you feed and shelter as in investment in exchange for their service, their work. that women are valued far beyond that of men, and not only for their reproductive capabilities that were essential to a family and community, but that they were entitled to everything they wanted, for example circa the 1920s, women wanted to vote, of course they had no need for it, they stayed at home raising the children on average (not that they were forced to do that either), what would it matter to them who was elected to represent their husbands? and I say husbands not out of a sexist attitude, but out of the fact that men worked and the president that was elected had more say over their livelihood, their ability to bring home money than anything an elected official could ever imagine having over women, it wasn't until the 1960's that all men regardless ownership or business status, got the vote, and they had to sell the state their body in the form of the draft for the very same right women got 40 years prior, completely for free.

I believe that the world is gynocentric, CMV. By gynocentric, I of course mean that the world revolves (socially, not literally) around the needs and wants of women. I believe that men are seen as disposable tools, like working animals that you feed and shelter as in investment in exchange for their service, their work. that women are valued far beyond that of men, and not only for their reproductive capabilities that were essential to a family and community, but that they were entitled to everything they wanted, for example circa the 1920s, women wanted to vote, of course they had no need for it, they stayed at home raising the children on average (not that they were forced to do that either), what would it matter to them who was elected to represent their husbands? and I say husbands not out of a sexist attitude, but out of the fact that men worked and the president that was elected had more say over their livelihood, their ability to bring home money than anything an elected official could ever imagine having over women, it wasn't until the 1960's that all men regardless ownership or business status, got the vote, and they had to sell the state their body in the form of the draft for the very same right women got 40 years prior, completely for free.

t3_2y5w06

CMV: Unfollowing someone on Facebook is a really shitty thing to do.

Today I noticed Facebook had some time ago added an option to 'unfollow' a contact, allowing you to remain friends while not having to see any of their posts. Who does this? I mean that rhetorically, of course people must do it. But aside from *maybe* wanting to maintain a work / career relationship with someone who posts annoying / offensive content, how can this be explained in any other way than "I want this person to still consider us friends even though I have no interest in their life whatsoever." Valuing relationships only in terms of a status / friend count seems almost sociopathic to me, at worst, and an asshole move at 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: Unfollowing someone on Facebook is a really shitty thing to do. Today I noticed Facebook had some time ago added an option to 'unfollow' a contact, allowing you to remain friends while not having to see any of their posts. Who does this? I mean that rhetorically, of course people must do it. But aside from *maybe* wanting to maintain a work / career relationship with someone who posts annoying / offensive content, how can this be explained in any other way than "I want this person to still consider us friends even though I have no interest in their life whatsoever." Valuing relationships only in terms of a status / friend count seems almost sociopathic to me, at worst, and an asshole move at best.

t3_1z2hge

I believe that gender as a social and cultural construct is an obsolete concept and should be discarded. CMV.

Gender is defined by Wikipedia as “the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioural characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity” - In the workplace, there are a lot of jobs that are historically based on the gender of the worker. Nursing, for example, used to be a women-dominated job, and still is, even if today it’s to a lesser degree. Trucking is a “man’s job”, same for construction, etc. And every time someone of the wrong gender tries to do the other gender’s job, there is criticism, mockery, and such. What if we only took into account physical ability and skill to determine if they are truly able to do a job? - In sports, we’ve created categories for men and women, based on the reasoning that both gender have different physical capabilities. I believe this way of thinking is sexist. As a man, there are people from both gender who are faster and slower than me. I can understand that by taking an average, men are stronger that women, but that does not say anything about particular cases. Why shouldn’t we create categories based on capabilities instead of gender? For exemple, body mass, like in combat sports, or muscle density, or something else, that might be a true way of putting people of equal capabilities together? Isn’t the true objective of sport fair competition? - Identifying to one’s gender. In the wake of the feminism movement, there are some women that are “proud” of being a women. In the same way, some men identify strongly with their manliness, and boast of it, be it via their physical strength or something else. Why would one sex matter in their self-worth assessment, especially since we don’t exert a choice in sexual selection? I agree that there are some behavioural difference between men and women based on physical differences : be it hormonal differences, or the capacity to bear a child, or to father one. I argue that those differences are private matter, and should never be accounted for in life outside one’s home. In the light of those examples, I ask the following question : what’s the use of gender? What does it bring us, as a society? Is it a useful concept or is it just something that we’re carrying since time immemorial because it was easier at the time to stereotype sexual difference into gender and it’s now easier to stick with that concept?

I believe that gender as a social and cultural construct is an obsolete concept and should be discarded. CMV. Gender is defined by Wikipedia as “the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioural characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity” - In the workplace, there are a lot of jobs that are historically based on the gender of the worker. Nursing, for example, used to be a women-dominated job, and still is, even if today it’s to a lesser degree. Trucking is a “man’s job”, same for construction, etc. And every time someone of the wrong gender tries to do the other gender’s job, there is criticism, mockery, and such. What if we only took into account physical ability and skill to determine if they are truly able to do a job? - In sports, we’ve created categories for men and women, based on the reasoning that both gender have different physical capabilities. I believe this way of thinking is sexist. As a man, there are people from both gender who are faster and slower than me. I can understand that by taking an average, men are stronger that women, but that does not say anything about particular cases. Why shouldn’t we create categories based on capabilities instead of gender? For exemple, body mass, like in combat sports, or muscle density, or something else, that might be a true way of putting people of equal capabilities together? Isn’t the true objective of sport fair competition? - Identifying to one’s gender. In the wake of the feminism movement, there are some women that are “proud” of being a women. In the same way, some men identify strongly with their manliness, and boast of it, be it via their physical strength or something else. Why would one sex matter in their self-worth assessment, especially since we don’t exert a choice in sexual selection? I agree that there are some behavioural difference between men and women based on physical differences : be it hormonal differences, or the capacity to bear a child, or to father one. I argue that those differences are private matter, and should never be accounted for in life outside one’s home. In the light of those examples, I ask the following question : what’s the use of gender? What does it bring us, as a society? Is it a useful concept or is it just something that we’re carrying since time immemorial because it was easier at the time to stereotype sexual difference into gender and it’s now easier to stick with that concept?

t3_1g23up

CMV: Drinking alcohol is the most ridiculous thing a human being can do to their brain.

I consider myself an advocate for sobriety, but I will give you a little back story before I give my explanation. I started drinking around 10-11ish (yikes, where were my parents blah blah blah). Met my current husband as a teen (high school sweethearts). His mother was an alcoholic, and he was not willing to date someone, especially a someone who was already socially drinking. I figured, what the hell, I will give it up, he will probably change his mind eventually. He didn't, and I haven't had a drop to drink in over a decade. What started out as all-out war-type arguments with my husband has actually turned into me being the more vehement proponent of alcohol abstinence. Here's why: -As a psychotherapist, I frequently encounter individuals who use alcohol (not just abuse), and what I tend to find is that they are lacking in emotional, relational, social, or psychological maturity. Not lacking in extreme ways, but sometimes just more of a blunted experience of their own lives. Now, correlation being what it is, I cannot attribute this solely to alcohol, but my theory is that alcohol prevents people from being able to truly cope with stress at an absolute level. Generally, what I encounter is: stress-drink to cope with stress-resolve stress-stress in the future-inadequate coping skills-drink to cope with stress...the cycle tends to go on. Many people tend to use alcohol as a "protective factor" even though it is a huge risk factor in our field. For most, it tends to help stabilize (very temporarily, I might add) their emotional or psychological response to stress. My viewpoint is that it diminishes the human potential to cope with stressors or to experience the full spectrum of emotional and relational events in life. I guess the best example I can give on how to describe my example is this: If you suffer from truly severe depression, yet blunt it regularly with alcohol, you aren't fully coping with depression. In fact, IMO, you aren't even fully experiencing your depression for what it is. Now imagine if you were able to cope or overcome depression on your own without the aid of alcohol. That feat would require a great deal of personal growth and development. This isn't to say that growth/development happen only in the absence of alcohol, but my point is that the brain and the psyche of each individual suffer greatly through blunted experience, both of the inner self and the outer world. EDIT: I'm not coming at this purely from an abuse/stress standpoint. That just tends to be an easy example. I am arguing that the potential for experience-both good and bad experiences-is diminished when alcohol is involved. Also, I realize it's a personal choice to drink-people like the taste, they like to "relax," they enjoy getting shitfaced (why?)-but I think there is a wealth of human experience that is lost when alcohol acts as a filter. As I said, I haven't had anything to drink in over a decade, so maybe being absent from that realm of human experience has made me naive. CMV. -

CMV: Drinking alcohol is the most ridiculous thing a human being can do to their brain. I consider myself an advocate for sobriety, but I will give you a little back story before I give my explanation. I started drinking around 10-11ish (yikes, where were my parents blah blah blah). Met my current husband as a teen (high school sweethearts). His mother was an alcoholic, and he was not willing to date someone, especially a someone who was already socially drinking. I figured, what the hell, I will give it up, he will probably change his mind eventually. He didn't, and I haven't had a drop to drink in over a decade. What started out as all-out war-type arguments with my husband has actually turned into me being the more vehement proponent of alcohol abstinence. Here's why: -As a psychotherapist, I frequently encounter individuals who use alcohol (not just abuse), and what I tend to find is that they are lacking in emotional, relational, social, or psychological maturity. Not lacking in extreme ways, but sometimes just more of a blunted experience of their own lives. Now, correlation being what it is, I cannot attribute this solely to alcohol, but my theory is that alcohol prevents people from being able to truly cope with stress at an absolute level. Generally, what I encounter is: stress-drink to cope with stress-resolve stress-stress in the future-inadequate coping skills-drink to cope with stress...the cycle tends to go on. Many people tend to use alcohol as a "protective factor" even though it is a huge risk factor in our field. For most, it tends to help stabilize (very temporarily, I might add) their emotional or psychological response to stress. My viewpoint is that it diminishes the human potential to cope with stressors or to experience the full spectrum of emotional and relational events in life. I guess the best example I can give on how to describe my example is this: If you suffer from truly severe depression, yet blunt it regularly with alcohol, you aren't fully coping with depression. In fact, IMO, you aren't even fully experiencing your depression for what it is. Now imagine if you were able to cope or overcome depression on your own without the aid of alcohol. That feat would require a great deal of personal growth and development. This isn't to say that growth/development happen only in the absence of alcohol, but my point is that the brain and the psyche of each individual suffer greatly through blunted experience, both of the inner self and the outer world. EDIT: I'm not coming at this purely from an abuse/stress standpoint. That just tends to be an easy example. I am arguing that the potential for experience-both good and bad experiences-is diminished when alcohol is involved. Also, I realize it's a personal choice to drink-people like the taste, they like to "relax," they enjoy getting shitfaced (why?)-but I think there is a wealth of human experience that is lost when alcohol acts as a filter. As I said, I haven't had anything to drink in over a decade, so maybe being absent from that realm of human experience has made me naive. CMV. -

t3_1s4tz8

I believe people with depression can avoid it and snap out of it, if they want. PLEASE CMV.

Let me start by saying I don't actually want to think this way. I have friends that are depressed and I want to be sympathetic and help as much as I can. I've seen plenty of posts on Reddit and other forums where frustrated people suffering from depression vent about how difficult it is when other people don't recognize they are suffering from an illness (and treat it differently). I currently feel this way because, to me, people with depression just seem to lack the effort to try different things and generally better themselves. I have stopped trying to talk them through what they're feeling or provide support because I just get this general sense of apathy from them. So if they don't want to help themselves, how am I supposed to help them? How is anyone supposed to help them? It's like they're expecting the answer to fall out of the sky or come out of someones mouth one day. That's never going to happen. Life is sometimes shitty for everyone and the happiest ones are just the ones that learn to deal, pick up, and move on. We are all so lucky to be alive, why would you waste it on feeling sorry for yourself? It just seems selfish. I've been through tragedies, had horrible things happen to me, been a victim and still, have never even been close to depressed. So I don't see that as being an excuse. When I feel myself get into a slump, I sort of just pull myself out of it--because I have other people to think about and because they are counting on me. I can't get depressed because it would hurt my family and those that care about me. Even when I am feeling lonely and pitying myself, I still get up and do something to cheer myself up, not just lay around feeling bad for myself. The quality of my life is ultimately my responsibility, so pitying myself is just going to drive people away. I want to add: I'm not denying that depression is a real illness. I completely understand there are chemical disorders and imbalances in the brain that are signatures of depression. But, like any other illness, there has to be some cause, and I think depression is self-inflicted and a result of, to put it bluntly, not trying hard enough to feel happy. Bottom line: everyone goes through shit. I feel like depressed people are just the ones that feel too sorry for themselves, play the victim, and then just fall into a self-perpetuating cycle. At any moment I get the impression they could just...stop. Please CMV!

I believe people with depression can avoid it and snap out of it, if they want. PLEASE CMV. Let me start by saying I don't actually want to think this way. I have friends that are depressed and I want to be sympathetic and help as much as I can. I've seen plenty of posts on Reddit and other forums where frustrated people suffering from depression vent about how difficult it is when other people don't recognize they are suffering from an illness (and treat it differently). I currently feel this way because, to me, people with depression just seem to lack the effort to try different things and generally better themselves. I have stopped trying to talk them through what they're feeling or provide support because I just get this general sense of apathy from them. So if they don't want to help themselves, how am I supposed to help them? How is anyone supposed to help them? It's like they're expecting the answer to fall out of the sky or come out of someones mouth one day. That's never going to happen. Life is sometimes shitty for everyone and the happiest ones are just the ones that learn to deal, pick up, and move on. We are all so lucky to be alive, why would you waste it on feeling sorry for yourself? It just seems selfish. I've been through tragedies, had horrible things happen to me, been a victim and still, have never even been close to depressed. So I don't see that as being an excuse. When I feel myself get into a slump, I sort of just pull myself out of it--because I have other people to think about and because they are counting on me. I can't get depressed because it would hurt my family and those that care about me. Even when I am feeling lonely and pitying myself, I still get up and do something to cheer myself up, not just lay around feeling bad for myself. The quality of my life is ultimately my responsibility, so pitying myself is just going to drive people away. I want to add: I'm not denying that depression is a real illness. I completely understand there are chemical disorders and imbalances in the brain that are signatures of depression. But, like any other illness, there has to be some cause, and I think depression is self-inflicted and a result of, to put it bluntly, not trying hard enough to feel happy. Bottom line: everyone goes through shit. I feel like depressed people are just the ones that feel too sorry for themselves, play the victim, and then just fall into a self-perpetuating cycle. At any moment I get the impression they could just...stop. Please CMV!

t3_2ch74o

CMV: I believe that sensible Feminists should try to separate themselves from the radical internet Feminists.

Ok so first thing's first. I don't identify as an MRA or a feminist(not because I don't think that groups of people need movements like these to help their individual problems). I just like to consider myself a humanist and believe in equality for all races and genders. The reason I'm making this post is because I see two different types of feminists. There are sensible ones that seem to be for equality for both sexes, and then there are ones that act like completely deranged and illogical cunts who poison every social media outlet with their bullshit. I'm not trying to act like an expert on the issue, it's just that as someone viewing the two sides of feminism outside of the movement, it seems like there is little to no grey area between the two groups of people who identify as feminists. I really sympathize with the feminist movement, but I see that it's being taken over by the most whiny, illogical, petty, heartless, insensible group of people I've ever seen on the internet; and, I don't see many sensible feminists try to separate themselves from the radicals. I can't help to wonder if I'm missing something. I feel that I have to be blunt here and I'm sorry, but modern feminism really seems like a big joke to me as a whole because of all the radicals polluting the whole. I think it would be a great thing for feminism to call out the radicals on their blatant bullshit, who spew what I think is hatred towards both women and men. I'd like to articulate on that but I feel like this post is getting a bit long, so I'll end it here and respond to any comments later on tonight. I apologize if I made any crude generalizations or displayed any ignorance in the post. _____ > *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 sensible Feminists should try to separate themselves from the radical internet Feminists. Ok so first thing's first. I don't identify as an MRA or a feminist(not because I don't think that groups of people need movements like these to help their individual problems). I just like to consider myself a humanist and believe in equality for all races and genders. The reason I'm making this post is because I see two different types of feminists. There are sensible ones that seem to be for equality for both sexes, and then there are ones that act like completely deranged and illogical cunts who poison every social media outlet with their bullshit. I'm not trying to act like an expert on the issue, it's just that as someone viewing the two sides of feminism outside of the movement, it seems like there is little to no grey area between the two groups of people who identify as feminists. I really sympathize with the feminist movement, but I see that it's being taken over by the most whiny, illogical, petty, heartless, insensible group of people I've ever seen on the internet; and, I don't see many sensible feminists try to separate themselves from the radicals. I can't help to wonder if I'm missing something. I feel that I have to be blunt here and I'm sorry, but modern feminism really seems like a big joke to me as a whole because of all the radicals polluting the whole. I think it would be a great thing for feminism to call out the radicals on their blatant bullshit, who spew what I think is hatred towards both women and men. I'd like to articulate on that but I feel like this post is getting a bit long, so I'll end it here and respond to any comments later on tonight. I apologize if I made any crude generalizations or displayed any ignorance in the post.

t3_21ywbw

CMV:The machines are taking our jobs!

I was just a poor farmer and I my Lord just fired me because the tractors could do a much quicker and efficient job than me! This "industrialization" is taking our jobs, and only the rich is benefitting from it! What am I supposed to do now? There are no more jobs left. My only choice now is to move to the closest city and pray to find a job there. It's ridiculous, how is a man in the middle of the 18th century supposed to feed his wife and 6 sons without any land to work on! All is over.

CMV:The machines are taking our jobs!. I was just a poor farmer and I my Lord just fired me because the tractors could do a much quicker and efficient job than me! This "industrialization" is taking our jobs, and only the rich is benefitting from it! What am I supposed to do now? There are no more jobs left. My only choice now is to move to the closest city and pray to find a job there. It's ridiculous, how is a man in the middle of the 18th century supposed to feed his wife and 6 sons without any land to work on! All is over.