Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_334r2y

cmv abortion is wrong because the moment a fetus "becomes" a "person" isn't ascertainable and prevention of his/er/its later life is akin to murder.

I believe a woman has a right to deny use of her body to anyone, but what I'm struggling with is whether she has the right to kill her (literal) child to cut off that usage. If the fetus couldn't care for his/herself anyway this removal wouldn't change the death, just its cause, but the exact moment where he/she becomes "viable" is nigh impossible to pinpoint.Thus when an abortion is permissible (if ever) becomes muddied. That all aside, It might be wrong to kill something/one that will be a person (if he/she's not one already). Isn't preventing development of a human inside the womb the same as murdering someone outside (i.e. the continuation of his/er life)?

cmv abortion is wrong because the moment a fetus "becomes" a "person" isn't ascertainable and prevention of his/er/its later life is akin to murder. I believe a woman has a right to deny use of her body to anyone, but what I'm struggling with is whether she has the right to kill her (literal) child to cut off that usage. If the fetus couldn't care for his/herself anyway this removal wouldn't change the death, just its cause, but the exact moment where he/she becomes "viable" is nigh impossible to pinpoint.Thus when an abortion is permissible (if ever) becomes muddied. That all aside, It might be wrong to kill something/one that will be a person (if he/she's not one already). Isn't preventing development of a human inside the womb the same as murdering someone outside (i.e. the continuation of his/er life)?

t3_2pqbuv

CMV: There's nothing wrong with buying a product made by someone with questionable morality, so long as your purchase doesn't support that immorality.

So recently I was having a debate with my brother over the moral implications of buying Chanel perfume. I've been saving my money from my after school job for a while now to buy it, but his objection came in because Coco Chanel was quite literally a Nazi. I don't really see what's wrong with buying the perfume now- she's dead and my money isn't going towards fascism, it's going to a CEO. Now extend this to other questionable people- who are still alive. Woody Allen- there is a very strong possibility that he raped his daughter. In fact most people think it's certain. I don't see anything wrong with paying to watch his films, because he is a great filmmaker and me paying for a ticket isn't going to change whether or not Dylan Farrow was raped. Now compare this to Orson Scott Card, the author of Ender's Game. He is rabidly homophobic and goes as far as to support 'gay therapy' where young gay men are basically bullied for their sexuality. It would be wrong to buy his books because the money he earned from them would go to doing something morally wrong. So basically what I'm saying is buying stuff from bad people is only wrong if *my* money would go towards whatever bad thing they're doing. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's nothing wrong with buying a product made by someone with questionable morality, so long as your purchase doesn't support that immorality. So recently I was having a debate with my brother over the moral implications of buying Chanel perfume. I've been saving my money from my after school job for a while now to buy it, but his objection came in because Coco Chanel was quite literally a Nazi. I don't really see what's wrong with buying the perfume now- she's dead and my money isn't going towards fascism, it's going to a CEO. Now extend this to other questionable people- who are still alive. Woody Allen- there is a very strong possibility that he raped his daughter. In fact most people think it's certain. I don't see anything wrong with paying to watch his films, because he is a great filmmaker and me paying for a ticket isn't going to change whether or not Dylan Farrow was raped. Now compare this to Orson Scott Card, the author of Ender's Game. He is rabidly homophobic and goes as far as to support 'gay therapy' where young gay men are basically bullied for their sexuality. It would be wrong to buy his books because the money he earned from them would go to doing something morally wrong. So basically what I'm saying is buying stuff from bad people is only wrong if *my* money would go towards whatever bad thing they're doing.

t3_1eax5a

I think that there is no reason for the government to play a part in out lives CMV

Now days government (no matter what country you live in) takes a huge part in your everyday life. They limit what kind of knife you can have on your person, they tell you when to be in your house, they have a useless war on drugs, they are now trying to take even more of our constitutional rights. I don't see any valid reasons for them to take such a huge part in our decision making. I don't see why they should make our personal decisions for us. I am willing to listen to all schools of thought, and debate them. I'm also a brony so CMV on that if you want [](/rdsalute)

I think that there is no reason for the government to play a part in out lives CMV. Now days government (no matter what country you live in) takes a huge part in your everyday life. They limit what kind of knife you can have on your person, they tell you when to be in your house, they have a useless war on drugs, they are now trying to take even more of our constitutional rights. I don't see any valid reasons for them to take such a huge part in our decision making. I don't see why they should make our personal decisions for us. I am willing to listen to all schools of thought, and debate them. I'm also a brony so CMV on that if you want [](/rdsalute)

t3_5y9pnx

CMV: Feminism is not 'about choice'.

Recently, Emma Watson posed 'topless' in a Vanity Fair photo-shoot, which is an example of an 'act'. To the best of my understanding, feminism is not best described as an act; it is the mapping of an abundant choice of acts to situations in which the patriarchy is not perpetuated, a.k.a a rule. This terminology was inspired by the act and rule varieties of utilitarianism, the context of which is relevant though not necessary to read this argument. Emma Watson replied to accusations of her not acting in a feminist way by replying that 'feminism is about choice' and with this statement I disagree, though I identify as a feminist myself. Though there may be situations under which both feminists and non-feminists as a rule both agree on the same/similar actions, e.g. both would suggest the drinking of fluids so as to avoid dehydration; with different rules in place it is not generally true that the same conclusion will be reached, e.g. feminists and non-feminists may not agree that the patriarchy exists. Even within categories that are declared to be monolithic there can be a diversity of acts, e.g. feminists not necessarily agreeing on the extent to which safe spaces should be considered within their circles. I believe that feminism is the behavioural implementation of the feminist rule(s), and as such allows for choice of acts only to the limited extent that is consistent with said rule(s). A person describing themselves as a feminist should not act consistently with a chosen rule to subjugate oppressed groups. Thus, I do not believe that feminism is about choice. Edit: It is obvious from many of the comments that my position is not very clear. I shall attempt to clarify through an analogy. Though I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy for most reasons; if feminism were truly about choice, there would exist no reason for an abortion for which said abortion would be immoral. I believe this to be an incredibly misguided rule, the reasons for which are numerous, but I will focus on the most dire. Everyone could agree that a gender or sexual orientation (e.g. intersex or asexual) should and will be medically eliminated through testing and targeted abortion of embryos that when developed would possess said attributes. Under 'choice feminism' this poses no ethical dilemma at all, but I hope we can all see how awful this would be. Just because one can choose to conform to vague general feminist rules by choosing from a set of acts deemed feminist, or disobey through acts deemed anti-feminist, it does not mean feminism is about choice, since I hope there would be consequences such as loss of face and mockery for those who espouse decidedly anti-feminist views.

CMV: Feminism is not 'about choice'. Recently, Emma Watson posed 'topless' in a Vanity Fair photo-shoot, which is an example of an 'act'. To the best of my understanding, feminism is not best described as an act; it is the mapping of an abundant choice of acts to situations in which the patriarchy is not perpetuated, a.k.a a rule. This terminology was inspired by the act and rule varieties of utilitarianism, the context of which is relevant though not necessary to read this argument. Emma Watson replied to accusations of her not acting in a feminist way by replying that 'feminism is about choice' and with this statement I disagree, though I identify as a feminist myself. Though there may be situations under which both feminists and non-feminists as a rule both agree on the same/similar actions, e.g. both would suggest the drinking of fluids so as to avoid dehydration; with different rules in place it is not generally true that the same conclusion will be reached, e.g. feminists and non-feminists may not agree that the patriarchy exists. Even within categories that are declared to be monolithic there can be a diversity of acts, e.g. feminists not necessarily agreeing on the extent to which safe spaces should be considered within their circles. I believe that feminism is the behavioural implementation of the feminist rule(s), and as such allows for choice of acts only to the limited extent that is consistent with said rule(s). A person describing themselves as a feminist should not act consistently with a chosen rule to subjugate oppressed groups. Thus, I do not believe that feminism is about choice. Edit: It is obvious from many of the comments that my position is not very clear. I shall attempt to clarify through an analogy. Though I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy for most reasons; if feminism were truly about choice, there would exist no reason for an abortion for which said abortion would be immoral. I believe this to be an incredibly misguided rule, the reasons for which are numerous, but I will focus on the most dire. Everyone could agree that a gender or sexual orientation (e.g. intersex or asexual) should and will be medically eliminated through testing and targeted abortion of embryos that when developed would possess said attributes. Under 'choice feminism' this poses no ethical dilemma at all, but I hope we can all see how awful this would be. Just because one can choose to conform to vague general feminist rules by choosing from a set of acts deemed feminist, or disobey through acts deemed anti-feminist, it does not mean feminism is about choice, since I hope there would be consequences such as loss of face and mockery for those who espouse decidedly anti-feminist views.

t3_2mtxjp

CMV: Global warming/Climate Change is total BS, at least, in the way we're being told it's happening.

If the entire world stopped using gas, electricity, or any other thing "causing" global warming. Nothing would be different. There is nothing humans can do to stop it and that's FINE. that is just how the Earth works. That is how the cycle goes. Every 100,000 years or so, temperatures peak and after about 10-20,000 years, they fall again. We're simply on the upswing. Earth simply has a changing atmosphere. We need to respect that and instead of trying to work against it, we need to figure out what will happen at the end of it all and if it is anything worth worrying about. [My evidence.](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/CO2Temp800Kyrs.jpg) It works better when the two are overlayed but I couldn't find one with that. As you should be able to see, CO2 and temperature are moving simultaneously, but the strange thing is then the CO2 peaks, the temperature seems to stay constant with what has happened over the past 800,000 years. How am I the only one to even mention this? So tell me what I'm missing so I can get over this. **Edit: I'm done, we've started getting off topic. Goodnight everyone** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Global warming/Climate Change is total BS, at least, in the way we're being told it's happening. If the entire world stopped using gas, electricity, or any other thing "causing" global warming. Nothing would be different. There is nothing humans can do to stop it and that's FINE. that is just how the Earth works. That is how the cycle goes. Every 100,000 years or so, temperatures peak and after about 10-20,000 years, they fall again. We're simply on the upswing. Earth simply has a changing atmosphere. We need to respect that and instead of trying to work against it, we need to figure out what will happen at the end of it all and if it is anything worth worrying about. [My evidence.](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/CO2Temp800Kyrs.jpg) It works better when the two are overlayed but I couldn't find one with that. As you should be able to see, CO2 and temperature are moving simultaneously, but the strange thing is then the CO2 peaks, the temperature seems to stay constant with what has happened over the past 800,000 years. How am I the only one to even mention this? So tell me what I'm missing so I can get over this. **Edit: I'm done, we've started getting off topic. Goodnight everyone**

t3_25ggdq

CMV: I don't believe any income tax rate should exceed 40% or that there should be an estate tax.

I have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 40% seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair (call it a sort of moral "gut feeling."). I do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and I generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies. However, I cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed. Further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one's death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property. I am interested in well thought out reasons why I should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a "damn the rich, they're what's wrong with this country" line of reasoning. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe any income tax rate should exceed 40% or that there should be an estate tax. I have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 40% seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair (call it a sort of moral "gut feeling."). I do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and I generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies. However, I cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person's income should be able to be taken away and redistributed. Further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one's death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property. I am interested in well thought out reasons why I should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a "damn the rich, they're what's wrong with this country" line of reasoning.

t3_1wjgx4

I think the generation of entitlement isn't real CMV.

First, we will get this out of the way. I am 18, so I'm part of what people call the generation of entitlement. When I hear people use this term on Reddit, I immediately get pissed because I think it is full of shit and an excuse to bash younger people for being younger, or for teenagers to make themselves feel more mature than everyone else their age. Okay, so basically I think the observations that lead people to believe in the generation of entitlement are the result of other factors, such as improved technology, improved standard of living, perception of increased requirements for success, and anecdotal examples of specific selfish teenagers. I also think what people see as the generation of entitlement isn't really a bad thing, nor is it specific to the current generation. So change my view, or correct any misconceptions I have about this belief.

I think the generation of entitlement isn't real CMV. First, we will get this out of the way. I am 18, so I'm part of what people call the generation of entitlement. When I hear people use this term on Reddit, I immediately get pissed because I think it is full of shit and an excuse to bash younger people for being younger, or for teenagers to make themselves feel more mature than everyone else their age. Okay, so basically I think the observations that lead people to believe in the generation of entitlement are the result of other factors, such as improved technology, improved standard of living, perception of increased requirements for success, and anecdotal examples of specific selfish teenagers. I also think what people see as the generation of entitlement isn't really a bad thing, nor is it specific to the current generation. So change my view, or correct any misconceptions I have about this belief.

t3_5d8vfq

CMV:Climate change deniers should be held accountable for any future catastrophes that might come as a result, such as Wars and Diseases.

In theory one person should be held in front of a judge if he committed a crime. At this moment it is pretty obvious that climate change is real, it´s happening and we need to do something. Denying it is putting us, as a race, in a place where we might lose the only place where we can inhabit with the technology we have at the moment. Point in case, who is rejecting climate change is preventing our race from trying to solve the issue proactively and all leaders who are not working towards a solution should be held accountable of any possible consequences in the future. Looking forward to hearing your opinion! _____ > *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 deniers should be held accountable for any future catastrophes that might come as a result, such as Wars and Diseases. In theory one person should be held in front of a judge if he committed a crime. At this moment it is pretty obvious that climate change is real, it´s happening and we need to do something. Denying it is putting us, as a race, in a place where we might lose the only place where we can inhabit with the technology we have at the moment. Point in case, who is rejecting climate change is preventing our race from trying to solve the issue proactively and all leaders who are not working towards a solution should be held accountable of any possible consequences in the future. Looking forward to hearing your opinion!

t3_1cmyk8

I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV

EDIT: I want to say that there have been some very good discussions and I thank people for them. My views are still the same but I know much more clearly why those who hold differing views hold them. I think the most interesting explanations was the introduction to me of the violinist analogy. And I think from there that the biggest issue I have is that I see the active nature of unplugging a person to be murder. If you don't agree I'm not sure if anything can change either of our points of view. I also find the correlation of unplugging the violinist to be equal to refusing to donate organs to someone who needed them to be a bit of a jump. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY The above video is not my point of view but different questions on the morality of murder and complicated nature of the question. I think the main difference in the people I discussed with was our interpretation of active/passive killing. Unfortunately this is the kind of view that does not change easily but I thank the people who discussed it respectfully. Above all I hope this reminds people how complicated the issue of abortion really is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quick statement: Fetus implies not a human and baby implies human so not to start with a bias I will call the thing growing in a lady's belly, for lack of a better word, a "betus." I am agnostic and politically ambiguous so this isn't coming from a listen to my religion or conservative view point rant. I think the abortion issue is terribly simplified by both prolife and prochoice advocates. It generally gets broken down into sound bites like: Prolife: "You're killing babies!" Prochoice: "Stay away from my body!" Now if I had to answer those sound bites I'd say: Prolife: No one like abortion. It's legal so that people who want one (and there will always be people who want one) can get one without causing harm to themselves. Also, what makes you say they are babies? Prochoice: It's your body harboring what will very soon be a new human body that will have rights that you cannot violate despite it being inside you. Some people think that the betus inside you already has rights. My point of view is... it might and how can we really know if it does or not? If human beings have universal human rights (a fairly new but rapidly growing point of view that most American would agree with) then who is to argue that a betus of 15 weeks has rights when one of 14 weeks does not. Doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary especially if one were to believe in things like a human soul? Isn't this another case of human rights being stripped of people due to differences? (plenty of societies put these differences on age, deformation or gender). The underlining question seems to be: are fetuses (sorry couldn't keep writing the word "betus") people and how do we know? Maybe this is in part due to my agnosticism but I think that if you can't prove something isn't a human being when in a few weeks/months it will unquestionably be a human being then you probably shouldn't be killing it on the off chance that it is murder. CMV

I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV. EDIT: I want to say that there have been some very good discussions and I thank people for them. My views are still the same but I know much more clearly why those who hold differing views hold them. I think the most interesting explanations was the introduction to me of the violinist analogy. And I think from there that the biggest issue I have is that I see the active nature of unplugging a person to be murder. If you don't agree I'm not sure if anything can change either of our points of view. I also find the correlation of unplugging the violinist to be equal to refusing to donate organs to someone who needed them to be a bit of a jump. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY The above video is not my point of view but different questions on the morality of murder and complicated nature of the question. I think the main difference in the people I discussed with was our interpretation of active/passive killing. Unfortunately this is the kind of view that does not change easily but I thank the people who discussed it respectfully. Above all I hope this reminds people how complicated the issue of abortion really is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quick statement: Fetus implies not a human and baby implies human so not to start with a bias I will call the thing growing in a lady's belly, for lack of a better word, a "betus." I am agnostic and politically ambiguous so this isn't coming from a listen to my religion or conservative view point rant. I think the abortion issue is terribly simplified by both prolife and prochoice advocates. It generally gets broken down into sound bites like: Prolife: "You're killing babies!" Prochoice: "Stay away from my body!" Now if I had to answer those sound bites I'd say: Prolife: No one like abortion. It's legal so that people who want one (and there will always be people who want one) can get one without causing harm to themselves. Also, what makes you say they are babies? Prochoice: It's your body harboring what will very soon be a new human body that will have rights that you cannot violate despite it being inside you. Some people think that the betus inside you already has rights. My point of view is... it might and how can we really know if it does or not? If human beings have universal human rights (a fairly new but rapidly growing point of view that most American would agree with) then who is to argue that a betus of 15 weeks has rights when one of 14 weeks does not. Doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary especially if one were to believe in things like a human soul? Isn't this another case of human rights being stripped of people due to differences? (plenty of societies put these differences on age, deformation or gender). The underlining question seems to be: are fetuses (sorry couldn't keep writing the word "betus") people and how do we know? Maybe this is in part due to my agnosticism but I think that if you can't prove something isn't a human being when in a few weeks/months it will unquestionably be a human being then you probably shouldn't be killing it on the off chance that it is murder. CMV

t3_3or3pu

CMV: Hillary Clinton's main candidate quality is she's a woman, and that isn't enough to become president.

I see a lot of "Real Women Vote for Hillary" signs going up around me. And in the debate last night she pulled the "I'm a woman" card over and over. I understand that we want a female president and I want to see one in my lifetime, but I don't think Hillary would make a good president. If you take away her female quality, she is a candidate whose biggest campaign contributors are big banks and private prisons. She does not declare herself for a position until polls and focus groups tell her it will be popular. She acts like her current stances are how she's always felt but past interviews/speeches/votes/etc show that she has flip flopped to whatever is popular at the time. Her only outspoken feminist views or policies besides "being a woman" is a policy that has been the standard democratic platform for years. Not to mention that as the "email scandal" got bad, she threw one of her top aides under the bus, a woman who had been with her for years. I guess my point is; show me why she would make a good president besides that fact that she'd be the first woman president.

CMV: Hillary Clinton's main candidate quality is she's a woman, and that isn't enough to become president. I see a lot of "Real Women Vote for Hillary" signs going up around me. And in the debate last night she pulled the "I'm a woman" card over and over. I understand that we want a female president and I want to see one in my lifetime, but I don't think Hillary would make a good president. If you take away her female quality, she is a candidate whose biggest campaign contributors are big banks and private prisons. She does not declare herself for a position until polls and focus groups tell her it will be popular. She acts like her current stances are how she's always felt but past interviews/speeches/votes/etc show that she has flip flopped to whatever is popular at the time. Her only outspoken feminist views or policies besides "being a woman" is a policy that has been the standard democratic platform for years. Not to mention that as the "email scandal" got bad, she threw one of her top aides under the bus, a woman who had been with her for years. I guess my point is; show me why she would make a good president besides that fact that she'd be the first woman president.

t3_4waem6

CMV: The accented E in Pokémon is both unnecessary and ineffective.

In Pokémon, the E is not normal, but rather it is accented (alt code 0233 or copy and paste to use it). This accent suggests that the E sounds like it does in hen or résumé. However, most people don't actually know what the accents mean, and rather just ignore them. Rarely will you see Pokémon typed with the accent (since it is extra effort to do so on an English keyboard), and furthermore, people often say Pokēmon. The ē symbol refers to a pronunciation such as you would find in key or green (don't know the alt code, simply copy and paste). Because people never actually type out Pokémon with an accent, and because a large portion of people fail to pronounce the accented E correctly, Pokémon would have been better off without it in English speaking 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: The accented E in Pokémon is both unnecessary and ineffective. In Pokémon, the E is not normal, but rather it is accented (alt code 0233 or copy and paste to use it). This accent suggests that the E sounds like it does in hen or résumé. However, most people don't actually know what the accents mean, and rather just ignore them. Rarely will you see Pokémon typed with the accent (since it is extra effort to do so on an English keyboard), and furthermore, people often say Pokēmon. The ē symbol refers to a pronunciation such as you would find in key or green (don't know the alt code, simply copy and paste). Because people never actually type out Pokémon with an accent, and because a large portion of people fail to pronounce the accented E correctly, Pokémon would have been better off without it in English speaking countries.

t3_29hk0m

CMV: I believe if a person can consent to drive while drunk, and thus be responsible for their actions, they can consent to sex, contracts, and anything else they may later have to be responsible for.

I was thinking about this and when I posted it a few weeks ago in a thread it seemed pretty controversial. I feel that if someone can be charged for drinking and driving, that indicates that we believe they should have had the ability to make the responsible choice. Even if someone is black out drunk, they can choose to drive and possibly kill someone. So why is it different for consenting to sex, entering contracts, or any number of other things people use being drunk as a defense against. If anyone at any level of intoxication can make the presumably informed decision to drive, they can make the presumably informed decision to do anything else. I don't think a society can rightly say "Well she decided to drive and should face the consequences" but also "That deal is invalid because she was intoxicated at the time, and should suffer no consequence" or "She was drunk and couldn't consent to sex, so it was non-consensual sex." My personal standpoint is that if a person decides to drink, they accept the actions of their drunk selves. Everyone knows the effects of alcohol and they accept that when drinking. So change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe if a person can consent to drive while drunk, and thus be responsible for their actions, they can consent to sex, contracts, and anything else they may later have to be responsible for. I was thinking about this and when I posted it a few weeks ago in a thread it seemed pretty controversial. I feel that if someone can be charged for drinking and driving, that indicates that we believe they should have had the ability to make the responsible choice. Even if someone is black out drunk, they can choose to drive and possibly kill someone. So why is it different for consenting to sex, entering contracts, or any number of other things people use being drunk as a defense against. If anyone at any level of intoxication can make the presumably informed decision to drive, they can make the presumably informed decision to do anything else. I don't think a society can rightly say "Well she decided to drive and should face the consequences" but also "That deal is invalid because she was intoxicated at the time, and should suffer no consequence" or "She was drunk and couldn't consent to sex, so it was non-consensual sex." My personal standpoint is that if a person decides to drink, they accept the actions of their drunk selves. Everyone knows the effects of alcohol and they accept that when drinking. So change my view.

t3_1f0l9h

I consider nostalgia to be a purely negative feeling that only turns memories into pain. I don't want to feel this way. Please CMV

Nostalgia, to me, is the bittersweet feeling you get remembering how much you used to enjoy doing something in a way that you do not or cannot enjoy it today. I don't get the sweet aspect of the bittersweet feeling, though. For instance, I just finished my first year of college. Going home and talking to my friends is great in a few cases, but in the vast majority of them, I feel no happiness. It's different. We don't have the connection we did, and no longer enjoy each other's company in the way we used to. I don't enjoy having the memory of how things were. I don't care about that memory. I want to actually feel it. The memory does nothing but taunt me with the love and joy I once felt, showing me how things were compared to how they are. And I hate it. Why do people say that those memories fill them with such joy? Memories, to me, are not feelings, but the shadows of feelings. Remembering what a cool glass of water feels like while you're in the desert doesn't help you, it just makes you want the water more.

I consider nostalgia to be a purely negative feeling that only turns memories into pain. I don't want to feel this way. Please CMV. Nostalgia, to me, is the bittersweet feeling you get remembering how much you used to enjoy doing something in a way that you do not or cannot enjoy it today. I don't get the sweet aspect of the bittersweet feeling, though. For instance, I just finished my first year of college. Going home and talking to my friends is great in a few cases, but in the vast majority of them, I feel no happiness. It's different. We don't have the connection we did, and no longer enjoy each other's company in the way we used to. I don't enjoy having the memory of how things were. I don't care about that memory. I want to actually feel it. The memory does nothing but taunt me with the love and joy I once felt, showing me how things were compared to how they are. And I hate it. Why do people say that those memories fill them with such joy? Memories, to me, are not feelings, but the shadows of feelings. Remembering what a cool glass of water feels like while you're in the desert doesn't help you, it just makes you want the water more.

t3_3ggi6b

CMV: Sex and Violence should be treated with equal standards.

You know what really turns my gears, the fact that here in the US you can get scolded by the populous for putting a sexual undertone in your creation (in adult media outside of porn) while you get praise for putting a lot of action and violence in what you're creating. I personally think that how the general populous' craving for violence while hating on sexual themes is very counter-productive (at least here in the US). I believe how we got this mind set is how violence and sex was perceived back in the Victorian Era where multiple wars were happening within the US and how the upper class thought of nudity as a "lower class" trait. This carried over into World War 1 and 2 where violence pretty much saved the US and made it into the giant economy it was and still mostly is today. And also during the Cold War, religion (mainly Christianity where sex is pretty much looked down especially with Homosexuality) was taking over and the US population perceived Russia as a "Communist Atheist" county. This old mindset has to stop and thus we need to move on into a more accepting culture. And I'm not talking about "Oh let's just legalize Pedophilia and Bestiality", I'm talking about treating sexual themes and violence in the same matter. Also I don't believe we should expose younger children to sexual themes as the same matter with extreme violence within our media. Edit: Well I have some real life stuff going on so I will see you guys soon had a good chat with everyone of you so yeah take care :) _____ > *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: Sex and Violence should be treated with equal standards. You know what really turns my gears, the fact that here in the US you can get scolded by the populous for putting a sexual undertone in your creation (in adult media outside of porn) while you get praise for putting a lot of action and violence in what you're creating. I personally think that how the general populous' craving for violence while hating on sexual themes is very counter-productive (at least here in the US). I believe how we got this mind set is how violence and sex was perceived back in the Victorian Era where multiple wars were happening within the US and how the upper class thought of nudity as a "lower class" trait. This carried over into World War 1 and 2 where violence pretty much saved the US and made it into the giant economy it was and still mostly is today. And also during the Cold War, religion (mainly Christianity where sex is pretty much looked down especially with Homosexuality) was taking over and the US population perceived Russia as a "Communist Atheist" county. This old mindset has to stop and thus we need to move on into a more accepting culture. And I'm not talking about "Oh let's just legalize Pedophilia and Bestiality", I'm talking about treating sexual themes and violence in the same matter. Also I don't believe we should expose younger children to sexual themes as the same matter with extreme violence within our media. Edit: Well I have some real life stuff going on so I will see you guys soon had a good chat with everyone of you so yeah take care :)

t3_64ox3i

CMV: The government should make organ donation upon death mandatory, and, if necessary, living people should be killed when their organs would do more good than them.

My position is simple. Upon death, anybody with healthy organs should be required to donate them to those in need. After that policy is instated, if no other measures can be used to save the dying, the government should institute a [survival lottery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_survival_lottery). A few clarifications about this lottery: 1. Random people would redistribute their organs until the life expectancy of the country would not increase by doing so. 2. The lottery would be based on years of healthy, conscious, and tolerable life saved, not just absolute number lives. For instance, if you are 18, and have 8 organs you can give to the dying, but the only people who need them are 95 year old men who will die in pain anyways, you would not be forced to give up your organs. 3. Getting an organ donation from someone this way (through murder) would come at a large fine to the person without functioning organs, depending on their income. The sum of all the fines would be given to the donor's family. 4. The fines referenced in #3 would increase based on the specifics of how their need for an organ came about. Someone who needs an organ because of a medical condition they were born with would pay less than someone who needs new lungs because they were smoking. 5. If they wished, the person who needed organs could opt out and be given hospice much like most people must today, rather than accept one from a living person. My reasoning should be clear if it is not already. Quality of life would increase, life expectancy would increase, and although people might feel less secure, statistically the population would be safer than before. CMV! Note: I will address each point with a new comment to organize discussion. That means I will be writing multiple comments for each answer.

CMV: The government should make organ donation upon death mandatory, and, if necessary, living people should be killed when their organs would do more good than them. My position is simple. Upon death, anybody with healthy organs should be required to donate them to those in need. After that policy is instated, if no other measures can be used to save the dying, the government should institute a [survival lottery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_survival_lottery). A few clarifications about this lottery: 1. Random people would redistribute their organs until the life expectancy of the country would not increase by doing so. 2. The lottery would be based on years of healthy, conscious, and tolerable life saved, not just absolute number lives. For instance, if you are 18, and have 8 organs you can give to the dying, but the only people who need them are 95 year old men who will die in pain anyways, you would not be forced to give up your organs. 3. Getting an organ donation from someone this way (through murder) would come at a large fine to the person without functioning organs, depending on their income. The sum of all the fines would be given to the donor's family. 4. The fines referenced in #3 would increase based on the specifics of how their need for an organ came about. Someone who needs an organ because of a medical condition they were born with would pay less than someone who needs new lungs because they were smoking. 5. If they wished, the person who needed organs could opt out and be given hospice much like most people must today, rather than accept one from a living person. My reasoning should be clear if it is not already. Quality of life would increase, life expectancy would increase, and although people might feel less secure, statistically the population would be safer than before. CMV! Note: I will address each point with a new comment to organize discussion. That means I will be writing multiple comments for each answer.

t3_5wll5b

CMV: The Usual Suspects is a boring and lackluster movie

...especially if you know the twist. That may seem like cheating, but other movies with twists are still enjoyable to watch even if you know the twist is coming (Fight Club, for example). The characters are boring and I don't care about them -- I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice? The plot is pointlessly complicated. (Not "complex," complicated. I mean it's convoluted, and it relies on Soze being some implausible all-seeing chess master to the point where it's hard to suspend disbelief.) The twist itself is unsatisfying because it's not foreshadowed well enough to feel "earned." I mean you could have made any of the characters Soze without disturbing the plot. It's not some cinematographic work of art, as far as I can tell. It's gimmicky and it trades entirely on a twist that really isn't even that great. Am I missing something? _____ > *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 Usual Suspects is a boring and lackluster movie. ...especially if you know the twist. That may seem like cheating, but other movies with twists are still enjoyable to watch even if you know the twist is coming (Fight Club, for example). The characters are boring and I don't care about them -- I mean what can you say about any of them except that one guy has a silly voice? The plot is pointlessly complicated. (Not "complex," complicated. I mean it's convoluted, and it relies on Soze being some implausible all-seeing chess master to the point where it's hard to suspend disbelief.) The twist itself is unsatisfying because it's not foreshadowed well enough to feel "earned." I mean you could have made any of the characters Soze without disturbing the plot. It's not some cinematographic work of art, as far as I can tell. It's gimmicky and it trades entirely on a twist that really isn't even that great. Am I missing something?

t3_33yssw

CMV: European and American citizens who try to join jihadist organizations abroad should be hung or merely convicted for treason.

I understand that the death penalty is not popular, but I insist on hanging them because they tend to recruit other degenerates that they find in prison if they are permitted to live in prisons. I think people who advocate 'rehabilitation' and non-conviction or who try to suggest that because they are teenage minors they are somehow not responsible for their actions should be regarded as criminals as well; but I cannot think of what penalty to impose on those who try to protect jihadists. As we saw with the recent case of a 15 year old boy (non-terrorist) who robbed and raped a 41 year old clearly non-adult teenagers should sometimes be tried as adults for severe crimes. It is also just that this is done since such a person is unworthy of living among correct human beings who do not commit such evil acts. My views may be cruel simply because those attempting to travel to warzones to practice murder, theft, slavery, rape, and mutilation have not committed a crime yet...besides treason. Treason is a crime that has been forgotten and what these people are doing is in fact treason and it is healthier for society that they are destroyed rather than permitted to recruit others and spread their poison to the minds of others who are vulnerable to evil. If they are not to be executed, then they should certainly be placed in lifelong solitary confinement and occasionally left belts or other implements with which they can take their own lives. I think our governments treat these recruits lightly partly to please overlyliberal fools who think jihadism is not serious, and partly to rid themselves of violent minorities by allowing them to practice their perversions in a warzone. Allowing them freedom within the country will allow them to murder their countrymen, and allowing them to leave allows them to murder foreigners. Neither is desirable, they must be hunted and destroyed. _____ > *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: European and American citizens who try to join jihadist organizations abroad should be hung or merely convicted for treason. I understand that the death penalty is not popular, but I insist on hanging them because they tend to recruit other degenerates that they find in prison if they are permitted to live in prisons. I think people who advocate 'rehabilitation' and non-conviction or who try to suggest that because they are teenage minors they are somehow not responsible for their actions should be regarded as criminals as well; but I cannot think of what penalty to impose on those who try to protect jihadists. As we saw with the recent case of a 15 year old boy (non-terrorist) who robbed and raped a 41 year old clearly non-adult teenagers should sometimes be tried as adults for severe crimes. It is also just that this is done since such a person is unworthy of living among correct human beings who do not commit such evil acts. My views may be cruel simply because those attempting to travel to warzones to practice murder, theft, slavery, rape, and mutilation have not committed a crime yet...besides treason. Treason is a crime that has been forgotten and what these people are doing is in fact treason and it is healthier for society that they are destroyed rather than permitted to recruit others and spread their poison to the minds of others who are vulnerable to evil. If they are not to be executed, then they should certainly be placed in lifelong solitary confinement and occasionally left belts or other implements with which they can take their own lives. I think our governments treat these recruits lightly partly to please overlyliberal fools who think jihadism is not serious, and partly to rid themselves of violent minorities by allowing them to practice their perversions in a warzone. Allowing them freedom within the country will allow them to murder their countrymen, and allowing them to leave allows them to murder foreigners. Neither is desirable, they must be hunted and destroyed.

t3_5frnfg

CMV: Lack of national reciprocity for concealed carry gun permits is illogical and unreasonable, or its existence for drivers licenses is illogical and unreasonable.

This is not about the specifics of gun control so I don't want to get into that. For the sake of focusing the argument, let's say that this only applies to non-automatic handguns that hold less than 8 rounds, so that the current laws in all 50 states are equalized when it comes to gun ownership. I think it makes no sense to allow people to get a driver's license in their home state but allow that driver's license to hold equal standing in all 50 states while not also applying these laws to the ability to carry a handgun concealed for self protection. There are different opinions on which types of guns should be allowed to be owned by civilians but virtually no one argues that American citizens shouldn't be allowed to own a small revolver-type handgun for personal home protection. Some states issue permits to carry these weapons concealed on your person while others do not. But if a person has been issued one in a state that issues them, that permit should extend to every state exactly as driver's licenses do. Or each person should have to acquire a driver's license in each state they wish to drive. Some states are very rural while others are very urban. Some states have high speed limits while others have low speed limits. Some states have carpool lanes while others don't. In some states you can drive with an open container of alcohol in the car while in others you cannot. The laws surrounding driving are different depending on where you drive but if you drive in multiple states you are expected to know and abide by the laws where you are driving. Ignorance is not an excuse for violating a law. The same should be applied to carrying a concealed handgun. Every year, more people die in automobile-related death than by firearm-related death, so it can't be about saving lives. We live in an era where millions of people frequent multiple states in their lives. It's doesn't make any sense to have different standards for national reciprocity when it comes to driver's licenses vs gun carrying permits. 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: Lack of national reciprocity for concealed carry gun permits is illogical and unreasonable, or its existence for drivers licenses is illogical and unreasonable. This is not about the specifics of gun control so I don't want to get into that. For the sake of focusing the argument, let's say that this only applies to non-automatic handguns that hold less than 8 rounds, so that the current laws in all 50 states are equalized when it comes to gun ownership. I think it makes no sense to allow people to get a driver's license in their home state but allow that driver's license to hold equal standing in all 50 states while not also applying these laws to the ability to carry a handgun concealed for self protection. There are different opinions on which types of guns should be allowed to be owned by civilians but virtually no one argues that American citizens shouldn't be allowed to own a small revolver-type handgun for personal home protection. Some states issue permits to carry these weapons concealed on your person while others do not. But if a person has been issued one in a state that issues them, that permit should extend to every state exactly as driver's licenses do. Or each person should have to acquire a driver's license in each state they wish to drive. Some states are very rural while others are very urban. Some states have high speed limits while others have low speed limits. Some states have carpool lanes while others don't. In some states you can drive with an open container of alcohol in the car while in others you cannot. The laws surrounding driving are different depending on where you drive but if you drive in multiple states you are expected to know and abide by the laws where you are driving. Ignorance is not an excuse for violating a law. The same should be applied to carrying a concealed handgun. Every year, more people die in automobile-related death than by firearm-related death, so it can't be about saving lives. We live in an era where millions of people frequent multiple states in their lives. It's doesn't make any sense to have different standards for national reciprocity when it comes to driver's licenses vs gun carrying permits. Change my view.

t3_3fp2bi

CMV: In software development; and in other fields involving extended thought-work that depends on focus and concentration; there is no value in having coworkers to interact with face to face - and in fact, distractions created that way are counter-productive

I believe this comic expresses the argument most cogently: http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a-programmer/ Now, to my wall of text: I run a small software company that's reasonably successful. I've been doing this for the past 15 years. I've been employing people for years that I have never met — and quite possibly never will meet. Last time I met any of my developers face to face was maybe 6 years ago. I perceive no value whatsoever in meeting face to face. None. Working together in an office is an impediment to getting work done, and is a source of constant interruption. Email is generally better for productivity than face to face contact, or instant messaging. Both face to face contact, and instant messaging, are distractions, and are useful primarily in the situation that you cannot progress on anything without immediate input. Such situations are extraordinary. The people I meet face to face in my life are my wife, my son, and our nanny. I don't have a social need for more. I believe people who think they need face to face contact for work in software development are either confusing social needs with work — or possibly, I would fear, aren't competent to work on their own. Or maybe they're involved in some kind of work that involves extraordinary synchronization — the kind of which I do not know. If someone can't work independently, and must constantly interrupt other developers, I would consider them a burden, rather than an asset. To be an asset, one must be able to get work done on one's own, and coordinate as necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if you're not going to physically touch the other person, there is nothing you can do in a face to face meeting that you cannot do online. There's literally no reason to meet unless you're going to kiss, or have sex, or give a person a massage.

CMV: In software development; and in other fields involving extended thought-work that depends on focus and concentration; there is no value in having coworkers to interact with face to face - and in fact, distractions created that way are counter-productive. I believe this comic expresses the argument most cogently: http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a-programmer/ Now, to my wall of text: I run a small software company that's reasonably successful. I've been doing this for the past 15 years. I've been employing people for years that I have never met — and quite possibly never will meet. Last time I met any of my developers face to face was maybe 6 years ago. I perceive no value whatsoever in meeting face to face. None. Working together in an office is an impediment to getting work done, and is a source of constant interruption. Email is generally better for productivity than face to face contact, or instant messaging. Both face to face contact, and instant messaging, are distractions, and are useful primarily in the situation that you cannot progress on anything without immediate input. Such situations are extraordinary. The people I meet face to face in my life are my wife, my son, and our nanny. I don't have a social need for more. I believe people who think they need face to face contact for work in software development are either confusing social needs with work — or possibly, I would fear, aren't competent to work on their own. Or maybe they're involved in some kind of work that involves extraordinary synchronization — the kind of which I do not know. If someone can't work independently, and must constantly interrupt other developers, I would consider them a burden, rather than an asset. To be an asset, one must be able to get work done on one's own, and coordinate as necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if you're not going to physically touch the other person, there is nothing you can do in a face to face meeting that you cannot do online. There's literally no reason to meet unless you're going to kiss, or have sex, or give a person a massage.

t3_1bcawq

I believe abortion should be illegal because I believe that the soul enters the body in the womb. CMV

Pretty self-explanatory. This belief came from my religion, but it's really a moral matter. I truly want to hear an argument/stance on this topic that will change my view. **Edit:** ~~The basis of this belief comes from Jeremiah 1:5a, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.."~~ **Second edit:** *The title was misleading. I want you to change my view that abortion is wrong, not that it should be illegal. You all have made it very clear my morals do not correspond with the law in any way.* ∆ You all have convinced me that abortion should be legal, since one's individual moral and religious values should not correspond with the law (did I word that right?). However, I still believe it is wrong.

I believe abortion should be illegal because I believe that the soul enters the body in the womb. CMV. Pretty self-explanatory. This belief came from my religion, but it's really a moral matter. I truly want to hear an argument/stance on this topic that will change my view. **Edit:** ~~The basis of this belief comes from Jeremiah 1:5a, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.."~~ **Second edit:** *The title was misleading. I want you to change my view that abortion is wrong, not that it should be illegal. You all have made it very clear my morals do not correspond with the law in any way.* ∆ You all have convinced me that abortion should be legal, since one's individual moral and religious values should not correspond with the law (did I word that right?). However, I still believe it is wrong.

t3_5k5fpn

CMV: Christianity is almost certainly false.

I used to be a progressive Christian, now agnostic. The point of this discussion is NOT whether agnosticism is a legitimate position. There is little to no historical evidence for the resurrection, or Jesus himself, with the earliest records being written 40-70 years after the fact, and no first-century records of him other than Josephus, which is a known forgery. Think of all the former Christians who were very devout, but reconverted when they sought very long and hard without finding Jesus. Some examples include Matt Dillahunty, who was studying to become a minister, or Dan Barker, who actually WAS a minister. We know that born-again experiences can be recreated through drugs, and have no supernatural origin. We also know that some things in the Bible aren't true, and, for a book claiming to be the word of God, think of the fact that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. If the Bible is so important, why doesn't God show up and clarify it? Finally, apologetics is defeated very easily. Just listen to some of The Atheist Experience, or Steve Shives. Look at Iron Chariots Wiki, where the arguments are utterly demolished. And, as someone who used to be a Christian, I REALLY wanted to stay there. But the lack of evidence forced me away. Let's see if you can 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: Christianity is almost certainly false. I used to be a progressive Christian, now agnostic. The point of this discussion is NOT whether agnosticism is a legitimate position. There is little to no historical evidence for the resurrection, or Jesus himself, with the earliest records being written 40-70 years after the fact, and no first-century records of him other than Josephus, which is a known forgery. Think of all the former Christians who were very devout, but reconverted when they sought very long and hard without finding Jesus. Some examples include Matt Dillahunty, who was studying to become a minister, or Dan Barker, who actually WAS a minister. We know that born-again experiences can be recreated through drugs, and have no supernatural origin. We also know that some things in the Bible aren't true, and, for a book claiming to be the word of God, think of the fact that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. If the Bible is so important, why doesn't God show up and clarify it? Finally, apologetics is defeated very easily. Just listen to some of The Atheist Experience, or Steve Shives. Look at Iron Chariots Wiki, where the arguments are utterly demolished. And, as someone who used to be a Christian, I REALLY wanted to stay there. But the lack of evidence forced me away. Let's see if you can CMV!

t3_26i0xr

CMV:Blaming the Men's Rights Movement for Elliott Rodger is the equivalent of blaming Islam for suicide bombers

First of all, I'm not an MRA, and I think they're essentially misguided and don't understand the bigger picture. But the amount of misrepresentation, shit slinging, and witch hunts being directed at them is frankly disgusting. First of all, Rodger *wasn't even an MRA.* He was loosely part of the Pick-Up Artist community and definitely a Redpiller, but those groups are very much distinct from the MRM. Just for starters, Redpillers are for the preservation of traditional gender roles, and MRA's want to abolish them. For a while now, the worst material from groups like TRP have been getting attributed to the MRM in the media, but it's really stepped up with this recent shooting. Even high-profile publications like [The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/24/elliot-rodgers-california-shooting-mental-health-misogyny) are jumping on the bandwagon. Secondly, people are claiming that Rodger's actions were caused by cultural misogyny, which is apparently spread by the MRM. A quick glance at a place like /b/ will show you that there are plenty of guys who are just as misogynistic. They're not all going on murder sprees, so clearly something more is going on here. I think the root of the problem was Rodger's feelings of complete worthlessness as a person, and his actions and hatred of women both sprang from there. Furthermore, people seem to be getting offended at the idea that Rodger's documented mental illness played a role. Here's a question for those people: Do you think if Rodger had been getting the treatment he needed, this would have happened? And I'm not just talking about right before the shooting, I'm talking about all the way back, so that he wouldn't have had such a hard time interacting with people. Blaming this entirely on ideology is not only unfair to the MRM, it's also doing a massive disservice to people who need treatment for mental health issues. I mean, if you want to talk about discrimination against the mentally ill, these people would have you believe that if you have thoughts of hurting other people, it's because you're *evil*, not because you're sick and need help. > *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:Blaming the Men's Rights Movement for Elliott Rodger is the equivalent of blaming Islam for suicide bombers. First of all, I'm not an MRA, and I think they're essentially misguided and don't understand the bigger picture. But the amount of misrepresentation, shit slinging, and witch hunts being directed at them is frankly disgusting. First of all, Rodger *wasn't even an MRA.* He was loosely part of the Pick-Up Artist community and definitely a Redpiller, but those groups are very much distinct from the MRM. Just for starters, Redpillers are for the preservation of traditional gender roles, and MRA's want to abolish them. For a while now, the worst material from groups like TRP have been getting attributed to the MRM in the media, but it's really stepped up with this recent shooting. Even high-profile publications like [The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/24/elliot-rodgers-california-shooting-mental-health-misogyny) are jumping on the bandwagon. Secondly, people are claiming that Rodger's actions were caused by cultural misogyny, which is apparently spread by the MRM. A quick glance at a place like /b/ will show you that there are plenty of guys who are just as misogynistic. They're not all going on murder sprees, so clearly something more is going on here. I think the root of the problem was Rodger's feelings of complete worthlessness as a person, and his actions and hatred of women both sprang from there. Furthermore, people seem to be getting offended at the idea that Rodger's documented mental illness played a role. Here's a question for those people: Do you think if Rodger had been getting the treatment he needed, this would have happened? And I'm not just talking about right before the shooting, I'm talking about all the way back, so that he wouldn't have had such a hard time interacting with people. Blaming this entirely on ideology is not only unfair to the MRM, it's also doing a massive disservice to people who need treatment for mental health issues. I mean, if you want to talk about discrimination against the mentally ill, these people would have you believe that if you have thoughts of hurting other people, it's because you're *evil*, not because you're sick and need help. > *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_4m34pa

CMV: Public Colleges That Prevent Free Speech Shouldn't be Eligible for Government Funding.

The 1st amendment protects free speech and expression. However, people will argue that the 1st amendment only protects you from the government censoring your opinion, not private organizations such as websites or private companies. However, public colleges receive billions of dollars in funding from the state and federal governments. If taxpayer money is being used to fund these universities, their administration should be held to the same standards as the government. One question might be "what criteria would you use to determine if a university fosters free speech?" The answer is simple. You can kick out students that speak out in ways that are disruptive to learning. Some examples of ideally non-protected speech: - screaming during a lecture or presentation - pulling fire alarms to silence other's speech - verbally threatening others - attempting to create fear through actions with no academic or political value(such as wearing a KKK uniform, holding a sign with the N word on it, and going around harassing African American students in order to make them feel unsafe). Those things don't carry much value and just cause trouble and hurt the learning environment. You can't kick students out for unpopular political opinions, "micro-aggressions", or any sort of structured speech that the moral majority disagrees with. As long as speech is provided in a civilized manner(arguments based on logic and statistics rather than personal/character attacks), a student shouldn't be able to get kicked out for it. **TL;DR:** If public universities receive government funding, they should be held accountable to the same standards the government does in regards to the constitution. If they don't want funding, then they can make their own rules.

CMV: Public Colleges That Prevent Free Speech Shouldn't be Eligible for Government Funding. The 1st amendment protects free speech and expression. However, people will argue that the 1st amendment only protects you from the government censoring your opinion, not private organizations such as websites or private companies. However, public colleges receive billions of dollars in funding from the state and federal governments. If taxpayer money is being used to fund these universities, their administration should be held to the same standards as the government. One question might be "what criteria would you use to determine if a university fosters free speech?" The answer is simple. You can kick out students that speak out in ways that are disruptive to learning. Some examples of ideally non-protected speech: - screaming during a lecture or presentation - pulling fire alarms to silence other's speech - verbally threatening others - attempting to create fear through actions with no academic or political value(such as wearing a KKK uniform, holding a sign with the N word on it, and going around harassing African American students in order to make them feel unsafe). Those things don't carry much value and just cause trouble and hurt the learning environment. You can't kick students out for unpopular political opinions, "micro-aggressions", or any sort of structured speech that the moral majority disagrees with. As long as speech is provided in a civilized manner(arguments based on logic and statistics rather than personal/character attacks), a student shouldn't be able to get kicked out for it. **TL;DR:** If public universities receive government funding, they should be held accountable to the same standards the government does in regards to the constitution. If they don't want funding, then they can make their own rules.

t3_514ekb

CMV: I think many Americans are paranoid about the governments and guns should be banned without exception.

I'm a European and I'm aware that this might come over as being arrogant, but I'm genuinly curious about the position of many Americans regarding guns and their feeling towards the government. I often hear the argument that guns are necessary for protection against an authoritarian government. What's the deal with that? This might sound like a loaded question, but do some Americans really think that there is a chance that the government will eventually start limiting the constitutional rights or even attack its citizens? For me that seems very unlikely and, well, paranoid. For us Europeans it's really hard to grasp the advantage of having guns and this argument (the protection against an authoritarian government) is often the first and sometimes the only argument I hear from gun advocates. Why don't you think guns should be banned? Change my view. Note: Guns aren't completely banned in Europe. You can acquire hunting and sport licences and still privately own guns. This is basically what I mean with a gun ban. _____ Edit: I didn't change my view, but I now recognize the bureacratic and financial implication of such a ban. It certainly wouldn't happen overnight (more like over decades), but I think it is possible to atleast reduce the number of guns through actions like a buyback and/or the taxation of already registred guns. Stopping the production of guns could be the first step in a long term effort.

CMV: I think many Americans are paranoid about the governments and guns should be banned without exception. I'm a European and I'm aware that this might come over as being arrogant, but I'm genuinly curious about the position of many Americans regarding guns and their feeling towards the government. I often hear the argument that guns are necessary for protection against an authoritarian government. What's the deal with that? This might sound like a loaded question, but do some Americans really think that there is a chance that the government will eventually start limiting the constitutional rights or even attack its citizens? For me that seems very unlikely and, well, paranoid. For us Europeans it's really hard to grasp the advantage of having guns and this argument (the protection against an authoritarian government) is often the first and sometimes the only argument I hear from gun advocates. Why don't you think guns should be banned? Change my view. Note: Guns aren't completely banned in Europe. You can acquire hunting and sport licences and still privately own guns. This is basically what I mean with a gun ban. _____ Edit: I didn't change my view, but I now recognize the bureacratic and financial implication of such a ban. It certainly wouldn't happen overnight (more like over decades), but I think it is possible to atleast reduce the number of guns through actions like a buyback and/or the taxation of already registred guns. Stopping the production of guns could be the first step in a long term effort.

t3_1mnsaj

I don't think the arts should be made into a competition or have any sort of hierarchy and any sort of artistic competition (dance competitions, new Yorks nyssma, the school of rocks all star program reality shows etc.) should be viewed not as prestigious but as harmful to artistic development. CMV

I studied music for a very long time and my sister was a dancer so these are the two areas I'm most familiar with. I think once competition or status of any kind become a factor it hurts your develoment because you start to go in a direction not natural to you. You start learning based on whatever field you're competing in. Modern dance seems to be a big thing right now that it becomes a huge focus for dancers like my sister who like many did not keep up as much with more traditional forms like ballet (which is important in any dancers development) because they feel the need to cater to judges, musicians start to learn for status, a number score is not a fair assessment of your skill or potential but that shouldn't matter in the first place. And I've seen bad scores in solo piece competition kill people's spirit to the point that they stop playing because they're too wrapped up in what one judge had to say (in fact something like this almost happened to me) if you are familiar with the school of rock it can be a tremendously helpful program or very harmful, they have an "all stars" program which is supposed to be the aim for all students, I was once offered to audition by the manager of the school I attended, I turned it down as some of the people I knew who were a part of it had developed such tremendous egos that it kept them from progressing at all, many of them became very pretentious not all by any means but some. Reality shows? Please How many American idols actually regularly make music after that first album? Or dance moms a show my mother watches is everything that is wrong with the arts , all of this equates to too much of a competitive nature put into areas that need to be carefully nurtured. If you wanna be a better player you have to feel like a better player. You can get a great score and still not be that great at something

I don't think the arts should be made into a competition or have any sort of hierarchy and any sort of artistic competition (dance competitions, new Yorks nyssma, the school of rocks all star program reality shows etc.) should be viewed not as prestigious but as harmful to artistic development. CMV. I studied music for a very long time and my sister was a dancer so these are the two areas I'm most familiar with. I think once competition or status of any kind become a factor it hurts your develoment because you start to go in a direction not natural to you. You start learning based on whatever field you're competing in. Modern dance seems to be a big thing right now that it becomes a huge focus for dancers like my sister who like many did not keep up as much with more traditional forms like ballet (which is important in any dancers development) because they feel the need to cater to judges, musicians start to learn for status, a number score is not a fair assessment of your skill or potential but that shouldn't matter in the first place. And I've seen bad scores in solo piece competition kill people's spirit to the point that they stop playing because they're too wrapped up in what one judge had to say (in fact something like this almost happened to me) if you are familiar with the school of rock it can be a tremendously helpful program or very harmful, they have an "all stars" program which is supposed to be the aim for all students, I was once offered to audition by the manager of the school I attended, I turned it down as some of the people I knew who were a part of it had developed such tremendous egos that it kept them from progressing at all, many of them became very pretentious not all by any means but some. Reality shows? Please How many American idols actually regularly make music after that first album? Or dance moms a show my mother watches is everything that is wrong with the arts , all of this equates to too much of a competitive nature put into areas that need to be carefully nurtured. If you wanna be a better player you have to feel like a better player. You can get a great score and still not be that great at something

t3_1z2wju

I am starting to doubt the seriousness of climate change CMV

here are a few problems I see there are no scientists that would argue against climate change. doing so would risk ridicule and alienation by the scientific community. Thus we have a singular view being presented and there are no learned individuals representing the opposite case. This is like a lawyer organisation saying "he's guilty" and no lawyer would take the defense. If that happens, I, as an observer, would be inclined to not believe in the guys guilt despite the court's verdict. climate change relies largely on predictive model whose accuracy is questionable scientists seem more and more inclined to claim "97% of climate scientists agree" like that actually means something. This argument is good only if you are interested in convincing people and not interested in science. Which makes me question the reasons for their arguments. a change from global warming to climate change means that any and all change 'proves' climate change. given that earth is obviously not going be forever static, climate change is an unfalsifiable claim.

I am starting to doubt the seriousness of climate change CMV. here are a few problems I see there are no scientists that would argue against climate change. doing so would risk ridicule and alienation by the scientific community. Thus we have a singular view being presented and there are no learned individuals representing the opposite case. This is like a lawyer organisation saying "he's guilty" and no lawyer would take the defense. If that happens, I, as an observer, would be inclined to not believe in the guys guilt despite the court's verdict. climate change relies largely on predictive model whose accuracy is questionable scientists seem more and more inclined to claim "97% of climate scientists agree" like that actually means something. This argument is good only if you are interested in convincing people and not interested in science. Which makes me question the reasons for their arguments. a change from global warming to climate change means that any and all change 'proves' climate change. given that earth is obviously not going be forever static, climate change is an unfalsifiable claim.

t3_27i47d

CMV: Michelle Obama couldn't sport an afro if she wanted to; America remains deeply, unconsciously racist

Nor could Barack wear corn rows, or a kanzu or kufi or dashiki. Black Americans in positions of power must look and dress in the Anglo-European tradition to command respect. They cannot look too "ethnic". We've come a long way from the Chuck Berry-esque "conk". At least the natural set of black hair is now acceptable for men. Still, Michelle Obama must wear [white lady hair](http://www.bet.com/topics/m/michelle-obama/_jcr_content/topicintro.topicintro.dimg/112712-topic-michelle-obama.jpg). Ditto [Oprah](http://larivblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/oprahwinfrey_2005.jpg), and [Condi Rice](http://www.fordhallforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Rice-Condoleezza2-RICE-10-28-10-e1281725188778.jpg), and [Susan Rice](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/29/1372498601232/Susan-Rice-010.jpg), and [Barbara Lee](http://beta.congress.gov/img/member/112_lee_ca09.jpg), and *every other black woman in a position of power*. In America, you can be black and powerful *as long as you make an effort to look and act white*. _____ > *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: Michelle Obama couldn't sport an afro if she wanted to; America remains deeply, unconsciously racist. Nor could Barack wear corn rows, or a kanzu or kufi or dashiki. Black Americans in positions of power must look and dress in the Anglo-European tradition to command respect. They cannot look too "ethnic". We've come a long way from the Chuck Berry-esque "conk". At least the natural set of black hair is now acceptable for men. Still, Michelle Obama must wear [white lady hair](http://www.bet.com/topics/m/michelle-obama/_jcr_content/topicintro.topicintro.dimg/112712-topic-michelle-obama.jpg). Ditto [Oprah](http://larivblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/oprahwinfrey_2005.jpg), and [Condi Rice](http://www.fordhallforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Rice-Condoleezza2-RICE-10-28-10-e1281725188778.jpg), and [Susan Rice](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/29/1372498601232/Susan-Rice-010.jpg), and [Barbara Lee](http://beta.congress.gov/img/member/112_lee_ca09.jpg), and *every other black woman in a position of power*. In America, you can be black and powerful *as long as you make an effort to look and act white*.

t3_1vx16r

I don't think i should go to college. Please CMV.

Ok, first off i am a Junior in High school and i always wanted to be in the electrical field. I was always interested in wiring and circuits, and just wanting to fix things. Any electrical degree that is offered by universities is always "engineering". And frankly, i don't want to be an engineer. I suck at all types of math and numbers. Not just math, but i've never been a "good" student. I would almost always end the marking period failing 1 or 2 classes. Although i would rarely obtain merit and honor roll. And engineering degrees take A LOT of dedication, smarts, and money. I just think a regular electrician job is for me. This may sound weird, but i actually want to do labor. I want to be moving, using my hands, and actually working. The electric fields mostly contain technicians, repairmen, installation, and maintenance. And i don't think colleges or universities prepare you for these types of jobs. i may be misled , but if i actually wanted to wire/fix electric in houses and industry, my best choice would be a trade school or a vocational school. They offer classes that teach you about certain trades until you graduate, and then you act as an apprentice to a experienced one until your ready. My parents want me to attend college, but i just think it might not be for everyone (me). I don't like the degrees they offer and maybe trade school could save me from student debt, and i could enjoy my job a lot better. Thanks for reading.

I don't think i should go to college. Please CMV. Ok, first off i am a Junior in High school and i always wanted to be in the electrical field. I was always interested in wiring and circuits, and just wanting to fix things. Any electrical degree that is offered by universities is always "engineering". And frankly, i don't want to be an engineer. I suck at all types of math and numbers. Not just math, but i've never been a "good" student. I would almost always end the marking period failing 1 or 2 classes. Although i would rarely obtain merit and honor roll. And engineering degrees take A LOT of dedication, smarts, and money. I just think a regular electrician job is for me. This may sound weird, but i actually want to do labor. I want to be moving, using my hands, and actually working. The electric fields mostly contain technicians, repairmen, installation, and maintenance. And i don't think colleges or universities prepare you for these types of jobs. i may be misled , but if i actually wanted to wire/fix electric in houses and industry, my best choice would be a trade school or a vocational school. They offer classes that teach you about certain trades until you graduate, and then you act as an apprentice to a experienced one until your ready. My parents want me to attend college, but i just think it might not be for everyone (me). I don't like the degrees they offer and maybe trade school could save me from student debt, and i could enjoy my job a lot better. Thanks for reading.

t3_2nzw3a

CMV: The "North Korean Hollywood Hack" is a calculated marketing strategy by Sony Pictures

I believe that the leak of 5 films (4 of which have not been released yet) has been spun by the studio in order to bring more attention to their upcoming movie "The Interview" with Seth Rogan and James Franco about an assassination attempt on the leader of North Korea. While I believe the actual leak was a legitimate hack on the studio that will ultimately damage their box office, the studios have pushed the narrative to the press that it was perpetrated by the North Korean Government, in order to drum up buzz for their tentpole comedy coming out over the next few months. I think the press has widely taken the bait of an easy color piece to run after their staffs were on a thanksgiving break. This has resulted in free advertising for all of Sony's projects especially "The Interview." Change my conspiracy theory.

CMV: The "North Korean Hollywood Hack" is a calculated marketing strategy by Sony Pictures. I believe that the leak of 5 films (4 of which have not been released yet) has been spun by the studio in order to bring more attention to their upcoming movie "The Interview" with Seth Rogan and James Franco about an assassination attempt on the leader of North Korea. While I believe the actual leak was a legitimate hack on the studio that will ultimately damage their box office, the studios have pushed the narrative to the press that it was perpetrated by the North Korean Government, in order to drum up buzz for their tentpole comedy coming out over the next few months. I think the press has widely taken the bait of an easy color piece to run after their staffs were on a thanksgiving break. This has resulted in free advertising for all of Sony's projects especially "The Interview." Change my conspiracy theory.

t3_1s6p6p

I believe taxes shouldn't pay for gender reassignment surgery CMV

I believe that people should not be able to have gender reassignment surgery that is paid for by taxpayers. I believe this public money could be better spent on other, more life threatening treatments. For example this article details how cuts in the UK have caused 220 operations to be cancelled a day http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/operation-chaos-nhs-forced-cancel-1928278 I get that the direct cause of this is budget cuts but I would rather my taxes paid for someone to have a surgery they desperately needed than a surgery that is essentially cosmetic in value. I understand that trans people suffer emotional distress and their psychological health could be improved by having gender reassignment surgery. However the same could be said for women with small breasts who feel emotional distress and a low self image. Josie Cunningham had a boob job paid for by the NHS and this led to a ban on tax payers funding boob jobs for psychological reasons as detailed here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446251/Ban-NHS-boob-jobs-Crackdown-stop-women-citing-psychological-reasons-enlargements-save-Taxpayer-10-000-operation.html If women can't have boob jobs for psychological reasons then why can trans people have gender reassignment surgery for the same reasons. I personally believe neither should be paid for by the tax payer and I think should someone want a surgery that does not benefit their physical health then they should have to foot the cost. I would like an argument that does not look to discredit the little evidence I have provided but looks to change my view on the issue as a whole. I am however openminded and will consider any rational argument, I am willing to CMV if a really strong argument is presented. EDIT: If you are appealing to psychological reasons for your argument then please try and frame your arguments so that they make a distinction between why trans people should have gender reassignment and why people with poor self image that leads to extreme depression shouldn't have free cosmetic surgery. SECOND EDIT: View is somewhat changed, (I now understand the distinction between cosmetic surgery and reassignment) explanation is given in response to garnteller's comment. Thank you all for your responses.

I believe taxes shouldn't pay for gender reassignment surgery CMV. I believe that people should not be able to have gender reassignment surgery that is paid for by taxpayers. I believe this public money could be better spent on other, more life threatening treatments. For example this article details how cuts in the UK have caused 220 operations to be cancelled a day http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/operation-chaos-nhs-forced-cancel-1928278 I get that the direct cause of this is budget cuts but I would rather my taxes paid for someone to have a surgery they desperately needed than a surgery that is essentially cosmetic in value. I understand that trans people suffer emotional distress and their psychological health could be improved by having gender reassignment surgery. However the same could be said for women with small breasts who feel emotional distress and a low self image. Josie Cunningham had a boob job paid for by the NHS and this led to a ban on tax payers funding boob jobs for psychological reasons as detailed here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446251/Ban-NHS-boob-jobs-Crackdown-stop-women-citing-psychological-reasons-enlargements-save-Taxpayer-10-000-operation.html If women can't have boob jobs for psychological reasons then why can trans people have gender reassignment surgery for the same reasons. I personally believe neither should be paid for by the tax payer and I think should someone want a surgery that does not benefit their physical health then they should have to foot the cost. I would like an argument that does not look to discredit the little evidence I have provided but looks to change my view on the issue as a whole. I am however openminded and will consider any rational argument, I am willing to CMV if a really strong argument is presented. EDIT: If you are appealing to psychological reasons for your argument then please try and frame your arguments so that they make a distinction between why trans people should have gender reassignment and why people with poor self image that leads to extreme depression shouldn't have free cosmetic surgery. SECOND EDIT: View is somewhat changed, (I now understand the distinction between cosmetic surgery and reassignment) explanation is given in response to garnteller's comment. Thank you all for your responses.

t3_71mbq9

CMV: The Graham-Cassidy Bill serves more as a punishment than it does as a solution

The Graham-Cassidy Bill, being pushed forth in the Senate at an alarming rate due to the Sep 30 deadline, has a goal of redistributing funds to states. I've put a link in the footnotes for a map of the redistribution of funds at the bottom of this post, and almost state-for-state it hurts the states that have embraced the ACA (I've also posted a link to a map that shows states embracing the ACA). Insurance companies are generally against this bill, and medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association join them (source: pbs.org). Insurance companies are just getting used to the ACA, and they caution that rates will increase with legislative change, which, if this bill goes through, will happen in the majority of states. It seems to me that this bill is more of a punishment for the states that enacted ObamaCare than it is an actual legislative solution to the problems that people talk about when they discuss the ACA. Please, Change My View. _____ Map for money redistribution: http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_limit,h_730,q_90,w_940/1505905475_Fig1_vdzez6.jpg Map for states adopting ACA: http://www.kff.org/health-reform/slide/current-status-of-the-medicaid-expansion-decision/ > *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 Graham-Cassidy Bill serves more as a punishment than it does as a solution. The Graham-Cassidy Bill, being pushed forth in the Senate at an alarming rate due to the Sep 30 deadline, has a goal of redistributing funds to states. I've put a link in the footnotes for a map of the redistribution of funds at the bottom of this post, and almost state-for-state it hurts the states that have embraced the ACA (I've also posted a link to a map that shows states embracing the ACA). Insurance companies are generally against this bill, and medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association join them (source: pbs.org). Insurance companies are just getting used to the ACA, and they caution that rates will increase with legislative change, which, if this bill goes through, will happen in the majority of states. It seems to me that this bill is more of a punishment for the states that enacted ObamaCare than it is an actual legislative solution to the problems that people talk about when they discuss the ACA. Please, Change My View. _____ Map for money redistribution: http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_limit,h_730,q_90,w_940/1505905475_Fig1_vdzez6.jpg Map for states adopting ACA: http://www.kff.org/health-reform/slide/current-status-of-the-medicaid-expansion-decision/ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1sgyzb

CMV: Hunting is the best and most ethically responsible way to feed yourself.

If we view humans as a species among many specie, where the natural machinations of the world operate within a predator-prey paradigm, then hunting naturally follows that ethic. In fact, it should be considered more ethical to hunt than not to hunt - by not hunting, homo sapiens break away from both our evolutionary, biological impulse and the natural ethic of the world we live in. Our human notion of the ethical has blurred the line of the natural ethic from which we evolved and the species around us still maintain. Not hunting is a modern invention that presupposes 100 years of social change overrides millions of years of a natural ethic. Note: This is not to say that the vegan lifestyle is NOT ethical. In fact, it is a lifestyle that I find fascinating and hold in great esteem. However, the overriding sentiment is that hunting is wholly unethical - a paradigm that I am attempting to interrogate with this post. There is, unequivocally, a natural ethic to hunting. EDIT: I had to step away...this is my first time here and it is hard to keep up with so many different conversations! I will try to look at all of the new responses.

CMV: Hunting is the best and most ethically responsible way to feed yourself. If we view humans as a species among many specie, where the natural machinations of the world operate within a predator-prey paradigm, then hunting naturally follows that ethic. In fact, it should be considered more ethical to hunt than not to hunt - by not hunting, homo sapiens break away from both our evolutionary, biological impulse and the natural ethic of the world we live in. Our human notion of the ethical has blurred the line of the natural ethic from which we evolved and the species around us still maintain. Not hunting is a modern invention that presupposes 100 years of social change overrides millions of years of a natural ethic. Note: This is not to say that the vegan lifestyle is NOT ethical. In fact, it is a lifestyle that I find fascinating and hold in great esteem. However, the overriding sentiment is that hunting is wholly unethical - a paradigm that I am attempting to interrogate with this post. There is, unequivocally, a natural ethic to hunting. EDIT: I had to step away...this is my first time here and it is hard to keep up with so many different conversations! I will try to look at all of the new responses.

t3_5i9cr1

CMV: Socialism is immoral and has a VERY high potential for catastrophe(tyranny).

My basic argument is that logistics of socialism require immoral acts. In order for socialism to work, the general population is forced to give a large chunk of income. This large chunk of income is not voluntary. If you don't pay taxes you will lose your freedom. I will concede that there are certain things that we should require people to pay taxes for(roads, police, jails, courtrooms, military..) but taxes are a form of theft if taxes go toward anything other than essentials for a civil society. In a socialistic society it is likely possible that you will be forced with threat of violence to give money to an institution that will then give this money to someone else. The second part of my argument is that socialism has ended quite horrendously throughout history. Socialism has a high likelihood to blend into communism where, "some are more equal than others"-orwell. It seems to me that my bernie supporting friends(i have a lot) need to re-read animal farm and history in general. _____ > *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: Socialism is immoral and has a VERY high potential for catastrophe(tyranny). My basic argument is that logistics of socialism require immoral acts. In order for socialism to work, the general population is forced to give a large chunk of income. This large chunk of income is not voluntary. If you don't pay taxes you will lose your freedom. I will concede that there are certain things that we should require people to pay taxes for(roads, police, jails, courtrooms, military..) but taxes are a form of theft if taxes go toward anything other than essentials for a civil society. In a socialistic society it is likely possible that you will be forced with threat of violence to give money to an institution that will then give this money to someone else. The second part of my argument is that socialism has ended quite horrendously throughout history. Socialism has a high likelihood to blend into communism where, "some are more equal than others"-orwell. It seems to me that my bernie supporting friends(i have a lot) need to re-read animal farm and history in general.

t3_5t45zm

CMV: If abortion is morally acceptable to you, then a male form of contraceptive that doesn't prevent pregnancy, but instead causes a miscarriage between the 8th and 10th week of pregnancy should also be morally acceptable to you.

This isn't something that I've give a lot of thought to, so there might be something obvious that I'm missing. I'm basically thinking of a pill of some sort that makes a man's sperm defective, but not defective enough to prevent pregnancy all together. Only defective enough that fetal development is deficient and the pregnancy naturally miscarries during the first trimester. The only pause that I have is the physical impact on the woman's body. But pregnancy is always a possible outcome of sex, and miscarriage is always a possible outcome of pregnancy, so the situation created by the pill is a risk that women are already taking when having sex. And a miscarriage certainly isn't as traumatic on the body as a full-term pregnancy, which would have been the result without the male contraception. So this area of pause I have isn't sufficient to lead me to change my view. It seems that if abortion is moral, then this male pill that causes miscarriage would also be moral. To put it another way, any argument against the morality of this pill has a comparable argument against the morality of abortion.

CMV: If abortion is morally acceptable to you, then a male form of contraceptive that doesn't prevent pregnancy, but instead causes a miscarriage between the 8th and 10th week of pregnancy should also be morally acceptable to you. This isn't something that I've give a lot of thought to, so there might be something obvious that I'm missing. I'm basically thinking of a pill of some sort that makes a man's sperm defective, but not defective enough to prevent pregnancy all together. Only defective enough that fetal development is deficient and the pregnancy naturally miscarries during the first trimester. The only pause that I have is the physical impact on the woman's body. But pregnancy is always a possible outcome of sex, and miscarriage is always a possible outcome of pregnancy, so the situation created by the pill is a risk that women are already taking when having sex. And a miscarriage certainly isn't as traumatic on the body as a full-term pregnancy, which would have been the result without the male contraception. So this area of pause I have isn't sufficient to lead me to change my view. It seems that if abortion is moral, then this male pill that causes miscarriage would also be moral. To put it another way, any argument against the morality of this pill has a comparable argument against the morality of abortion.

t3_1fek5s

Nostalgia is just memories being shaped positively out of proportion, CMV.

I may consider my memories of elementary school positive, but at the time it was nowhere near as good. I'm not talking about a relative state of mind, in the sense that I experienced less responsibility and more happiness at the time, I believe that the memories are actually shaped. I've come to this conclusion, because for me at least, the same phenomenon occurs for recent memories, where I for example spend time with friends. I decided to adequately analyze my thoughts and feelings at the time, but when I look back at it some time afterwards I'm tempted to consider it as a much better time than it actually was. After this realization, I've been analyzing the present, trying to put it into perspective and looking at the future. When I now listen to a song that I used to listen to as a child, I enjoy it a lot and long for the good old times. Then I listen to a song that I have been enjoying only recently, and I am fairly certain I will experience new distinct positive nostalgic emotions again when I listen to it again later in my life, even though the present isn't really that great. This leads to a pessimistic view on my life in the sense that I think I overestimate the happiness of my past. So, I ask you to change my view/destroy my cynicism.

Nostalgia is just memories being shaped positively out of proportion, CMV. I may consider my memories of elementary school positive, but at the time it was nowhere near as good. I'm not talking about a relative state of mind, in the sense that I experienced less responsibility and more happiness at the time, I believe that the memories are actually shaped. I've come to this conclusion, because for me at least, the same phenomenon occurs for recent memories, where I for example spend time with friends. I decided to adequately analyze my thoughts and feelings at the time, but when I look back at it some time afterwards I'm tempted to consider it as a much better time than it actually was. After this realization, I've been analyzing the present, trying to put it into perspective and looking at the future. When I now listen to a song that I used to listen to as a child, I enjoy it a lot and long for the good old times. Then I listen to a song that I have been enjoying only recently, and I am fairly certain I will experience new distinct positive nostalgic emotions again when I listen to it again later in my life, even though the present isn't really that great. This leads to a pessimistic view on my life in the sense that I think I overestimate the happiness of my past. So, I ask you to change my view/destroy my cynicism.

t3_3904n3

CMV:I hate the combination of words "to where". I prefer "so that" instead.

I'm from the Northeastern United States and I grew up saying the phrase "so that" instead of "to where". In fact, I had never heard "to where" anywhere on TV, radio or other media until I moved to Texas. The phrase doesn't make sense to me and it is still not natural for me to say it. I question it being correct grammar but language is living and changes all the time, and certainly varies by region and dialect. I'm curious if anyone else has this pet peeve or corrects people when they say it. I certainly have the urge to do so!

CMV:I hate the combination of words "to where". I prefer "so that" instead. I'm from the Northeastern United States and I grew up saying the phrase "so that" instead of "to where". In fact, I had never heard "to where" anywhere on TV, radio or other media until I moved to Texas. The phrase doesn't make sense to me and it is still not natural for me to say it. I question it being correct grammar but language is living and changes all the time, and certainly varies by region and dialect. I'm curious if anyone else has this pet peeve or corrects people when they say it. I certainly have the urge to do so!

t3_4dqq0u

CMV: Pet insurance for cats and dogs should be mandatory.

I believe that taking out pet insurance should be a mandatory requirement for owners of cats and dogs, with severe penalties for those who fail to do so. Pet insurance is stupidly cheap in comparision to many other aspects of pet ownership, usually only a few $ per month, but the vast majority of pets are uninsured, with various reports estimating around 97%-99% of cats and dogs in the US are not. [(source)](http://www.embracepetinsurance.com/pet-industry/pet-insurance/statistics) When an insured pet requires significant veterinary care, the decision is an easy one. The initial excess is affordable, and any subseqent treatment for the same condition is covered by the same excess, meaning that the owner is usually no more than a couple of hundred dollars out of pocket, a small price to pay for an animal which most would consider part of the family. However, if an uninsured pet requires treatment, the decision can be a more difficult one. Vets bills can easily run into the many thousands if, for example, a cat is hit by a car and requires surgery. A chronic condition can cost even more, as the pet may require many, many trips to the vet. This presents many owners with an impossible choice; either go broke caring for your pet, or don't get them the treatment that they need. My view is that, much like with a child, the dog or cat has no influence in this, and as such should be protected. Given the massive trend of uninsured pets, I believe that this would save an enormous amount of lives, as pets would get the best care as soon as they need it. Possible counter-arguments: * "Some pet owners may not be able to afford insurance." - Then they shouldn't get a pet, it's a simple as that. If they are not financially stable enough to afford a few dollars per month, then what would happen if an unexpected expense left them with not enough money for dog/cat food? * "If pet insurance is mandatory, insurers will be able to jack up prices." - I don't think this would be the case, as a free market would still provide the competition to keep prices affordable. Furthermore, with such a colossal spike in revenue, they would actually be able to operate at a lower profit margin. * "Making it an offence to not insure your pet would cause some people to avoid getting the pet treatment." - Again, I don't think this would be the case. The people who would avoid getting their pet treated for this reason would be mostly the same people who would do so because the bills cost too much. Hopefully this opens up a really interesting dialogue, so please, try to CMV. Edit: Downvotes for disagreeing are pretty petty given the subreddit. Edit 2: [Delta awarded](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4dqq0u/cmv_pet_insurance_for_cats_and_dogs_should_be/d1tmeqq) due to the impracticality of the insurance, not because insurance wouldn't be worth it for some people. I think most people were missing the point, I was arguing from an animal welfare point of view, given that millions of owners cannot afford vets bills, not from whether or not insurance is a financial benefit for those who can. Edit 3: Also apparently Americans pay a ridiculous amount for pet insurance, something I wasn't aware of. _____ > *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: Pet insurance for cats and dogs should be mandatory. I believe that taking out pet insurance should be a mandatory requirement for owners of cats and dogs, with severe penalties for those who fail to do so. Pet insurance is stupidly cheap in comparision to many other aspects of pet ownership, usually only a few $ per month, but the vast majority of pets are uninsured, with various reports estimating around 97%-99% of cats and dogs in the US are not. [(source)](http://www.embracepetinsurance.com/pet-industry/pet-insurance/statistics) When an insured pet requires significant veterinary care, the decision is an easy one. The initial excess is affordable, and any subseqent treatment for the same condition is covered by the same excess, meaning that the owner is usually no more than a couple of hundred dollars out of pocket, a small price to pay for an animal which most would consider part of the family. However, if an uninsured pet requires treatment, the decision can be a more difficult one. Vets bills can easily run into the many thousands if, for example, a cat is hit by a car and requires surgery. A chronic condition can cost even more, as the pet may require many, many trips to the vet. This presents many owners with an impossible choice; either go broke caring for your pet, or don't get them the treatment that they need. My view is that, much like with a child, the dog or cat has no influence in this, and as such should be protected. Given the massive trend of uninsured pets, I believe that this would save an enormous amount of lives, as pets would get the best care as soon as they need it. Possible counter-arguments: * "Some pet owners may not be able to afford insurance." - Then they shouldn't get a pet, it's a simple as that. If they are not financially stable enough to afford a few dollars per month, then what would happen if an unexpected expense left them with not enough money for dog/cat food? * "If pet insurance is mandatory, insurers will be able to jack up prices." - I don't think this would be the case, as a free market would still provide the competition to keep prices affordable. Furthermore, with such a colossal spike in revenue, they would actually be able to operate at a lower profit margin. * "Making it an offence to not insure your pet would cause some people to avoid getting the pet treatment." - Again, I don't think this would be the case. The people who would avoid getting their pet treated for this reason would be mostly the same people who would do so because the bills cost too much. Hopefully this opens up a really interesting dialogue, so please, try to CMV. Edit: Downvotes for disagreeing are pretty petty given the subreddit. Edit 2: [Delta awarded](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4dqq0u/cmv_pet_insurance_for_cats_and_dogs_should_be/d1tmeqq) due to the impracticality of the insurance, not because insurance wouldn't be worth it for some people. I think most people were missing the point, I was arguing from an animal welfare point of view, given that millions of owners cannot afford vets bills, not from whether or not insurance is a financial benefit for those who can. Edit 3: Also apparently Americans pay a ridiculous amount for pet insurance, something I wasn't aware of.

t3_2qzy3e

CMV: A geography question in Trivial Pursuit should no include questions like "What state was ____ born in"

I know the dictionary definition does say "Geography is a field of science dedicated to the study of the lands, the features, the inhabitants, and the phenomena of the Earth." but that does not mean what place one particular person was born or lived in. That is a person, not people, there is a large difference. My biggest argument for this is that if this counts as geography, then you should be able to find a reference in a geography book to where famous people have been born. No matter how was knowledgeable you are geography, there is no practical way to know where Elvis was born except via general knowledge. CMW _____ > *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 geography question in Trivial Pursuit should no include questions like "What state was ____ born in". I know the dictionary definition does say "Geography is a field of science dedicated to the study of the lands, the features, the inhabitants, and the phenomena of the Earth." but that does not mean what place one particular person was born or lived in. That is a person, not people, there is a large difference. My biggest argument for this is that if this counts as geography, then you should be able to find a reference in a geography book to where famous people have been born. No matter how was knowledgeable you are geography, there is no practical way to know where Elvis was born except via general knowledge. CMW

t3_409nzg

CMV: Bernie Sanders is weak for letting activists aggressively take his podium during the Seattle rally.

I am a supporter of Bernie's. But the video that came out not too long ago shook me a little bit. I feel that is was a smart decision (if he really had much a choice) to allow them to speak. It shows his empathy for issues that many many americans care about, or something that at least has their attention. But considering the way that it was done, and how long it went on, I feel it could say something about how he would handle other sensitive situations. A Commander in chief, needs to be willing to step up when pushed around. In my opinion, Bernie has his heart in the right place by focusing on domestic issues that we face, and being against foreign conflict. However, its delirious to think that as a president he will only need to address issues we face at home. And with the current global climate, we are going to need someone that can hold their own against bullies worldwide. Does this situation signify a stance on how he would handle opposition, particularly on the global scale? Was he bullied, although it was over a legitimate cause? Or am I reading way to into this, and the man did the right thing in letting them say their peace. Seeing as the AA community in general gets repeatedly pandered to when it comes to Candidate rehtoric? With little to no legitimate action. [Video of the event] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnbwUT7lBg) Edit: Video Link.

CMV: Bernie Sanders is weak for letting activists aggressively take his podium during the Seattle rally. I am a supporter of Bernie's. But the video that came out not too long ago shook me a little bit. I feel that is was a smart decision (if he really had much a choice) to allow them to speak. It shows his empathy for issues that many many americans care about, or something that at least has their attention. But considering the way that it was done, and how long it went on, I feel it could say something about how he would handle other sensitive situations. A Commander in chief, needs to be willing to step up when pushed around. In my opinion, Bernie has his heart in the right place by focusing on domestic issues that we face, and being against foreign conflict. However, its delirious to think that as a president he will only need to address issues we face at home. And with the current global climate, we are going to need someone that can hold their own against bullies worldwide. Does this situation signify a stance on how he would handle opposition, particularly on the global scale? Was he bullied, although it was over a legitimate cause? Or am I reading way to into this, and the man did the right thing in letting them say their peace. Seeing as the AA community in general gets repeatedly pandered to when it comes to Candidate rehtoric? With little to no legitimate action. [Video of the event] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnbwUT7lBg) Edit: Video Link.

t3_65mu5u

CMV: Women have a higher chance of getting raped / harassed because of what they wear

Hello , Me and my girlfriend have this argument every once in a while and i want to finish it once and for all . She is claiming that wearing something sexual wont increase your chance of getting harassed or raped and for me it just doesn't seem logical that a person would decide to rape someone who is dressed more appropriately then a girl with a sexual outfit with cleavage or whatever ... I'm really open to change my mind regarding this subject but I want to see some kind of proof that i can't find online because it doesn't seem logical to me EDIT: By no means I am "Blaming" women for getting raped so save that from the comments please ! _____ > *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: Women have a higher chance of getting raped / harassed because of what they wear. Hello , Me and my girlfriend have this argument every once in a while and i want to finish it once and for all . She is claiming that wearing something sexual wont increase your chance of getting harassed or raped and for me it just doesn't seem logical that a person would decide to rape someone who is dressed more appropriately then a girl with a sexual outfit with cleavage or whatever ... I'm really open to change my mind regarding this subject but I want to see some kind of proof that i can't find online because it doesn't seem logical to me EDIT: By no means I am "Blaming" women for getting raped so save that from the comments please !

t3_4tim1t

CMV: smokers are a persecuted minority who are having their rights eroded unfairly.

At my university campus there is basically nowhere you can smoke, I dont even know where I am actually allowed to smoke, I just do it away from people, hiding in the shadows like a leper. I think this is highly unfair treatment. Considerations should be made for smokers, we shouldnt be treated like second class citizens. There is not really any sanctioned smoking space on campus, just signs on 99% of the campus that say no smoking. I recently complained online and was told that they are working towards being a *non-smoking campus*! Which is totally outrageous because it would mean that a smoker would have to leave the campus entirely to have a ciggie. I think that overall smokers are treated like shit and we dont deserve it. Smoking is also something that is tied closely to low socio-economic position so in a way this is prejudicial discrimination. I understand limitations on where you can smoke, but I think its going way overboard. edit: **to be clear im not saying I should be able to go around blowing smoke in peoples faces. im saying there should be smoking areas**. _____ > *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: smokers are a persecuted minority who are having their rights eroded unfairly. At my university campus there is basically nowhere you can smoke, I dont even know where I am actually allowed to smoke, I just do it away from people, hiding in the shadows like a leper. I think this is highly unfair treatment. Considerations should be made for smokers, we shouldnt be treated like second class citizens. There is not really any sanctioned smoking space on campus, just signs on 99% of the campus that say no smoking. I recently complained online and was told that they are working towards being a *non-smoking campus*! Which is totally outrageous because it would mean that a smoker would have to leave the campus entirely to have a ciggie. I think that overall smokers are treated like shit and we dont deserve it. Smoking is also something that is tied closely to low socio-economic position so in a way this is prejudicial discrimination. I understand limitations on where you can smoke, but I think its going way overboard. edit: **to be clear im not saying I should be able to go around blowing smoke in peoples faces. im saying there should be smoking areas**.

t3_243oug

CMV: I believe that prostitution should be totally legal, a socially acceptable job, and (for the consumer) non age-restricted.

I am a teenager. Four of my friends have told me that they've experienced non-consensual sexual activity, at the hand of other teenagers. I know the damage it does, as I experienced it too, and my own experience was probably relatively un-damaging compared to some of their experiences. As far as I know, none of us have reported it, because it's shameful, and the person who did it was always a peer or sibling, someone whose life you would hesitate to ruin. The sex offender registry follows you for life (we're American). No kid should have to go through this. I believe that having entirely legal and socially acceptable prostitution that is not age restricted for the consumer would help this problem at least a little bit. Our society isn't acknowledging the sexual desire which adolescents experience. This has created a horrible half-system that creates victims who are more vulnerable to being victimized again. I know I'm being vague here, but I'm somewhat paranoid about this. Any more information could put someone at risk of being identified. _____ > *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 prostitution should be totally legal, a socially acceptable job, and (for the consumer) non age-restricted. I am a teenager. Four of my friends have told me that they've experienced non-consensual sexual activity, at the hand of other teenagers. I know the damage it does, as I experienced it too, and my own experience was probably relatively un-damaging compared to some of their experiences. As far as I know, none of us have reported it, because it's shameful, and the person who did it was always a peer or sibling, someone whose life you would hesitate to ruin. The sex offender registry follows you for life (we're American). No kid should have to go through this. I believe that having entirely legal and socially acceptable prostitution that is not age restricted for the consumer would help this problem at least a little bit. Our society isn't acknowledging the sexual desire which adolescents experience. This has created a horrible half-system that creates victims who are more vulnerable to being victimized again. I know I'm being vague here, but I'm somewhat paranoid about this. Any more information could put someone at risk of being identified.

t3_6zd7o6

CMV: The worst birthday to have in American and Canadian society is September 11

Happy birthday to me! Oh wait, that's awkward because it's a day of somber remembrance honoring thousands of innocent people who died in a horrific national tragedy. Story of my life. I turned 13 on 9/11, so if you believe in superstitions I'm the human equivalent of a black cat who lives under a ladder holding a mirror. Up until that day everything about my birthday was inconsequential, it was no different than having on on April 5 or August 19, a completely random day that was no different than any other. But since the terrible disaster, my birthday is always a secondary thought, even in my own perspective. People are more concerned about acknowledging this horrible event, which by all means they should, but it speaks to my CMV argument. People who barely know me even tell me that they remembered my birthday "because I always remembered it was on 9/11". Ugh. Here are a few points I'd like to address in advance that some may make: - "What about Christmas, Halloween, New Year's?" The worst thing about having a birthday on a national holiday like that is that you get less attention. I suppose that's a bad thing for (some) people, but others enjoy having less attention. Also, some may say you get less presents, but I never really got gifts on my birthday anyway, only cards and cake. Plus I'd say having your birthday on such a joyful occasion can in no way be worse than having it on 9/11. - "What about every other disaster-related date, or memorial of the dead dates like Veterans Day?" The thing about every other related anniversary of death or disaster, is that the name of the disaster itself **isn't the name of the day it occurred on**, September 11 is. Hiroshima bombing isn't known by the name "August 6", the Pearl Harbor attacks isn't known by the name "December 7", Veterans Day/Remembrance Day isn't known by the name "November 11". The terrorist attacks on September 11 are known by the name..... September 11. That's it. No other goddamn name for it. So, as a result, the very name for the day of my birthday is associated with death and disaster. You can't objectively get a much worse birthday than that. And I include Canada in the OP because that's where I live and the association is still just as strong here for 9/11, since we are so heavily influenced by American society and culture. This may also be the case for other nations, and certainly for America itself. _____ > *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 worst birthday to have in American and Canadian society is September 11. Happy birthday to me! Oh wait, that's awkward because it's a day of somber remembrance honoring thousands of innocent people who died in a horrific national tragedy. Story of my life. I turned 13 on 9/11, so if you believe in superstitions I'm the human equivalent of a black cat who lives under a ladder holding a mirror. Up until that day everything about my birthday was inconsequential, it was no different than having on on April 5 or August 19, a completely random day that was no different than any other. But since the terrible disaster, my birthday is always a secondary thought, even in my own perspective. People are more concerned about acknowledging this horrible event, which by all means they should, but it speaks to my CMV argument. People who barely know me even tell me that they remembered my birthday "because I always remembered it was on 9/11". Ugh. Here are a few points I'd like to address in advance that some may make: - "What about Christmas, Halloween, New Year's?" The worst thing about having a birthday on a national holiday like that is that you get less attention. I suppose that's a bad thing for (some) people, but others enjoy having less attention. Also, some may say you get less presents, but I never really got gifts on my birthday anyway, only cards and cake. Plus I'd say having your birthday on such a joyful occasion can in no way be worse than having it on 9/11. - "What about every other disaster-related date, or memorial of the dead dates like Veterans Day?" The thing about every other related anniversary of death or disaster, is that the name of the disaster itself **isn't the name of the day it occurred on**, September 11 is. Hiroshima bombing isn't known by the name "August 6", the Pearl Harbor attacks isn't known by the name "December 7", Veterans Day/Remembrance Day isn't known by the name "November 11". The terrorist attacks on September 11 are known by the name..... September 11. That's it. No other goddamn name for it. So, as a result, the very name for the day of my birthday is associated with death and disaster. You can't objectively get a much worse birthday than that. And I include Canada in the OP because that's where I live and the association is still just as strong here for 9/11, since we are so heavily influenced by American society and culture. This may also be the case for other nations, and certainly for America itself.

t3_57y5g5

CMV: No one can be selfish nor greedy as they cause climate change, towards the future generations.

By definition the future generations don't exist, and thus, you can't be selfish towards them. When I hear discussions about climate change, I always see someone mentioning the future generations, I have always found this to be extremely disingenuous, you can't put someone in the discussion that does not even exist, it is dishonest. Doing nothing about climate change does not make you into a selfish person towards the future generations. When people try to guilty trip you talking of next generations they are being irrational. People who don't exist have no say in the matter, thus, any mention to future generations and tries to guilt people are nonsense. You can't be selfish towards something that DOES NOT EXIST. This is my point.

CMV: No one can be selfish nor greedy as they cause climate change, towards the future generations. By definition the future generations don't exist, and thus, you can't be selfish towards them. When I hear discussions about climate change, I always see someone mentioning the future generations, I have always found this to be extremely disingenuous, you can't put someone in the discussion that does not even exist, it is dishonest. Doing nothing about climate change does not make you into a selfish person towards the future generations. When people try to guilty trip you talking of next generations they are being irrational. People who don't exist have no say in the matter, thus, any mention to future generations and tries to guilt people are nonsense. You can't be selfish towards something that DOES NOT EXIST. This is my point.

t3_5y9l4k

CMV: Oftentimes exposure and efforts at dialogue with different political views radicalizes, rather than moderates.

There's been a thousand thinkpieces on the growing polarization of politics in the world, and particularly in the US during and after the election. One of the main remedies to our increasing ideological segregation (both literal and figurative) that's often proposed is that we simply talk more often and engage with people and media that's different from us and our preferences. Frankly, I think growing exposure is a decent chunk of what's fueling the issue. Speaking for myself, anecdotally, I try to remain relatively open-minded. I occasionally look at National Review, Breitbart, The American Conservative, etc to get a feel for what the other side thinks and feels. If anything, doing so has just driven me further leftward and given me a growing disdain for conservatism. While I may be more understanding, I'm increasingly turned off by a lot of the rhetoric and stances displayed. It seems as we're increasingly exposed to the reality of how starkly different we are from each other (the vast differences in media we consume, beliefs we hold, reports on protests and riots we agree with or loathe, etc) we self-segregate all the harder and see how little common ground and values we share, rather than how much. However, I want to be wrong- that the issue is how one engages, or how one is supposed to understand differences of values, politics, beliefs, etc. Not that we're best kept moderate by staying in bubbles. EDIT: Forgot to add this piece which seems to illustrate more of my point: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/16/facebook-bias-bubble-us-election-conservative-liberal-news-feed While I don't feel I've been proven wholly wrong yet, I do think part of the problem observed is in trying to understand opposing perspectives via media, writing, etc rather than engaging with individuals face-to-face, person-to-person (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5y9l4k/cmv_oftentimes_exposure_and_efforts_at_dialogue/deo95cw/). ___ > *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: Oftentimes exposure and efforts at dialogue with different political views radicalizes, rather than moderates. There's been a thousand thinkpieces on the growing polarization of politics in the world, and particularly in the US during and after the election. One of the main remedies to our increasing ideological segregation (both literal and figurative) that's often proposed is that we simply talk more often and engage with people and media that's different from us and our preferences. Frankly, I think growing exposure is a decent chunk of what's fueling the issue. Speaking for myself, anecdotally, I try to remain relatively open-minded. I occasionally look at National Review, Breitbart, The American Conservative, etc to get a feel for what the other side thinks and feels. If anything, doing so has just driven me further leftward and given me a growing disdain for conservatism. While I may be more understanding, I'm increasingly turned off by a lot of the rhetoric and stances displayed. It seems as we're increasingly exposed to the reality of how starkly different we are from each other (the vast differences in media we consume, beliefs we hold, reports on protests and riots we agree with or loathe, etc) we self-segregate all the harder and see how little common ground and values we share, rather than how much. However, I want to be wrong- that the issue is how one engages, or how one is supposed to understand differences of values, politics, beliefs, etc. Not that we're best kept moderate by staying in bubbles. EDIT: Forgot to add this piece which seems to illustrate more of my point: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/16/facebook-bias-bubble-us-election-conservative-liberal-news-feed While I don't feel I've been proven wholly wrong yet, I do think part of the problem observed is in trying to understand opposing perspectives via media, writing, etc rather than engaging with individuals face-to-face, person-to-person (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5y9l4k/cmv_oftentimes_exposure_and_efforts_at_dialogue/deo95cw/). ___ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1el01u

I think a fair tax would be better than what the United States does now. CMV

I think the fair tax would bring in more revenue because it would increase consumer spending. I think the government would make more money if they taxed the money every time something is bought or changes hands basically. The money from income that people have will also allow companies to hire more people, create new jobs, and innovate thus helping the economy. I think all of this is up for debate please change my view.

I think a fair tax would be better than what the United States does now. CMV. I think the fair tax would bring in more revenue because it would increase consumer spending. I think the government would make more money if they taxed the money every time something is bought or changes hands basically. The money from income that people have will also allow companies to hire more people, create new jobs, and innovate thus helping the economy. I think all of this is up for debate please change my view.

t3_4rtine

CMV: You can't fix serious world problems with "love" and "respect"

I used to think, a long time ago, that only greedy people with little empathy were "bad". Now I'm starting to think that a lot of people with good intentions can be just as blind and harmful to the humanity. I feel more and more resentment for my friends who get involved in charities helping refugees while shouting we need more love in the world and that would solve the problems; so that's why I'm asking to see some other point of view. Maybe I would be able to accept those opinions more. I consider myself a fairly sensitive and empathetic person, probably more than a lot of people I know. In the same time I don't believe in simple solutions to complicated problems and I think that what feels right to the heart very often isn't rationally the best thing to do. For example: I believe that the complete lack of control over borders in Europe, lack of unified policy over security of the continent led to mass migration from the Middle East. I think that this clear vulnerability led to people feeling insecure and made it easier for nationalists all over the continent to rise. Are they right? Probably not. But we came to the point where the future of Europe is uncertain to say the least and if we have to deal with serious issues within the continent, even if we want, we won't be able to help anyone else. Now, do I want those people to die? Of course not. If I could choose, I would choose for everybody to be alive and happy. But I think there's only so much we can do without destabilising our - relatively save and wealthy - world. And if we destabilise it everyone will get hurt. When saying all this a year ago I have been accused of being insensitive, blind, ignorant, lacking empathy. "Children are dying!" I heard. As if I wanted them to die. This applies to everything. Let's take Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would hear that Israel should just make peace with the other side. "The killing of the innocent must end!" "We should love and respect one another and all would be fine!" "War is not the solution". Well, yeah, it's not. But I feel it's just unfortunate, unavoidable consequence of certain situations and there, veru often, isn't much we can do. And same goes for nuclear weapons. I really wish we didn't have the problem. I really do. But I don't think getting rid of them by powerful countries can do any good. In the name of being "good" and "not wanting war" we would just become vulnerable to the people who have no such objections. I don't think you can cancel "evil" with "love". Those messages about being respectful and loving each other, because we are all humans is beautiful. I just don't think it can work. I think that complex issues need complex solutiond and I do think some problems can't really be solved, or at least not right now. And I keep feeling like the bad guy. What's funny, in my experience (which I know is not an evidence) a lot of them, if not most, come from people who couldn't bear even having friends who are against equal rights for women, homosexuals or who are against abortion. So how does it work that they love the whole societies, but couldn't really love individuals? Please help me get this sorted. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: You can't fix serious world problems with "love" and "respect". I used to think, a long time ago, that only greedy people with little empathy were "bad". Now I'm starting to think that a lot of people with good intentions can be just as blind and harmful to the humanity. I feel more and more resentment for my friends who get involved in charities helping refugees while shouting we need more love in the world and that would solve the problems; so that's why I'm asking to see some other point of view. Maybe I would be able to accept those opinions more. I consider myself a fairly sensitive and empathetic person, probably more than a lot of people I know. In the same time I don't believe in simple solutions to complicated problems and I think that what feels right to the heart very often isn't rationally the best thing to do. For example: I believe that the complete lack of control over borders in Europe, lack of unified policy over security of the continent led to mass migration from the Middle East. I think that this clear vulnerability led to people feeling insecure and made it easier for nationalists all over the continent to rise. Are they right? Probably not. But we came to the point where the future of Europe is uncertain to say the least and if we have to deal with serious issues within the continent, even if we want, we won't be able to help anyone else. Now, do I want those people to die? Of course not. If I could choose, I would choose for everybody to be alive and happy. But I think there's only so much we can do without destabilising our - relatively save and wealthy - world. And if we destabilise it everyone will get hurt. When saying all this a year ago I have been accused of being insensitive, blind, ignorant, lacking empathy. "Children are dying!" I heard. As if I wanted them to die. This applies to everything. Let's take Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would hear that Israel should just make peace with the other side. "The killing of the innocent must end!" "We should love and respect one another and all would be fine!" "War is not the solution". Well, yeah, it's not. But I feel it's just unfortunate, unavoidable consequence of certain situations and there, veru often, isn't much we can do. And same goes for nuclear weapons. I really wish we didn't have the problem. I really do. But I don't think getting rid of them by powerful countries can do any good. In the name of being "good" and "not wanting war" we would just become vulnerable to the people who have no such objections. I don't think you can cancel "evil" with "love". Those messages about being respectful and loving each other, because we are all humans is beautiful. I just don't think it can work. I think that complex issues need complex solutiond and I do think some problems can't really be solved, or at least not right now. And I keep feeling like the bad guy. What's funny, in my experience (which I know is not an evidence) a lot of them, if not most, come from people who couldn't bear even having friends who are against equal rights for women, homosexuals or who are against abortion. So how does it work that they love the whole societies, but couldn't really love individuals? Please help me get this sorted.

t3_56ol65

CMV: The "Alt-right" can be a positive force in American politics.

Before I begin my argument, I'd like to preface it by saying I am not a Trump supporter. The way I see it, the alt-right is, rather than simply the KKK revived, an alternative to mainstream Republican thought that still broadly maintains its "right-wing" nature. Republicans have, for a while now, been a psuedo-libertarian party (in an economic sense, certainly not a social one), attributing all problems to government being too powerful or taxes being too large. This justification for their policies has been said wherever "mainstream" American conservatism is preached. The "alt-right", however, derives it's "alt" status from the fact it disagrees with the conservative consensus and has a distinct ideology, that still can be called "right-wing". It prefers something in the vein of old Toryism; a powerful, paternalistic government, taking a stance in favor of its citizenry against external threats. "External threats" are not limited solely to foreigners, but things like poverty and crime, which the government can and should act against for the good of its populace. Moreover, the government exists to act for its own; it is not generous, as to be generous is to use resources that can be used to ensure a greater quality of life for its citizens for something that does not directly benefit its citizens, which is where its interests lie. It's roughly akin to a lawyer; if you're in court against someone, you expect your lawyer to advocate your case to their upmost ability within the confines of the law, even if the other side is a human being and has interests that need attention. Caring about them is their lawyer's (government's) job, not yours. Sure, there's a fair bunch of trolls and people who might not have the most benevolent thoughts on race relations under this umbrella, and Trump, the candidate they're rallying behind, has policies in reality more in line with the GOP economically liberal stance than the economically interventionist, safety net-building approach that a "selfish government" would probably have, but Trump's rhetoric advocates that sort of look at the nature of government in a way that the American right-wing hasn't for decades, and I think it can be transformed into something very positive for the nation; a government that genuinely acts in favor of its citizenry, rather than for "the common good", as Democrats seem to prefer, or that doesn't act/acts in favor of the kyriarchy, as Republicans seem to prefer, is something I think genuinely deserves attention, and the "alt-right" is the force that can bring it attention.

CMV: The "Alt-right" can be a positive force in American politics. Before I begin my argument, I'd like to preface it by saying I am not a Trump supporter. The way I see it, the alt-right is, rather than simply the KKK revived, an alternative to mainstream Republican thought that still broadly maintains its "right-wing" nature. Republicans have, for a while now, been a psuedo-libertarian party (in an economic sense, certainly not a social one), attributing all problems to government being too powerful or taxes being too large. This justification for their policies has been said wherever "mainstream" American conservatism is preached. The "alt-right", however, derives it's "alt" status from the fact it disagrees with the conservative consensus and has a distinct ideology, that still can be called "right-wing". It prefers something in the vein of old Toryism; a powerful, paternalistic government, taking a stance in favor of its citizenry against external threats. "External threats" are not limited solely to foreigners, but things like poverty and crime, which the government can and should act against for the good of its populace. Moreover, the government exists to act for its own; it is not generous, as to be generous is to use resources that can be used to ensure a greater quality of life for its citizens for something that does not directly benefit its citizens, which is where its interests lie. It's roughly akin to a lawyer; if you're in court against someone, you expect your lawyer to advocate your case to their upmost ability within the confines of the law, even if the other side is a human being and has interests that need attention. Caring about them is their lawyer's (government's) job, not yours. Sure, there's a fair bunch of trolls and people who might not have the most benevolent thoughts on race relations under this umbrella, and Trump, the candidate they're rallying behind, has policies in reality more in line with the GOP economically liberal stance than the economically interventionist, safety net-building approach that a "selfish government" would probably have, but Trump's rhetoric advocates that sort of look at the nature of government in a way that the American right-wing hasn't for decades, and I think it can be transformed into something very positive for the nation; a government that genuinely acts in favor of its citizenry, rather than for "the common good", as Democrats seem to prefer, or that doesn't act/acts in favor of the kyriarchy, as Republicans seem to prefer, is something I think genuinely deserves attention, and the "alt-right" is the force that can bring it attention.

t3_6k0bp6

CMV: Advertising is predominantly manipulative and thus morally wrong

This is a view that I held strongly as a child that I've kind of brought with me into adulthood without scrutiny. The short version of it is that advertising is primarily focused on manipulating its audience to buy whatever product or service is being advertised. Advertisers play with the wishes and desires of their audience for their the benefit of whatever they're selling. This manipulation is morally wrong (not a really big moral wrong, but still a moral wrong). One exception to this is advertising that is informative. Advertising that shows a product exists and describes its features is not morally wrong, but this informative advertising seems to be a small minority of all advertising. My criticism of advertising isn't purely philosophical but the real world harms that can come from it. I remember seeing a deodorant commercial where a big man lifts his arms and all the people around him collapse from the smell. It's not unreasonable to think that some big men will become self conscious about their smell from watching that ad. There's also the issue (that is much bigger than this post) of photoshopped advertising targeted at women causing body image problems. *Edit: I need to eat dinner with my wife and do some housework. I'll be back in a few hours. Thanks all for the posts. The posts that are starting to convince me are the ones that are forcing me to distinguish between advertising and other areas where manipulation occurs. I need to give a good reason why some are ok and others are not.* *Edit2: I'm back* _____ > *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: Advertising is predominantly manipulative and thus morally wrong. This is a view that I held strongly as a child that I've kind of brought with me into adulthood without scrutiny. The short version of it is that advertising is primarily focused on manipulating its audience to buy whatever product or service is being advertised. Advertisers play with the wishes and desires of their audience for their the benefit of whatever they're selling. This manipulation is morally wrong (not a really big moral wrong, but still a moral wrong). One exception to this is advertising that is informative. Advertising that shows a product exists and describes its features is not morally wrong, but this informative advertising seems to be a small minority of all advertising. My criticism of advertising isn't purely philosophical but the real world harms that can come from it. I remember seeing a deodorant commercial where a big man lifts his arms and all the people around him collapse from the smell. It's not unreasonable to think that some big men will become self conscious about their smell from watching that ad. There's also the issue (that is much bigger than this post) of photoshopped advertising targeted at women causing body image problems. *Edit: I need to eat dinner with my wife and do some housework. I'll be back in a few hours. Thanks all for the posts. The posts that are starting to convince me are the ones that are forcing me to distinguish between advertising and other areas where manipulation occurs. I need to give a good reason why some are ok and others are not.* *Edit2: I'm back*

t3_1mrowb

I'm a young adult living in Japan and I'm very optimistic about my future here. CMV?

DISCLAIMER: I'm *not* Japanese, I'm a white American who moved here several years ago. That said, I'm also not a delusional weeaboo. I know I'll never be considered "Japanese", but that doesn't bother me. No country is perfect, but I think I have a good future here. I'm more or less fluent in Japanese, I make a decent living as an English teacher, and I plan to marry my long-term (Japanese) boyfriend and start having kids within the next few years. However, it seems like every recent news article about Japan wants me to believe that Japan's future is bleak: Japan's economy is on a precipice, radiation is going to give me cancer, society is going to collapse because there aren't enough babies, robots are going to be everywhere because people are too racist to accept foreigner workers, etc. But even with all the dark forecasts, I just don't see it greatly impacting my chances for a good future here. Why? 1. I live in a city that was directly impacted by the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami and the recovery was downright inspirational. Everyone worked together, services were restored at amazing speeds, and there was virtually no violence or chaos in the aftermath. I feel confident that Japanese society will be able to adapt, not collapse, in the face of adversity. 2. On a similar note, I don't think the radiation problem is as big of a deal as the foreign media portrays it to be. A university in my city has collected radiation readings and released them to the public every day since the disaster and they've never been high enough to negatively impact health. Food and drinking water have also been monitored very closely for contamination. I don't think the incident at the plant has been handled well, but I don't think anyone outside of the exclusion zone is at risk. 3. The hypothetical projections of population decline don't take into account changes in behavior. I don't believe that people will continue to have very low birth rates when the decline starts to make a more noticeable impact. The idea that the "Japanese race will die out" as some articles suggest, is laughable. 4. The economy may turn sour, but I'm fairly confident that I personally won't face employment problems because English education is likely to remain in high-demand. But in the event that demand dwindles, my years of experience and language ability would give me an advantage over other applicants. So what do you think? Am I kidding myself? Change my view.

I'm a young adult living in Japan and I'm very optimistic about my future here. CMV?. DISCLAIMER: I'm *not* Japanese, I'm a white American who moved here several years ago. That said, I'm also not a delusional weeaboo. I know I'll never be considered "Japanese", but that doesn't bother me. No country is perfect, but I think I have a good future here. I'm more or less fluent in Japanese, I make a decent living as an English teacher, and I plan to marry my long-term (Japanese) boyfriend and start having kids within the next few years. However, it seems like every recent news article about Japan wants me to believe that Japan's future is bleak: Japan's economy is on a precipice, radiation is going to give me cancer, society is going to collapse because there aren't enough babies, robots are going to be everywhere because people are too racist to accept foreigner workers, etc. But even with all the dark forecasts, I just don't see it greatly impacting my chances for a good future here. Why? 1. I live in a city that was directly impacted by the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami and the recovery was downright inspirational. Everyone worked together, services were restored at amazing speeds, and there was virtually no violence or chaos in the aftermath. I feel confident that Japanese society will be able to adapt, not collapse, in the face of adversity. 2. On a similar note, I don't think the radiation problem is as big of a deal as the foreign media portrays it to be. A university in my city has collected radiation readings and released them to the public every day since the disaster and they've never been high enough to negatively impact health. Food and drinking water have also been monitored very closely for contamination. I don't think the incident at the plant has been handled well, but I don't think anyone outside of the exclusion zone is at risk. 3. The hypothetical projections of population decline don't take into account changes in behavior. I don't believe that people will continue to have very low birth rates when the decline starts to make a more noticeable impact. The idea that the "Japanese race will die out" as some articles suggest, is laughable. 4. The economy may turn sour, but I'm fairly confident that I personally won't face employment problems because English education is likely to remain in high-demand. But in the event that demand dwindles, my years of experience and language ability would give me an advantage over other applicants. So what do you think? Am I kidding myself? Change my view.

t3_1nbm5a

I believe that conscription is inhumane and a waste of time. CMV.

I feel that it is inhumane because it's tantamount to slavery. 2 years of a youth's life at his prime (18) are taken away against his will, and leaving him with no choice but to enter the military service or risk facing an outrageous fine and jail time. There is no recourse for one who is a conscientious objector or one who wants to contribute in other ways to the country. There are 2 articles in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights that I feel are relevant to conscription. Article 4. > > No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 20. > > (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. > **(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.** If these rights are enshrined in the UDHR, why isn't conscription outlawed? Granted, it isn't a model for everyone to follow but why isn't there a global movement to outlaw conscription? Furthemore, it's a waste of time because those 2 years could have spent to further one's studies and the academic inertia could prove to be hard to overcome. It also places those individuals 2 years behind everyone else.

I believe that conscription is inhumane and a waste of time. CMV. I feel that it is inhumane because it's tantamount to slavery. 2 years of a youth's life at his prime (18) are taken away against his will, and leaving him with no choice but to enter the military service or risk facing an outrageous fine and jail time. There is no recourse for one who is a conscientious objector or one who wants to contribute in other ways to the country. There are 2 articles in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights that I feel are relevant to conscription. Article 4. > > No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 20. > > (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. > **(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.** If these rights are enshrined in the UDHR, why isn't conscription outlawed? Granted, it isn't a model for everyone to follow but why isn't there a global movement to outlaw conscription? Furthemore, it's a waste of time because those 2 years could have spent to further one's studies and the academic inertia could prove to be hard to overcome. It also places those individuals 2 years behind everyone else.

t3_3nwc2k

CMV:I Hate the Breast Cancer Movement

This is probably going to be controversial, but I despise the effort and money people put in to raise awareness about breast cancer (which everyone has heard of by now) instead of research for new drugs and how the breast cancer movement draws attention from other, more lethal cancers. I do understand that breast cancer is very common, and that a cure would obviously be for the best, but the fact is is that there are more lethal cancers out there, and they aren't getting enough attention. When was the last time you have ever seen someone wearing a clear ribbon for lung cancer (most lethal cancer) or periwinkle for stomach cancer/esophagus cancer (2nd and 6th most lethal cancer, respectively?) Because they don't get nearly as much money for research and awareness, they face a far greater chance of dying than if they had breast cancer. But even then, I could understand the point of the breast cancer movement if it has done something. Instead, we get [survival rates that haven't improved in about 20 years](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html) tl;dr- I feel that the breast cancer movement is not only ineffective, but actually has a detrimental effect on cancer awareness and research. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I Hate the Breast Cancer Movement. This is probably going to be controversial, but I despise the effort and money people put in to raise awareness about breast cancer (which everyone has heard of by now) instead of research for new drugs and how the breast cancer movement draws attention from other, more lethal cancers. I do understand that breast cancer is very common, and that a cure would obviously be for the best, but the fact is is that there are more lethal cancers out there, and they aren't getting enough attention. When was the last time you have ever seen someone wearing a clear ribbon for lung cancer (most lethal cancer) or periwinkle for stomach cancer/esophagus cancer (2nd and 6th most lethal cancer, respectively?) Because they don't get nearly as much money for research and awareness, they face a far greater chance of dying than if they had breast cancer. But even then, I could understand the point of the breast cancer movement if it has done something. Instead, we get [survival rates that haven't improved in about 20 years](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html) tl;dr- I feel that the breast cancer movement is not only ineffective, but actually has a detrimental effect on cancer awareness and research.

t3_3due2q

CMV: Welfare recipients should be forced to receive IUDs.

My view is that in many situations where eugenics has been applied in the past, IUDs would offer many of the same advantages while resolving the ethical dilemmas. Qualifiers: - Such a program would also enforce immediate and persistent research into an equivalent male treatment which would be applied as soon as it passed human trials. (This is not intended to be a sexist measure or to target singles.) - Recipients would not be charged. - Checkups would be required periodically to prevent tampering. - Those with religious objections would simply not have the advantage of state welfare to support their convictions. A 401c might be set up by such religious institutions as an alternative means of support for their adherents. - I'm also swayed to applying the measures in other situations where eugenics might be considered, such as mental disabilities or convicts on parole, but I wanted to limit most of the conversation to welfare because it seems to me to have the most advantages for the least tradeoff (ie losing welfare). But I'm open to hearing comments on other common eugenics contexts. Edited for like breaks. Edit: I'm so sorry, I have to break to drive for my husband. I'll hopefully be back to keep responding before the end of the day. Edit: And back for a bit. Edit: Man, I really did not expect so many responses. I'm quite amused that the post is at net 0 votes… I gave a couple deltas, and there was some good stuff here. Thanks to everyone who's commented. I wish I could keep responding but I'm out of time to spend on it. Please don't take that as my ignoring a comment — I guess you can consider yourself correct by default or something if you really need to? _____ > *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: Welfare recipients should be forced to receive IUDs. My view is that in many situations where eugenics has been applied in the past, IUDs would offer many of the same advantages while resolving the ethical dilemmas. Qualifiers: - Such a program would also enforce immediate and persistent research into an equivalent male treatment which would be applied as soon as it passed human trials. (This is not intended to be a sexist measure or to target singles.) - Recipients would not be charged. - Checkups would be required periodically to prevent tampering. - Those with religious objections would simply not have the advantage of state welfare to support their convictions. A 401c might be set up by such religious institutions as an alternative means of support for their adherents. - I'm also swayed to applying the measures in other situations where eugenics might be considered, such as mental disabilities or convicts on parole, but I wanted to limit most of the conversation to welfare because it seems to me to have the most advantages for the least tradeoff (ie losing welfare). But I'm open to hearing comments on other common eugenics contexts. Edited for like breaks. Edit: I'm so sorry, I have to break to drive for my husband. I'll hopefully be back to keep responding before the end of the day. Edit: And back for a bit. Edit: Man, I really did not expect so many responses. I'm quite amused that the post is at net 0 votes… I gave a couple deltas, and there was some good stuff here. Thanks to everyone who's commented. I wish I could keep responding but I'm out of time to spend on it. Please don't take that as my ignoring a comment — I guess you can consider yourself correct by default or something if you really need to?

t3_4q7an6

CMV: It is highly likely that far fewer than 6,000,000 Jews died during the Jewish holocaust.

For the sake of being specific, we can say 4,000,000 or less is what counts as "far fewer than". I also want to say that I do not promote racism, do not deny the holocaust all together and I do have sympathy for those who suffered during the genocide. * The number six million was mentioned far before the Holocaust happened as an estimate for how many Jews were being executed or starving in Europe.. (I checked these myself on www.newspapers.com) This could indicate some type of hoax. (feels weird to accuse someone of that) * History has a tendency to favor the victors(Us, Britain) and exaggerate the evil qualities of the losers (Nazis) and sympathize with the victims (Jews) * Questioning the number 6,000,000 is largely considered taboo, even illegal in several countries. This could lead to people not wanting to risk their careers and credibility over. * 6,000,000 comes from the Talmud book. I didn't verify this, just found it as I was writing this. * Claims have been made that gas chambers were not as efficient as previously thought. The same applies to the mass ovens. I have other reasons too, but if those all could be thoroughly debunked, I will be willing to change my view. Sorry about my shitty grammar and lack of links, I can add them later if need be. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is highly likely that far fewer than 6,000,000 Jews died during the Jewish holocaust. For the sake of being specific, we can say 4,000,000 or less is what counts as "far fewer than". I also want to say that I do not promote racism, do not deny the holocaust all together and I do have sympathy for those who suffered during the genocide. * The number six million was mentioned far before the Holocaust happened as an estimate for how many Jews were being executed or starving in Europe.. (I checked these myself on www.newspapers.com) This could indicate some type of hoax. (feels weird to accuse someone of that) * History has a tendency to favor the victors(Us, Britain) and exaggerate the evil qualities of the losers (Nazis) and sympathize with the victims (Jews) * Questioning the number 6,000,000 is largely considered taboo, even illegal in several countries. This could lead to people not wanting to risk their careers and credibility over. * 6,000,000 comes from the Talmud book. I didn't verify this, just found it as I was writing this. * Claims have been made that gas chambers were not as efficient as previously thought. The same applies to the mass ovens. I have other reasons too, but if those all could be thoroughly debunked, I will be willing to change my view. Sorry about my shitty grammar and lack of links, I can add them later if need be.

t3_6z92f0

CMV: In table tennis a net - or edge ball should count as a let

__Background:__ A "let" in table tennis is when the point s re-played which can be caused by any number of things such as obstruction by external factors, the ball breaking or a net ball (the ball making contact with the net) during a serve. Currently when the ball makes contact with the net outside of a serve or touches the edge of the table it is not a let but the point just goes on. Net - and edge balls (when the ball hits the edge of the table) tend to alter the trajectory of a ball in unpredictable ways making them extremely hard to return. This is such a narrow thing that even on the pro level no player actually consciously _aims_ for a net - or edge ball and it's generally perceived as being lucky when one hits one and it puts the opponent in a significant disadvantage. Even _if_ the opponent manages to correctly return the ball it will be generally returned in a very sub-optimal way which heavily swings the rally in favour of the other player. Players typically get frustrated and annoyed being at the receiving end of a net - or edge bal and players that win a point via a net = or edge ball tend to feel that they did not deserve the point that almost always follows from it. In table tennis etiquette it is even customary to apologize to one's opponent for such a ball as people generally agree that it is not a deserving point but merely being lucky. Not replaying a net - or edge ball simply takes the enjoyment out of the game for both players and spectators.

CMV: In table tennis a net - or edge ball should count as a let. __Background:__ A "let" in table tennis is when the point s re-played which can be caused by any number of things such as obstruction by external factors, the ball breaking or a net ball (the ball making contact with the net) during a serve. Currently when the ball makes contact with the net outside of a serve or touches the edge of the table it is not a let but the point just goes on. Net - and edge balls (when the ball hits the edge of the table) tend to alter the trajectory of a ball in unpredictable ways making them extremely hard to return. This is such a narrow thing that even on the pro level no player actually consciously _aims_ for a net - or edge ball and it's generally perceived as being lucky when one hits one and it puts the opponent in a significant disadvantage. Even _if_ the opponent manages to correctly return the ball it will be generally returned in a very sub-optimal way which heavily swings the rally in favour of the other player. Players typically get frustrated and annoyed being at the receiving end of a net - or edge bal and players that win a point via a net = or edge ball tend to feel that they did not deserve the point that almost always follows from it. In table tennis etiquette it is even customary to apologize to one's opponent for such a ball as people generally agree that it is not a deserving point but merely being lucky. Not replaying a net - or edge ball simply takes the enjoyment out of the game for both players and spectators.

t3_290o1m

CMV: Prison is less ethical and less effective as a detterent than physical punishment such as caning

Basically, three years of my life is an abstract and difficult to parse internally, whereas the pain from 20 strikes with a cane is easy and simple, and connects more to the basic fears and intuitions humans have with regards to punishment, which is the effectiveness side of my view. The ethical side is that imprisoning someone for years is enormously costly to them and to the state, with the opportunity costs in work and life experience. There's also the political point of view. People, implicitly or explicitly, encourage prison abuse because they don't feel that prison in and of itself is a sufficient punishment. By making the punishment aspect more salient and corporeal, the rehabilitative aspect of prisons can be enhanced, and the abuse side can be diminished, with less opposition from victim rights organizations. This would likely lead to a net improvement in the effects of judicial punishment. _____ > *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: Prison is less ethical and less effective as a detterent than physical punishment such as caning. Basically, three years of my life is an abstract and difficult to parse internally, whereas the pain from 20 strikes with a cane is easy and simple, and connects more to the basic fears and intuitions humans have with regards to punishment, which is the effectiveness side of my view. The ethical side is that imprisoning someone for years is enormously costly to them and to the state, with the opportunity costs in work and life experience. There's also the political point of view. People, implicitly or explicitly, encourage prison abuse because they don't feel that prison in and of itself is a sufficient punishment. By making the punishment aspect more salient and corporeal, the rehabilitative aspect of prisons can be enhanced, and the abuse side can be diminished, with less opposition from victim rights organizations. This would likely lead to a net improvement in the effects of judicial punishment.

t3_1fvl1o

CMV: The United States is a police state

As a United States resident the past few days I've come to decide that the United States is literally a police state. Here's why: * We incarcerate more people than any other nation * Our percentage of incarcerated individuals to our overall population is 1%, also more than any other nation * Verizon and indeed all US telecoms are bullied by secret government doctrines that force them to hand over metadata * Project PRISM involves the constant penetration of servers such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo So, yeah. Essentially Obama or other senior officials have the power* to declare a citizen a terrorist, pull their file, and access their life's communications for the past six years. Edit: Not Orwellian, though I could see it going that way. Edit2: >I was calling it a police state offhand due to two separate issues: High incarceration for profit, and a surveillance state. *Which they have not fully disclosed, or made up as they were going along

CMV: The United States is a police state. As a United States resident the past few days I've come to decide that the United States is literally a police state. Here's why: * We incarcerate more people than any other nation * Our percentage of incarcerated individuals to our overall population is 1%, also more than any other nation * Verizon and indeed all US telecoms are bullied by secret government doctrines that force them to hand over metadata * Project PRISM involves the constant penetration of servers such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo So, yeah. Essentially Obama or other senior officials have the power* to declare a citizen a terrorist, pull their file, and access their life's communications for the past six years. Edit: Not Orwellian, though I could see it going that way. Edit2: >I was calling it a police state offhand due to two separate issues: High incarceration for profit, and a surveillance state. *Which they have not fully disclosed, or made up as they were going along

t3_4pbzi5

CMV: Anyone who has the means to help the poor but does not do so is immoral.

This is essentially the argument proposed by the philosopher [Peter Singer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer). Basically, most of us have extra money and resources left over at the end of the year, but spend them on frivolous luxuries like a fancy car and a $1000 purse instead of donating to charity, where the money could be used to save lives. In my view, everyone with a surplus of wealth should be giving that surplus to save those dying from poverty, or otherwise suffering. If people don't give that money immediately after they earn it, they should at least invest it so that they have more to give when they die. The thought experiment for my point of view goes as follows: you're wearing a pair of $1000 shoes, and on your way to work, let's say, you see a child drowning in a lake. If you jump in, you save her, but you ruin your $1000 shoes. Of course, pretty much all of us would jump in and save her, costing us $1000 but saving a life. My point is that there's children dying, every day, that could be saved with $1000. Aren't we selfish and immoral in spending that surplus wealth on saving lives? Shouldn't we try to save as many lives as possible? Mosquito nets and measles vaccines cost very little, and they have a huge impact. Now, I'm not saying that I fall under this standard, and indeed, if I consider myself immoral in that I don't spend enough/give enough to altruistic causes. But this is a view that I hold, and I'd like to hear some counter arguments against 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: Anyone who has the means to help the poor but does not do so is immoral. This is essentially the argument proposed by the philosopher [Peter Singer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer). Basically, most of us have extra money and resources left over at the end of the year, but spend them on frivolous luxuries like a fancy car and a $1000 purse instead of donating to charity, where the money could be used to save lives. In my view, everyone with a surplus of wealth should be giving that surplus to save those dying from poverty, or otherwise suffering. If people don't give that money immediately after they earn it, they should at least invest it so that they have more to give when they die. The thought experiment for my point of view goes as follows: you're wearing a pair of $1000 shoes, and on your way to work, let's say, you see a child drowning in a lake. If you jump in, you save her, but you ruin your $1000 shoes. Of course, pretty much all of us would jump in and save her, costing us $1000 but saving a life. My point is that there's children dying, every day, that could be saved with $1000. Aren't we selfish and immoral in spending that surplus wealth on saving lives? Shouldn't we try to save as many lives as possible? Mosquito nets and measles vaccines cost very little, and they have a huge impact. Now, I'm not saying that I fall under this standard, and indeed, if I consider myself immoral in that I don't spend enough/give enough to altruistic causes. But this is a view that I hold, and I'd like to hear some counter arguments against it.

t3_2p3d0h

CMV: The fact my friend got cuddled while he was asleep (without his direct consent) is not a big deal.

So a very close friend of mine talked to me. he was extremely depressed (and still is). Really depressed, he's almost suicidal. When he first told me, he was somewhat vague. and my initial understanding was the he got roofied by his very best friend during a sleep over, and then either raped or heavily molested judging by his extremely traumatized condition. He said he felt betrayed, violated, slutty. Everything you'd expect to hear from a rape victim. I immediately advised him to get away from that friend (the rapist). And he's been talking about it a lot actually, not that I mind, I was (and still) as supportive as i can. But well... upon further conversations, I recently realized that what actually happened was different than I thought. He didn't really get drugged, he doesn't even think so anymore. It was just a wild guess. He probably just got sleepy (according to my friend, the victim) and when he woke up, his friend was simply half naked and cuddled with him. That's it. I'm trying to support my friend who's majorly depressed about it. But honestly, I can't take him seriously anymore. I mean, I understand this might count as sexual harassment. But it's not that huge. Seriously, he keeps talking to me about it, and how they were really close and how he miss those days but he can't ever forgive him. And I just want scream "Stop being a fucking drama queen." It's just fucking cuddle. I'm honestly not sure about it anymore. Am I really being a dick to my friend, trivializing a major event? Or is he really just overreacting? EDIT: Just to clarify. Incase it makes a difference. They're both males. And they were really close. _____

CMV: The fact my friend got cuddled while he was asleep (without his direct consent) is not a big deal. So a very close friend of mine talked to me. he was extremely depressed (and still is). Really depressed, he's almost suicidal. When he first told me, he was somewhat vague. and my initial understanding was the he got roofied by his very best friend during a sleep over, and then either raped or heavily molested judging by his extremely traumatized condition. He said he felt betrayed, violated, slutty. Everything you'd expect to hear from a rape victim. I immediately advised him to get away from that friend (the rapist). And he's been talking about it a lot actually, not that I mind, I was (and still) as supportive as i can. But well... upon further conversations, I recently realized that what actually happened was different than I thought. He didn't really get drugged, he doesn't even think so anymore. It was just a wild guess. He probably just got sleepy (according to my friend, the victim) and when he woke up, his friend was simply half naked and cuddled with him. That's it. I'm trying to support my friend who's majorly depressed about it. But honestly, I can't take him seriously anymore. I mean, I understand this might count as sexual harassment. But it's not that huge. Seriously, he keeps talking to me about it, and how they were really close and how he miss those days but he can't ever forgive him. And I just want scream "Stop being a fucking drama queen." It's just fucking cuddle. I'm honestly not sure about it anymore. Am I really being a dick to my friend, trivializing a major event? Or is he really just overreacting? EDIT: Just to clarify. Incase it makes a difference. They're both males. And they were really close. _____

t3_62ckh9

CMV:AI Can Never Be Like Humans

Before i begin, i think i will clarify my view. I think it is absolutely possible that artificial intelligence will (might?) be able to surpass humans, in terms of intelligence and what not. To be clear, i think that artificial intelligence can never be made to be like humans, and here's why: Humans are creatures driven by emotions. Regardless of how rational or logical a person can choose to be, there will always be a part of them that is controlled by their emotions. More importantly, i think emotions are something that cannot be rationalised. The cause of emotions, as establish by science are due to different chemicals being released into our bodies. But emotions on its own, is something that is difficult to rationalise, it is illogical. And the biggest reason why AI would never be like humans, is because at its very core, it is made up of a bunch of 1s and 0s. How do you teach something to learn something that is illogical or irrational if its guiding principles and rules are made of up reason and logic? Essentially, how can you ever teach an AI to have emotions? Trying to give an AI character and personality, seems quite unlikely as well. I don't think those are traits which can be put on a scale, not to mention humans are fickle as well (once again being emotional). What makes you tick on one day might not on another. Maybe you had a fight and you're feeling grumpy, and you react differently to a particular situation than you would have had on a regular day. All these, to me, are not something which can be reasoned or converted into 1s and 0s. Human emotions are not binary. Edit: I think the biggest take away for "impossible" claims is that, unless it defies the laws of physics, it is not within our current capacity to label it as impossible. _____ > *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:AI Can Never Be Like Humans. Before i begin, i think i will clarify my view. I think it is absolutely possible that artificial intelligence will (might?) be able to surpass humans, in terms of intelligence and what not. To be clear, i think that artificial intelligence can never be made to be like humans, and here's why: Humans are creatures driven by emotions. Regardless of how rational or logical a person can choose to be, there will always be a part of them that is controlled by their emotions. More importantly, i think emotions are something that cannot be rationalised. The cause of emotions, as establish by science are due to different chemicals being released into our bodies. But emotions on its own, is something that is difficult to rationalise, it is illogical. And the biggest reason why AI would never be like humans, is because at its very core, it is made up of a bunch of 1s and 0s. How do you teach something to learn something that is illogical or irrational if its guiding principles and rules are made of up reason and logic? Essentially, how can you ever teach an AI to have emotions? Trying to give an AI character and personality, seems quite unlikely as well. I don't think those are traits which can be put on a scale, not to mention humans are fickle as well (once again being emotional). What makes you tick on one day might not on another. Maybe you had a fight and you're feeling grumpy, and you react differently to a particular situation than you would have had on a regular day. All these, to me, are not something which can be reasoned or converted into 1s and 0s. Human emotions are not binary. Edit: I think the biggest take away for "impossible" claims is that, unless it defies the laws of physics, it is not within our current capacity to label it as impossible.

t3_29vbwk

CMV: GMO foods are so widespread that they now affect almost all organic crops as well. Americans should now just eat as best as they can.

[These] (http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html) [Two articles] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html) are what I read that made me think this. Honestly, GMOs are spreading. I buy as many organic and veggie items as I can, but they ain't cheap and I don't make that kind of money. I exercise and am within five pounds of my goal weight. I used to be scared to death to eat anything, but then I realized...death is inevitable so why not just....not be afraid? Don't buy GMO products that you KNOW are bad (cheetos, boxed meals, etc.) But don't be afraid of a veggie if it isn't organic. (I am not good at researching whether an article is reliable. I just read and then ask questions of those more knowledgeable) I want to know your opinion!

CMV: GMO foods are so widespread that they now affect almost all organic crops as well. Americans should now just eat as best as they can. [These] (http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html) [Two articles] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html) are what I read that made me think this. Honestly, GMOs are spreading. I buy as many organic and veggie items as I can, but they ain't cheap and I don't make that kind of money. I exercise and am within five pounds of my goal weight. I used to be scared to death to eat anything, but then I realized...death is inevitable so why not just....not be afraid? Don't buy GMO products that you KNOW are bad (cheetos, boxed meals, etc.) But don't be afraid of a veggie if it isn't organic. (I am not good at researching whether an article is reliable. I just read and then ask questions of those more knowledgeable) I want to know your opinion!

t3_1bkljc

I believe that Universities are in fact promoting inequality and segregation when they give 'special favours'. CMV.

Many Universities and Colleges around the world offer reduced or no fee's, supportive programmes and, in some cases, more leniency in terms of grade marking to people of certain minority races. An example of different races being favoured could be Aboriginals in Australia, American Indians in the USA, Maori and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. I understand that Universities want to support racial progression by allowing more students of these kinds to get a degree, but this view angers me to no end. Why should only a select few benefit from this? By trying to promote a minority - they are in fact segregating them by providing 'special favours'. If Universities allow one race to be favoured over others then surely this is a sign of promoting inequality?

I believe that Universities are in fact promoting inequality and segregation when they give 'special favours'. CMV. Many Universities and Colleges around the world offer reduced or no fee's, supportive programmes and, in some cases, more leniency in terms of grade marking to people of certain minority races. An example of different races being favoured could be Aboriginals in Australia, American Indians in the USA, Maori and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. I understand that Universities want to support racial progression by allowing more students of these kinds to get a degree, but this view angers me to no end. Why should only a select few benefit from this? By trying to promote a minority - they are in fact segregating them by providing 'special favours'. If Universities allow one race to be favoured over others then surely this is a sign of promoting inequality?

t3_1ek9g7

The death penalty should be WIDELY implemented for repeat offenders- people who have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot operate within society. CMV.

To set some background information (please note that the following idea is not up for CMV, at least for purposes of this discussion): I do not believe in universal human rights. Rights are the precious product of civilization. They are protected and granted by members of a society coming together, forming a mutual contract that seeks to serve in the best interest of all by demanding a small sacrifice and obedience from behalf of all. As gifts of society, rights can, at any moment, be taken away by society. Country of residence: United States, which has capital punishment laws, but are rare and difficult to carry out. Rehabilitation is good, IF the cost to society is outweighed by the potential gains. For criminals who have committed a single deplorable act, rehabilitation SHOULD be the first consideration. The value of a human life is its utility to society. If there is a potential utility that can be re-accessed without too much cost in terms of resources and personnel, then I am all for rehabilitation. However, not all criminals are able to benefit from rehabilitation into society, as our prisons filled with repeat offenders demonstrate. For these individuals, who have demonstrated time and time again that they are utterly incapable of changing their ways, the most logical choice is immediate summary execution (preferably mandatory organ donation). Humans who cannot exercise the ability to control themselves within a society should not be treated as humans, but as the lower functioning animals that they are. These are the cancers that eat away at the whole- unable to be cured, a burden to maintain, and of absolutely no utility to society. To increase the rate of capital punishments, repeat offenders should not be given the same level of trial time and consideration. They are not worth the resources. The justice system is already capable of making mistakes, and that is why the limited resources that it has should be spent on those who have committed only limited offenses, since their guilt is much less certain then those who already have been convicted multiple times. Also, there should not be a separate trial to determine guilt, and another one to determine eligibility for the death penalty, which greatly increases cost (United States).

The death penalty should be WIDELY implemented for repeat offenders- people who have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot operate within society. CMV. To set some background information (please note that the following idea is not up for CMV, at least for purposes of this discussion): I do not believe in universal human rights. Rights are the precious product of civilization. They are protected and granted by members of a society coming together, forming a mutual contract that seeks to serve in the best interest of all by demanding a small sacrifice and obedience from behalf of all. As gifts of society, rights can, at any moment, be taken away by society. Country of residence: United States, which has capital punishment laws, but are rare and difficult to carry out. Rehabilitation is good, IF the cost to society is outweighed by the potential gains. For criminals who have committed a single deplorable act, rehabilitation SHOULD be the first consideration. The value of a human life is its utility to society. If there is a potential utility that can be re-accessed without too much cost in terms of resources and personnel, then I am all for rehabilitation. However, not all criminals are able to benefit from rehabilitation into society, as our prisons filled with repeat offenders demonstrate. For these individuals, who have demonstrated time and time again that they are utterly incapable of changing their ways, the most logical choice is immediate summary execution (preferably mandatory organ donation). Humans who cannot exercise the ability to control themselves within a society should not be treated as humans, but as the lower functioning animals that they are. These are the cancers that eat away at the whole- unable to be cured, a burden to maintain, and of absolutely no utility to society. To increase the rate of capital punishments, repeat offenders should not be given the same level of trial time and consideration. They are not worth the resources. The justice system is already capable of making mistakes, and that is why the limited resources that it has should be spent on those who have committed only limited offenses, since their guilt is much less certain then those who already have been convicted multiple times. Also, there should not be a separate trial to determine guilt, and another one to determine eligibility for the death penalty, which greatly increases cost (United States).

t3_1knv0v

Luxury designer brands hinder economic progress. CMV

Think about a Bangkok prostitute: she came from a poor part of the country with the choices of working in a factory for $200/mo., working in the rice fields for less, or becoming a prostitute and making closer to a first-world income. So she goes to Bangkok and sells her body. She will sleep with a rich foreigner and earn maybe $100 for the day--perhaps 10x what she'd make in a factory. Now here's the real problem (and let's put sexual morality aside--the example doesn't have to be prostitution--since I want to talk about the economics of the thing). In many cases, these uneducated girls have no sense of saving or investing, so most of that money goes to frivolous things. What frivolous things? Well, there's nothing most Asian girls cherish more than a Louis Vuitton handbag (I should know--I'm an Asian girl), and this is on the list of things that they will buy. Maybe a knock-off if they can't afford the real thing. But, of course, luxury brand goods are one of the most depreciating assets on Earth. So these girls invest their money in a consumable good that yields nothing, and only because they want to show off their status. This applies to other luxury goods too: BMWs, Armani suits, and so on. In the third world you see the ability of people to save and invest hindered by their need to show off their money with all this crap. A stroll in Dubai will show this phenomenon prominently. If we didn't have luxury designer brands, people would spend that money on other signs of social status, such as houses (which have a very handy use and have the potential to be income producing if they are not directly appreciating). As it stands, people waste their money on things that will lose value over time because we have created a society of flashy brands. What makes things worse is that those brands are usually French, Italian, and American, so the rich countries funnel cash from the poor countries by duping them into worshiping their brands. CMV.

Luxury designer brands hinder economic progress. CMV. Think about a Bangkok prostitute: she came from a poor part of the country with the choices of working in a factory for $200/mo., working in the rice fields for less, or becoming a prostitute and making closer to a first-world income. So she goes to Bangkok and sells her body. She will sleep with a rich foreigner and earn maybe $100 for the day--perhaps 10x what she'd make in a factory. Now here's the real problem (and let's put sexual morality aside--the example doesn't have to be prostitution--since I want to talk about the economics of the thing). In many cases, these uneducated girls have no sense of saving or investing, so most of that money goes to frivolous things. What frivolous things? Well, there's nothing most Asian girls cherish more than a Louis Vuitton handbag (I should know--I'm an Asian girl), and this is on the list of things that they will buy. Maybe a knock-off if they can't afford the real thing. But, of course, luxury brand goods are one of the most depreciating assets on Earth. So these girls invest their money in a consumable good that yields nothing, and only because they want to show off their status. This applies to other luxury goods too: BMWs, Armani suits, and so on. In the third world you see the ability of people to save and invest hindered by their need to show off their money with all this crap. A stroll in Dubai will show this phenomenon prominently. If we didn't have luxury designer brands, people would spend that money on other signs of social status, such as houses (which have a very handy use and have the potential to be income producing if they are not directly appreciating). As it stands, people waste their money on things that will lose value over time because we have created a society of flashy brands. What makes things worse is that those brands are usually French, Italian, and American, so the rich countries funnel cash from the poor countries by duping them into worshiping their brands. CMV.

t3_5j9m4s

CMV: It is unfair to expect suicidal people to continue living unless you try to make their life better.

I hold the opinion that if you are not willing to take action to improve somebody’s life in situations where it is possible, then it is unfair to expect him or her to continue his or her life. Nobody ever consented to being born. Although life does sometimes get better for people, it can also get worse or stay the same. And, it may not even improve to the point of being desirable. Here’s a scenario for an example. Let’s say you know a person who is suicidal because he feels socially alienated, feels socially rejected, and lacks a consistent group of friends. While you can empathize and feel bad for him, I find it wrong to expect him to not be suicidal unless you take direct action to fix his situation. I believe that you would have to either socially accept him or find a group of people (who he would want to socially connect with) who will. If someone is suicidal over being romantically rejected or having been broken up with, you should take action to help them get over the other person or try to get the other person to accept him or her. Even though you might see their problems as trivial and unimportant, they may mean the world to them. Altogether, I believe that it is wrong to expect or force somebody to continue living a life that they do not desire. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is unfair to expect suicidal people to continue living unless you try to make their life better. I hold the opinion that if you are not willing to take action to improve somebody’s life in situations where it is possible, then it is unfair to expect him or her to continue his or her life. Nobody ever consented to being born. Although life does sometimes get better for people, it can also get worse or stay the same. And, it may not even improve to the point of being desirable. Here’s a scenario for an example. Let’s say you know a person who is suicidal because he feels socially alienated, feels socially rejected, and lacks a consistent group of friends. While you can empathize and feel bad for him, I find it wrong to expect him to not be suicidal unless you take direct action to fix his situation. I believe that you would have to either socially accept him or find a group of people (who he would want to socially connect with) who will. If someone is suicidal over being romantically rejected or having been broken up with, you should take action to help them get over the other person or try to get the other person to accept him or her. Even though you might see their problems as trivial and unimportant, they may mean the world to them. Altogether, I believe that it is wrong to expect or force somebody to continue living a life that they do not desire.

t3_2rjau6

CMV: Whole Brain Emulation is clearly the way the Singularity is coming.

[Wikipedia on the (idea of) the Singularity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) [Wikipedia on (the idea of) whole brain emulation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_brain_emulation) Strong general artificial intelligence would be the most potentially valuable invention since paper or the wheel or a process for making fire. It will happen because (1) we know that strong general intelligence exists and (2) the inventor stands to make untold quantities of money, maybe even all the money. Alternative approaches to the Singularity that appeal to me include (i) de novo artificial intelligence. This would be if someone created a strong AI by coding it. This is, I think, what most people think of the idea of smart AI and that is why they are skeptical when they look at people make a big deal about Watson playing Jeopardy. I don't think humans are smart enough to make an intelligence comparable to ourselves in any reasonable amount of time by a coding method. (ii) emergent AI. The idea that google or the internet or maybe the infrastructure will wake up one day. This sounds like homeopathic-level nonsense to me. (iii) human biological enhancement. If someone sneezes in the vicinity of a fortune 12 CEO he might get sick and that's that. We can't cure a simple flu. We are nowhere near an understanding of biology and biological engineering that ought to impress us. (iv) brain computer interfaces. This would be a strong contender but in my estimation the discovery and disclosure of an attempt at radical intelligence enhancement by any group might prompt a war. Certainly any government with jurisdiction would be highly interested in such an undertaking. (v) a new understanding of physics comparable to free infinite clean energy. Any day now, I am sure. **EDIT:** I am not saying that this project is something Google or DARPA could fund today nor am I saying that it will be done within a few weeks of someone sitting down to look at the results of whatever scanning apparatus finishes the job of modeling some brains. Arguing to me that it is too hard to do today to be worthy of contemplating today is futile. _____ > *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: Whole Brain Emulation is clearly the way the Singularity is coming. [Wikipedia on the (idea of) the Singularity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) [Wikipedia on (the idea of) whole brain emulation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_brain_emulation) Strong general artificial intelligence would be the most potentially valuable invention since paper or the wheel or a process for making fire. It will happen because (1) we know that strong general intelligence exists and (2) the inventor stands to make untold quantities of money, maybe even all the money. Alternative approaches to the Singularity that appeal to me include (i) de novo artificial intelligence. This would be if someone created a strong AI by coding it. This is, I think, what most people think of the idea of smart AI and that is why they are skeptical when they look at people make a big deal about Watson playing Jeopardy. I don't think humans are smart enough to make an intelligence comparable to ourselves in any reasonable amount of time by a coding method. (ii) emergent AI. The idea that google or the internet or maybe the infrastructure will wake up one day. This sounds like homeopathic-level nonsense to me. (iii) human biological enhancement. If someone sneezes in the vicinity of a fortune 12 CEO he might get sick and that's that. We can't cure a simple flu. We are nowhere near an understanding of biology and biological engineering that ought to impress us. (iv) brain computer interfaces. This would be a strong contender but in my estimation the discovery and disclosure of an attempt at radical intelligence enhancement by any group might prompt a war. Certainly any government with jurisdiction would be highly interested in such an undertaking. (v) a new understanding of physics comparable to free infinite clean energy. Any day now, I am sure. **EDIT:** I am not saying that this project is something Google or DARPA could fund today nor am I saying that it will be done within a few weeks of someone sitting down to look at the results of whatever scanning apparatus finishes the job of modeling some brains. Arguing to me that it is too hard to do today to be worthy of contemplating today is futile.

t3_1mj78d

I think the government shouldn't pay for post-secondary education. CMV.

I strongly believe that post-secondary education is a privilege and not a right. One can still get a job or start a business with just a high school diploma. Many self-made millionaires only have a high school degree and have been able to succeed through determination. Furthermore, the economy is bad enough without having the government subsidize post-secondary education through taxes. If a student is interested in exploring this opportunity but isn’t financially able to they could always apply to one of the many scholar ship opportunities, grants and student loans. Also, if students are given secondary education opportunities for free, they will inevitably take it for granted and not value it as one who is paying for a higher education. I live in Toronto, Ontario and I am currently in gr 11. I was talking to some friends recently but their opinion differed. Help me see their reasoning.

I think the government shouldn't pay for post-secondary education. CMV. I strongly believe that post-secondary education is a privilege and not a right. One can still get a job or start a business with just a high school diploma. Many self-made millionaires only have a high school degree and have been able to succeed through determination. Furthermore, the economy is bad enough without having the government subsidize post-secondary education through taxes. If a student is interested in exploring this opportunity but isn’t financially able to they could always apply to one of the many scholar ship opportunities, grants and student loans. Also, if students are given secondary education opportunities for free, they will inevitably take it for granted and not value it as one who is paying for a higher education. I live in Toronto, Ontario and I am currently in gr 11. I was talking to some friends recently but their opinion differed. Help me see their reasoning.

t3_2m5248

CMV: Our calendar system would be better if we didn't use months.

*Note: I originally posted this in /r/explainlikeimfive, but I realized it would probably be better suited to here.* I've been thinking about the concept of a "month". Is there any reason for it to exist? It seems like it would be simpler to have something like "Day 48" instead of "February 17". At the moment, the year is split up into twelve chunks, but they're not quite equal, their lengths appear to have no logical order aside from summing to 365 or 366, and one of them has a different length every 4 years. Whenever we refer to the frequency of an event as, say, "once a month", we could just as easily say that it's "once every 30 days". *Clarification: I'm saying that as it is, "once a month" is very imprecise anyway since months have varying lengths. For anything that can be this arbitrary, "once every 30 days" works just as well.* Leap years would also be extremely simple; instead of adding a day to a particular month, a day could just be added to a year. The year would then go up to Day 366 instead of Day 365. **Here's an example of why I think a calendar without months would be easier.** Suppose it's Saturday, September 20th, or Day 263. Let's suppose I wanted to figure out what day of the week December 5th (Day 339) would be. To figure it out in my head using the current months system, I would have to go through the following procedure (which could probably be reduced a bit, but not greatly): 9/20 is a Saturday 9/27 is a Saturday 9/30 is a Tuesday 10/7 is a Tuesday 10/28 is a Tuesday 10/31 is a Friday 11/7 is a Friday 11/28 is a Friday 11/30 is a Saturday 12/7 is a Saturday 12/5 is a Friday On the other hand, if I wanted to figure out the same thing using a "numbered-day system", it would be simple: (Day 339)-(Day 263)=(76 days)=6 days (mod 7). Therefore, Day 339 is 6 days later than a Saturday, so it's a Friday. **EDIT: /u/chewy628 sort of changed my view by referencing the [International Fixed Calendar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar), which uses many of the same ideas I expressed here while making it less math-intensive. At this point I've been convinced that the International Fixed Calendar would be a better system than the one I propose, but I also think that the IFC is better than the current calendar.** **Consider this "answered", but if you disagree about the last point feel free to change my view on that too -- I'll still be reading comments.** _____ > *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: Our calendar system would be better if we didn't use months. *Note: I originally posted this in /r/explainlikeimfive, but I realized it would probably be better suited to here.* I've been thinking about the concept of a "month". Is there any reason for it to exist? It seems like it would be simpler to have something like "Day 48" instead of "February 17". At the moment, the year is split up into twelve chunks, but they're not quite equal, their lengths appear to have no logical order aside from summing to 365 or 366, and one of them has a different length every 4 years. Whenever we refer to the frequency of an event as, say, "once a month", we could just as easily say that it's "once every 30 days". *Clarification: I'm saying that as it is, "once a month" is very imprecise anyway since months have varying lengths. For anything that can be this arbitrary, "once every 30 days" works just as well.* Leap years would also be extremely simple; instead of adding a day to a particular month, a day could just be added to a year. The year would then go up to Day 366 instead of Day 365. **Here's an example of why I think a calendar without months would be easier.** Suppose it's Saturday, September 20th, or Day 263. Let's suppose I wanted to figure out what day of the week December 5th (Day 339) would be. To figure it out in my head using the current months system, I would have to go through the following procedure (which could probably be reduced a bit, but not greatly): 9/20 is a Saturday 9/27 is a Saturday 9/30 is a Tuesday 10/7 is a Tuesday 10/28 is a Tuesday 10/31 is a Friday 11/7 is a Friday 11/28 is a Friday 11/30 is a Saturday 12/7 is a Saturday 12/5 is a Friday On the other hand, if I wanted to figure out the same thing using a "numbered-day system", it would be simple: (Day 339)-(Day 263)=(76 days)=6 days (mod 7). Therefore, Day 339 is 6 days later than a Saturday, so it's a Friday. **EDIT: /u/chewy628 sort of changed my view by referencing the [International Fixed Calendar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar), which uses many of the same ideas I expressed here while making it less math-intensive. At this point I've been convinced that the International Fixed Calendar would be a better system than the one I propose, but I also think that the IFC is better than the current calendar.** **Consider this "answered", but if you disagree about the last point feel free to change my view on that too -- I'll still be reading comments.**

t3_1e6un8

I think that people who don't go to community college for their first two years are wasting their money. CMV

I don't understand why people think that going to a big college as soon as you leave high school is a good idea. You get a good education from community college and you save tens of thousands of dollars. I just don't see why people look down on community college.

I think that people who don't go to community college for their first two years are wasting their money. CMV. I don't understand why people think that going to a big college as soon as you leave high school is a good idea. You get a good education from community college and you save tens of thousands of dollars. I just don't see why people look down on community college.

t3_1iev7p

I have more respect for religious proselytizers than religious people who keep their religion to themselves. CMV

I'm not religious. But if I was and I truly believed that my belief was capable of saving people from an eternity of hell, you're damn right I would be trying to share it with other people. It would be the height of selfishness and apathy not to try to share my beliefs with as many people as possible. Yes, I understand that proselytizing is annoying. I don't like it when I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and someone starts preaching to me. But 99% of the time, all I really need to do to make them stop is say, "I'm not interested," and they move onto to someone else. Is that really so much of an inconvenience? Penn Jillette posted a youtube video where he explained that if he saw a woman standing on a railroad track and she didn't know that a train was bearing down on her, he would yell at her to get out of the way. In fact, if she didn't hear him yelling, there eventually would come to a point where he would physically move her out of the way. Likewise, if I was 100% sure that I had a chance of saving someone from eternal damnation just by starting a conversation with them (even if I knew that this conversation was going to annoy my audience a bit), I think I'd have to do it. The worst they could say was, "I'm not interested in what you have to say," and move on. At least, I would have tried. So, here's my question: Person A and Person B share the same religion and they both believe that person C is going to hell if he doesn't convert. Person A chooses not to proselytizes to Person C because it would make for an uncomfortable conversation. Person B proselytizes because he cares about the well being of Person C more than he doesn't want to have an uncomfortable conversation. How is Person A more moral than person B? How is refusing to even try to convert Person C more moral than apathetically letting him burn in hell? EDIT: Penn Jillette video that sums up my position relatively well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCdCVto2MN8

I have more respect for religious proselytizers than religious people who keep their religion to themselves. CMV. I'm not religious. But if I was and I truly believed that my belief was capable of saving people from an eternity of hell, you're damn right I would be trying to share it with other people. It would be the height of selfishness and apathy not to try to share my beliefs with as many people as possible. Yes, I understand that proselytizing is annoying. I don't like it when I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and someone starts preaching to me. But 99% of the time, all I really need to do to make them stop is say, "I'm not interested," and they move onto to someone else. Is that really so much of an inconvenience? Penn Jillette posted a youtube video where he explained that if he saw a woman standing on a railroad track and she didn't know that a train was bearing down on her, he would yell at her to get out of the way. In fact, if she didn't hear him yelling, there eventually would come to a point where he would physically move her out of the way. Likewise, if I was 100% sure that I had a chance of saving someone from eternal damnation just by starting a conversation with them (even if I knew that this conversation was going to annoy my audience a bit), I think I'd have to do it. The worst they could say was, "I'm not interested in what you have to say," and move on. At least, I would have tried. So, here's my question: Person A and Person B share the same religion and they both believe that person C is going to hell if he doesn't convert. Person A chooses not to proselytizes to Person C because it would make for an uncomfortable conversation. Person B proselytizes because he cares about the well being of Person C more than he doesn't want to have an uncomfortable conversation. How is Person A more moral than person B? How is refusing to even try to convert Person C more moral than apathetically letting him burn in hell? EDIT: Penn Jillette video that sums up my position relatively well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCdCVto2MN8

t3_63taoc

CMV: Pansexuality Makes No Sense

For me, it’s fairly obvious that sexuality is related to sex, not gender, and not just because it’s in the name. If a male tells a straight male that he identifies as a girl, the straight male isn’t going to get a boner, no matter how attractive the other male may be to gay men. Likewise, if a woman tells a gay man that she identifies as a male, he’s not going to be attracted, no matter how attractive she is to a straight man. Transgenderism is a turnoff because they still associate that person with other body parts. Asexuality is being attracted to no sex. Heterosexuality is being attracted to the opposite sex.   Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex.   Bisexuality is being attracted to both sexes.   Pansexuality makes no sense. Pansexuality comes from “Pan”, meaning “All”, and “Sexuality”. This means “All Sexuality”; this means that either it’s a useless synonyms for bisexuality, that these people are sexually attracted to trees, rocks, and air, or that there are three or more sexes. And that, to me, makes no sense, at all. In the first case, which is the most likely to be true but the least likely for anyone to admit it, it’s just another useless, pointless word in my vocabulary for no apparent reason, and all because some people were too adamant to admit it. In the second case, I am mildly concerned for the mental health of these people. This is not how it is used, but it’s a somewhat humorous way for it to be interpreted. The third case is where the real fun begins. Not once, not once, have I seen anyone, binary or nonbinary, say there are more than two sexes. You can be one, the other, both, or neither, but being a third sex is utterly unheard of. However, using “pan”, or “all”, instead of “bi”, or “two”, makes it easy to infer that anyone who uses this label believes that there are more than two sexes, and that is utterly crazy. In this case, not only is it a useless term for bisexuality, since there aren’t more than two sexes, but it also makes them look crazy, because it seems they believe there are more than two sexes. And that’s why the concept of pansexuality as a whole makes no sense.

CMV: Pansexuality Makes No Sense. For me, it’s fairly obvious that sexuality is related to sex, not gender, and not just because it’s in the name. If a male tells a straight male that he identifies as a girl, the straight male isn’t going to get a boner, no matter how attractive the other male may be to gay men. Likewise, if a woman tells a gay man that she identifies as a male, he’s not going to be attracted, no matter how attractive she is to a straight man. Transgenderism is a turnoff because they still associate that person with other body parts. Asexuality is being attracted to no sex. Heterosexuality is being attracted to the opposite sex.   Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex.   Bisexuality is being attracted to both sexes.   Pansexuality makes no sense. Pansexuality comes from “Pan”, meaning “All”, and “Sexuality”. This means “All Sexuality”; this means that either it’s a useless synonyms for bisexuality, that these people are sexually attracted to trees, rocks, and air, or that there are three or more sexes. And that, to me, makes no sense, at all. In the first case, which is the most likely to be true but the least likely for anyone to admit it, it’s just another useless, pointless word in my vocabulary for no apparent reason, and all because some people were too adamant to admit it. In the second case, I am mildly concerned for the mental health of these people. This is not how it is used, but it’s a somewhat humorous way for it to be interpreted. The third case is where the real fun begins. Not once, not once, have I seen anyone, binary or nonbinary, say there are more than two sexes. You can be one, the other, both, or neither, but being a third sex is utterly unheard of. However, using “pan”, or “all”, instead of “bi”, or “two”, makes it easy to infer that anyone who uses this label believes that there are more than two sexes, and that is utterly crazy. In this case, not only is it a useless term for bisexuality, since there aren’t more than two sexes, but it also makes them look crazy, because it seems they believe there are more than two sexes. And that’s why the concept of pansexuality as a whole makes no sense.

t3_4v3zmm

CMV: Staying home to not vote when you have the ability to is a stupid option.

Many people I have talked to think that not voting is a valid and good option to show how much you dislike the candidates or their proposals. Their justification is often "abstaining is a valid choice". I feel that they are confusing an abstain with not voting. If a senator/congressman/member of Parliament doesn't vote, their vote is simply not counted. If they abstain, then they are actively saying "I dislike these outcomes, I want another option". With elections of the people, simply not voting means that it's as if you don't exist as far as politicians go because they simply think you don't care. But if you go in and write in a third party candidate, then it is telling politicians "I care enough to wait in these obscene lines to mark a card and I don't think any of you are worth my support". Saying "I don't want either candidate" as an excuse for not going to the polls is lazy and stupid. Edit - I have learned that turning in a blank card doesn't do anything.

CMV: Staying home to not vote when you have the ability to is a stupid option. Many people I have talked to think that not voting is a valid and good option to show how much you dislike the candidates or their proposals. Their justification is often "abstaining is a valid choice". I feel that they are confusing an abstain with not voting. If a senator/congressman/member of Parliament doesn't vote, their vote is simply not counted. If they abstain, then they are actively saying "I dislike these outcomes, I want another option". With elections of the people, simply not voting means that it's as if you don't exist as far as politicians go because they simply think you don't care. But if you go in and write in a third party candidate, then it is telling politicians "I care enough to wait in these obscene lines to mark a card and I don't think any of you are worth my support". Saying "I don't want either candidate" as an excuse for not going to the polls is lazy and stupid. Edit - I have learned that turning in a blank card doesn't do anything.

t3_2l78k5

CMV: I would rather die young that die old dependent on healthcare to get up in the morning

This will probably prove controversial but I don't really want to live into my 80s and 90s (I am only 24 now) the idea of being old and completely dependent on healthcare and stuff just doesn't appeal to me. Considering its very likely that I won't have kids (I am both gay and sterile) its not like I would have much to live for at that point anyway. I seriously don't plan to live super healthy and I only really go to the doctors if I am desperate (usually someone has to make me go) but for a chronic condition in my old age I don't plan to take treatment for it. I know I am going to get hate for this view, but its just how I feel. _____ > *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 would rather die young that die old dependent on healthcare to get up in the morning. This will probably prove controversial but I don't really want to live into my 80s and 90s (I am only 24 now) the idea of being old and completely dependent on healthcare and stuff just doesn't appeal to me. Considering its very likely that I won't have kids (I am both gay and sterile) its not like I would have much to live for at that point anyway. I seriously don't plan to live super healthy and I only really go to the doctors if I am desperate (usually someone has to make me go) but for a chronic condition in my old age I don't plan to take treatment for it. I know I am going to get hate for this view, but its just how I feel.

t3_1t37bq

I think wiping your behind sitting down is the only sensible way to go. CMV

Sitting down simply has the best arguments: * Better accessibility to the area in need of cleaning; when you stand you either clench your cheeks together and make it harder to wipe, or you have to do some weird squatting. * Much more energy-efficient; sitting down just doesn't take as much energy as standing up. Also, you are not in the need to hold any shirts up at any time. * More secure; You are not in the danger to drop a dirty piece of paper on the toilet seat or miss the bowl completely. Apparently there are many of you standing wipers out there, so CMV!

I think wiping your behind sitting down is the only sensible way to go. CMV. Sitting down simply has the best arguments: * Better accessibility to the area in need of cleaning; when you stand you either clench your cheeks together and make it harder to wipe, or you have to do some weird squatting. * Much more energy-efficient; sitting down just doesn't take as much energy as standing up. Also, you are not in the need to hold any shirts up at any time. * More secure; You are not in the danger to drop a dirty piece of paper on the toilet seat or miss the bowl completely. Apparently there are many of you standing wipers out there, so CMV!

t3_26rdo4

CMV:I don't think that The Beatles are as big of a deal as they are made out to be.

They are always portrayed as being right along side people that have actually done relevant things to contribute to society today. I think that both culturally and musically they were not that big of a deal. There are loads of better musicians and many more interesting people. After all, they did start out as an equivalent to today's boy bands; they were a figure head, something for girls to oogle at. There are so many conspiracies about The Beatles and I don't think there have been the same amount of cover bands for any other band in history (besides maybe The Dead, but they were great musicians). I know this explanation is a bit scattered, but it's late. I mainly wanted to make this because I wanted to get my point across. I will further explain, in more lengthy detail, in comments. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I don't think that The Beatles are as big of a deal as they are made out to be. They are always portrayed as being right along side people that have actually done relevant things to contribute to society today. I think that both culturally and musically they were not that big of a deal. There are loads of better musicians and many more interesting people. After all, they did start out as an equivalent to today's boy bands; they were a figure head, something for girls to oogle at. There are so many conspiracies about The Beatles and I don't think there have been the same amount of cover bands for any other band in history (besides maybe The Dead, but they were great musicians). I know this explanation is a bit scattered, but it's late. I mainly wanted to make this because I wanted to get my point across. I will further explain, in more lengthy detail, in comments. Change my view.

t3_4umw63

CMV: A Trump presidency will kill the Republican party, and a Clinton presidency will kill the Democratic party.

The way I see it, whichever party wins this election, loses. Trump has taken the GOP stereotype and dialed it up to 11. He represents the vocal minority of the GOP that people often make strawman arguments against. He's made a mockery of the party repeatedly, and every notable republican has at some point over the past year taken a moment to denounce him (even if they have reluctantly decided to back him now). I believe that this will turn off many current republican voters from the party, and especially new young voters who might otherwise swing republican. He's just too much crazy for most people. Perhaps converting to independent, libertarian, or something new. Hillary has messed up. They tried to rig the election ever so subtly, but there are now too many very blatant examples of the people's voice being ignored. The emails we keep getting confirm this. The money she accepts from companies confirm this. The numerous questionable primary results all over the country confirm this. Meanwhile, she is clearly guilty of a federal crime and, if she were anyone else, would absolutely be in prison right now, or at least tied up in an infinite amount of red tape. And on top of all that, the DNC themselves favored Hillary through this whole thing, and everyone was watching. Democrats will question the DNC big time now. Bernie has the power right now to move many Dems to Independent, Green, or something else. I don't think the GOP shift will happen if Hillary wins, because they will unite against Hillary. Similarly, if Trump wins, I think Bernie will choose to keep the power of the Democrat party behind him rather than splinter it, in an effort to unite against Trump. CMV.

CMV: A Trump presidency will kill the Republican party, and a Clinton presidency will kill the Democratic party. The way I see it, whichever party wins this election, loses. Trump has taken the GOP stereotype and dialed it up to 11. He represents the vocal minority of the GOP that people often make strawman arguments against. He's made a mockery of the party repeatedly, and every notable republican has at some point over the past year taken a moment to denounce him (even if they have reluctantly decided to back him now). I believe that this will turn off many current republican voters from the party, and especially new young voters who might otherwise swing republican. He's just too much crazy for most people. Perhaps converting to independent, libertarian, or something new. Hillary has messed up. They tried to rig the election ever so subtly, but there are now too many very blatant examples of the people's voice being ignored. The emails we keep getting confirm this. The money she accepts from companies confirm this. The numerous questionable primary results all over the country confirm this. Meanwhile, she is clearly guilty of a federal crime and, if she were anyone else, would absolutely be in prison right now, or at least tied up in an infinite amount of red tape. And on top of all that, the DNC themselves favored Hillary through this whole thing, and everyone was watching. Democrats will question the DNC big time now. Bernie has the power right now to move many Dems to Independent, Green, or something else. I don't think the GOP shift will happen if Hillary wins, because they will unite against Hillary. Similarly, if Trump wins, I think Bernie will choose to keep the power of the Democrat party behind him rather than splinter it, in an effort to unite against Trump. CMV.

t3_23das8

CMV: We don't need a diverse Congress because politicians of one racial identity can represent the views of another.

I often hear people say it is a travesty that we don't have more women in Congress or more hispanic representatives, etc. I think that we have enough in common that a politician of either party *can* and *should* empathize with the point of view of another group of people. In fact, that is the job of a politician. If politicians we have elected fail to do this, we have to elect politicians who demonstrate an ability to support the interests of other groups of people (community organizing, activism, a history of proposing progressive legislation etc.). The idea that only women or only hispanic people can represent the views of their heritage perpetuates the idea that their views are immune to criticism and isolates them from the civic process. One might argue that there are socialized norms that politicians unconsciously feel obligated to follow (so they might tend to vote alongside their own group even if they *say* they empathize with others). But then we could just as easily have a minority group supporting their own points of view without being objective. It's hard to prove that a person makes decisions as objectively as we can, but I think it only makes sense to go off of what we know about their history of supporting other groups. This is not to say I wouldn't support a diverse Congress. In fact, diversity in Congress and in other positions of power would do wonders for the way minorities see themselves and perceive their opportunities in the US. But diversity in Congress for its own sake is not *necessary* to represent the view of any particular group. I'm open to changing my mind about this! 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: We don't need a diverse Congress because politicians of one racial identity can represent the views of another. I often hear people say it is a travesty that we don't have more women in Congress or more hispanic representatives, etc. I think that we have enough in common that a politician of either party *can* and *should* empathize with the point of view of another group of people. In fact, that is the job of a politician. If politicians we have elected fail to do this, we have to elect politicians who demonstrate an ability to support the interests of other groups of people (community organizing, activism, a history of proposing progressive legislation etc.). The idea that only women or only hispanic people can represent the views of their heritage perpetuates the idea that their views are immune to criticism and isolates them from the civic process. One might argue that there are socialized norms that politicians unconsciously feel obligated to follow (so they might tend to vote alongside their own group even if they *say* they empathize with others). But then we could just as easily have a minority group supporting their own points of view without being objective. It's hard to prove that a person makes decisions as objectively as we can, but I think it only makes sense to go off of what we know about their history of supporting other groups. This is not to say I wouldn't support a diverse Congress. In fact, diversity in Congress and in other positions of power would do wonders for the way minorities see themselves and perceive their opportunities in the US. But diversity in Congress for its own sake is not *necessary* to represent the view of any particular group. I'm open to changing my mind about this! Change my view!

t3_489rvg

CMV: Should religious institutions be 'forced' to marry gay people?

So I was having this discussion with a few people... about the freedom of speech and the freedom from discrimination. They thought private business owners should be allowed deny service to anyone (we took gay's as an example) for any reason, at anytime at any place - though the government cannot. I would say the freedom not to be discriminated against overrides the desire other people would have to discriminate against someone. They said this would mean you take over the business and violate the private business owner of their freedom of speech and action. We did not agree on this for over an hour. And eventually someone brought up the question: do you think churches should be forced to marry gays? My initial reaction was > "No, churches should not be forced, since they do not charge people and do not offer a service - a church marriage is not a civil marriage, in essence it's just a meaningless piece of paper. In addition 'religion' or 'tradition' are just 'opinions with a pretty dress on': they do not deserve more rights merely for being addressed as being 'religious' or 'traditional' in nature." But come to think of it... why should they not be obliged to do this? They may not charge, but the clergy-members still get paid (so it's not a complete charity); and at the very least, they do offer a service. No matter how void that service is in secular terms, it does offer stuff. It's very similar to 'overpaying' for something merely because it's a specific 'brand' - that brand-label does not offer additional quality or something else, the additional price is void in all other possible added value besides in how we value it. Sure, you can go to another church, or set one up yourself, but you could do the same with getting coffee from coffee shops, but we don't allow discrimination there either. Yet... at the same time, I do have this feeling that churches/religious institutions *are* different in a vital point that would justify it... but idk what it is. I fear that I may be missing either this vital point of distinction, or.... worse: while I think religion and tradition are just opinions in a pretty dress, I do still hold some residual bias that makes me think churches/religious institutions should be exempt from being 'forced' to marry gay people. **So my main question here is: do you see a flaw in my reasoning? If so what is it or are they. As well as, what is the correct position?** I hope you can help me, and I hope this is the correct way to post here. Many many thanks in advance! _____ > *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!* ____ Edit: *FYI*: This might be good for the context of reading and understanding me and my question. I'm not someone who lives in the USA or was born there. This isn't question about a legal matter of fact, or a question in the context of the USA, just a universal question. I hope that clarifies it :3 Oh.. I'm also not a native English speaker but I am quite dyslectic, so please have patience with me :P

CMV: Should religious institutions be 'forced' to marry gay people?. So I was having this discussion with a few people... about the freedom of speech and the freedom from discrimination. They thought private business owners should be allowed deny service to anyone (we took gay's as an example) for any reason, at anytime at any place - though the government cannot. I would say the freedom not to be discriminated against overrides the desire other people would have to discriminate against someone. They said this would mean you take over the business and violate the private business owner of their freedom of speech and action. We did not agree on this for over an hour. And eventually someone brought up the question: do you think churches should be forced to marry gays? My initial reaction was > "No, churches should not be forced, since they do not charge people and do not offer a service - a church marriage is not a civil marriage, in essence it's just a meaningless piece of paper. In addition 'religion' or 'tradition' are just 'opinions with a pretty dress on': they do not deserve more rights merely for being addressed as being 'religious' or 'traditional' in nature." But come to think of it... why should they not be obliged to do this? They may not charge, but the clergy-members still get paid (so it's not a complete charity); and at the very least, they do offer a service. No matter how void that service is in secular terms, it does offer stuff. It's very similar to 'overpaying' for something merely because it's a specific 'brand' - that brand-label does not offer additional quality or something else, the additional price is void in all other possible added value besides in how we value it. Sure, you can go to another church, or set one up yourself, but you could do the same with getting coffee from coffee shops, but we don't allow discrimination there either. Yet... at the same time, I do have this feeling that churches/religious institutions *are* different in a vital point that would justify it... but idk what it is. I fear that I may be missing either this vital point of distinction, or.... worse: while I think religion and tradition are just opinions in a pretty dress, I do still hold some residual bias that makes me think churches/religious institutions should be exempt from being 'forced' to marry gay people. **So my main question here is: do you see a flaw in my reasoning? If so what is it or are they. As well as, what is the correct position?** I hope you can help me, and I hope this is the correct way to post here. Many many thanks in advance! ____ Edit: *FYI*: This might be good for the context of reading and understanding me and my question. I'm not someone who lives in the USA or was born there. This isn't question about a legal matter of fact, or a question in the context of the USA, just a universal question. I hope that clarifies it :3 Oh.. I'm also not a native English speaker but I am quite dyslectic, so please have patience with me :P

t3_1a62an

I believe capitalism is inheritable exploitative. CMV

I've been doing a lot of reading lately and I feel like I'm finding all these problems with capitalism. I was wanting to get the opposite point of view on this issue before I decide where I stand. So, here we go! **Premise:** Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system. **Reasons:** 1. By definition, your employer makes more money off what your labor provides them than they pay you. A common counter: Your employer provides you the opportunity to work which you would not have had otherwise. Your work for them is a net benefit to both of you. Retort: Where did the employer get the opportunity to provide me with the opportunity? They got a "head start", in terms of either capital or education, that allowed them to start their business. This "head start", which is essentially given randomly depending on where you are born, does not seem like a compelling reason why someone should be able to profit off their employee's work. 2. Capitalism will inherently concentrate wealth into a few individuals. As businesses get more efficient at competing, they gain more capital. More capital makes it easier for them to compete. This positive feedback loop gives them more and more power to the point where they become a monopoly and can control significant aspects of people's lives, giving them more power. In capitalism, what is to stop a business from obtaining so much capital that they become a monopoly? 3. The "voluntary exchange" principal which capitalism is founded on is fundamentally flawed. Some exchanges may be voluntary, but many are not. There is not much choice between working for barely enough to survive on or dying of starvation. If one person has all the resources and I have none, I am at their mercy to accept whatever contact they give me. Furthermore, consent can be engineered. This is a common problem with advertising. Human beings are not fundamentally rational agents. Humans evolved with many physiological quirks that can be exploited once you understand what they are. [Anchoring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect) is an example of this. If people are not rational, how can we expect voluntary exchange to be free from one party hurting another? I recommend the book "Predictably Irrational" and the documentary "Century of Self" for a more elaborate explanation on how consent can be engineered. Change my view on this. I want to hear counters to my arguments before I form my opinion. I look forward to what you all have to say. EDIT: Thanks for the discussion everyone! You brought up some good points. I've decided my knowledge of formal economic theory is too spotty for me to decide yet. I'm going to read some academic literature on the topic. Thanks for taking the time to post.

I believe capitalism is inheritable exploitative. CMV. I've been doing a lot of reading lately and I feel like I'm finding all these problems with capitalism. I was wanting to get the opposite point of view on this issue before I decide where I stand. So, here we go! **Premise:** Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system. **Reasons:** 1. By definition, your employer makes more money off what your labor provides them than they pay you. A common counter: Your employer provides you the opportunity to work which you would not have had otherwise. Your work for them is a net benefit to both of you. Retort: Where did the employer get the opportunity to provide me with the opportunity? They got a "head start", in terms of either capital or education, that allowed them to start their business. This "head start", which is essentially given randomly depending on where you are born, does not seem like a compelling reason why someone should be able to profit off their employee's work. 2. Capitalism will inherently concentrate wealth into a few individuals. As businesses get more efficient at competing, they gain more capital. More capital makes it easier for them to compete. This positive feedback loop gives them more and more power to the point where they become a monopoly and can control significant aspects of people's lives, giving them more power. In capitalism, what is to stop a business from obtaining so much capital that they become a monopoly? 3. The "voluntary exchange" principal which capitalism is founded on is fundamentally flawed. Some exchanges may be voluntary, but many are not. There is not much choice between working for barely enough to survive on or dying of starvation. If one person has all the resources and I have none, I am at their mercy to accept whatever contact they give me. Furthermore, consent can be engineered. This is a common problem with advertising. Human beings are not fundamentally rational agents. Humans evolved with many physiological quirks that can be exploited once you understand what they are. [Anchoring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect) is an example of this. If people are not rational, how can we expect voluntary exchange to be free from one party hurting another? I recommend the book "Predictably Irrational" and the documentary "Century of Self" for a more elaborate explanation on how consent can be engineered. Change my view on this. I want to hear counters to my arguments before I form my opinion. I look forward to what you all have to say. EDIT: Thanks for the discussion everyone! You brought up some good points. I've decided my knowledge of formal economic theory is too spotty for me to decide yet. I'm going to read some academic literature on the topic. Thanks for taking the time to post.

t3_6cf0gp

CMV: Advertising to kids isn't that bad

I hear it said all the time 'TV and internet advertisements aimed toward children are terrible and should be banned or restricted'. I don't quite understand why. My views on some of the arguments I am aware of: 'Kids are young and don't really understand how much they are being 'sold to''. This is probably the most common argument I hear, and it's the most difficult one for me to accept. I don't get it. My main argument against this is that adults are almost as susceptible to advertising as children are. It sounds absurd, but think about it - how many advertisements have you (if you're an adult) seen in the last few weeks, and how many of them encouraged you to buy something? It's probably way more than you're willing to admit. If advertising to children is so terrible and should be banned, why don't we profess the same about advertising to adults? I also get that young brains don't understand everything. This is true of a variety of topics and experiences a child will have. I don't see that as a reason to censor them. If anything, it should be used as a launch point for a conversation. Banning advertisements feels too 'overprotective'. If we wait until kids 'understand' something to expose them to it, it's already too late, right? 'Pester Power' I think I need some parents to help me understand this one. So, I think it's absurd to blame advertising for the popularity of fast food with kids, for one example, based on one simple fact - children aren't spending the money and buying fast food. It's the parents. They are spending the money. I don't blame kids for liking candy, I blame parents who buy it for them. The argument is that kids have a lot of 'pester power', the idea that kids, through whining or throwing tantrums, or even 'reasonable argument', persuade the parent to buy the advertised thing. This doesn't sit well with me. Isn't it fairly easy as a parent of a child, especially a young one, to resist this? Well, maybe not easy, but at the end of the day, the effectiveness of an advertisement only comes when a parent pays. Why is it so hard to not buy fast food for kids? I feel like there's something I'm missing. I think arguments that might help change my view would include how much 'buying' power children have these days. They may not spend money, but they do have access to internet and tablets we didn't have back in my day. Even if they're not buying something, they may be supporting it through visiting websites, downloading games, watching ads, etc. Another angle would be that it's not advertising per se, but specifically advertising of unhealthy edibles and media, that is bad. I'm on board with that. But then would it be too much to have media 'telling me how to raise my kids'. Can we realistically live in a world with only 'good' advertisements? I know there's a lot to the subject, so hopefully these are enough of a starting point. _____ > *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: Advertising to kids isn't that bad. I hear it said all the time 'TV and internet advertisements aimed toward children are terrible and should be banned or restricted'. I don't quite understand why. My views on some of the arguments I am aware of: 'Kids are young and don't really understand how much they are being 'sold to''. This is probably the most common argument I hear, and it's the most difficult one for me to accept. I don't get it. My main argument against this is that adults are almost as susceptible to advertising as children are. It sounds absurd, but think about it - how many advertisements have you (if you're an adult) seen in the last few weeks, and how many of them encouraged you to buy something? It's probably way more than you're willing to admit. If advertising to children is so terrible and should be banned, why don't we profess the same about advertising to adults? I also get that young brains don't understand everything. This is true of a variety of topics and experiences a child will have. I don't see that as a reason to censor them. If anything, it should be used as a launch point for a conversation. Banning advertisements feels too 'overprotective'. If we wait until kids 'understand' something to expose them to it, it's already too late, right? 'Pester Power' I think I need some parents to help me understand this one. So, I think it's absurd to blame advertising for the popularity of fast food with kids, for one example, based on one simple fact - children aren't spending the money and buying fast food. It's the parents. They are spending the money. I don't blame kids for liking candy, I blame parents who buy it for them. The argument is that kids have a lot of 'pester power', the idea that kids, through whining or throwing tantrums, or even 'reasonable argument', persuade the parent to buy the advertised thing. This doesn't sit well with me. Isn't it fairly easy as a parent of a child, especially a young one, to resist this? Well, maybe not easy, but at the end of the day, the effectiveness of an advertisement only comes when a parent pays. Why is it so hard to not buy fast food for kids? I feel like there's something I'm missing. I think arguments that might help change my view would include how much 'buying' power children have these days. They may not spend money, but they do have access to internet and tablets we didn't have back in my day. Even if they're not buying something, they may be supporting it through visiting websites, downloading games, watching ads, etc. Another angle would be that it's not advertising per se, but specifically advertising of unhealthy edibles and media, that is bad. I'm on board with that. But then would it be too much to have media 'telling me how to raise my kids'. Can we realistically live in a world with only 'good' advertisements? I know there's a lot to the subject, so hopefully these are enough of a starting point.

t3_3lb2kn

CMV:Debates and Primary elections should be between two candidates in a bracket style single elimination tournament

After spending the better part of my adult life watching and arm chair quarterbacking presidential debates, it's becoming evident that the debates as currently presented are not substantial, nor are they the least bit informative to get any sort of message across. I'm watching the Republican trainwreck on television and the only winners on the stage are the network who presents them. Who can shout the loudest or have that soundbite that is looped for hours on the 24 hour networks are the only ones who get attention. With that soundbite then comes the people the network has hired to contextualize and format the quip as an easier pill to swallow for their viewing audience and advertisers. TL/DR: A shouting match between 11 people cannot possibly be a vehicle of information, it serves the network. What if there was a better way? The election cycle usually begins 2 years out from the general election. So why can't Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee have an hour long 1 on 1 debate on CNN, then hold the vote to decide who advances and who doesn't. The next week/month Rand Paul vs. Jeb Bush on Fox News. Same format, same questions. This continues until there are two left, and they have a month long series of debates all over the country (IE Lincoln-Douglas Style). When they finally get to the finals, This becomes the actual Primary vote and whomever wins that becomes the nominee. CMV Reddit, Why is our current system better than what I just proposed? _____ > *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:Debates and Primary elections should be between two candidates in a bracket style single elimination tournament. After spending the better part of my adult life watching and arm chair quarterbacking presidential debates, it's becoming evident that the debates as currently presented are not substantial, nor are they the least bit informative to get any sort of message across. I'm watching the Republican trainwreck on television and the only winners on the stage are the network who presents them. Who can shout the loudest or have that soundbite that is looped for hours on the 24 hour networks are the only ones who get attention. With that soundbite then comes the people the network has hired to contextualize and format the quip as an easier pill to swallow for their viewing audience and advertisers. TL/DR: A shouting match between 11 people cannot possibly be a vehicle of information, it serves the network. What if there was a better way? The election cycle usually begins 2 years out from the general election. So why can't Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee have an hour long 1 on 1 debate on CNN, then hold the vote to decide who advances and who doesn't. The next week/month Rand Paul vs. Jeb Bush on Fox News. Same format, same questions. This continues until there are two left, and they have a month long series of debates all over the country (IE Lincoln-Douglas Style). When they finally get to the finals, This becomes the actual Primary vote and whomever wins that becomes the nominee. CMV Reddit, Why is our current system better than what I just proposed?

t3_4sr75y

CMV: Antoine Griezmann is an overrated player.

So, a football CMV. (Get away from here if you call it "soccer", you freak.) After this year, there seems to be a trend surrounding Antoine Griezmann, the French forward midfielder (I'm from Brazil; pardon my french, my english and my possible errors in naming positions in the field). He was Ronaldo's challenger twice this year: Once, with Atlético de Madrid, he faced Cristiano Ronaldo's Real Madrid for the 2016 UEFA Champions League title. Again, last week, this time playing for his national team, Antoine was put against Cristiano for the title of the Euro. And, in both opportunities, a few coincidences took place: 1. Antoine played exceedingly well in the first games of the championship, both at the UEFA CL and the Euro. 2. He faced a team made up (predominantly) of Germans in the semifinals in both competitions. (This one is just superstition) 3. He vanished in the finals. Now, I'm not saying he is a *bad* player, nor am I questioning his abilities. What I'm saying is, he is overrated. The same thing is happening to Paul Pogba, to Renato Sanchez, to Kingsley Coman. Good players; not the stuff of legends like Zidane and Cantona. I think comparing Antoine to Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo is stupid; I personally think we won't be seeing the likes of Messi and Ronaldo again so soon. Antoine might just be the next best thing, but he isn't a "young Ronaldo", as some people are claiming. 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: Antoine Griezmann is an overrated player. So, a football CMV. (Get away from here if you call it "soccer", you freak.) After this year, there seems to be a trend surrounding Antoine Griezmann, the French forward midfielder (I'm from Brazil; pardon my french, my english and my possible errors in naming positions in the field). He was Ronaldo's challenger twice this year: Once, with Atlético de Madrid, he faced Cristiano Ronaldo's Real Madrid for the 2016 UEFA Champions League title. Again, last week, this time playing for his national team, Antoine was put against Cristiano for the title of the Euro. And, in both opportunities, a few coincidences took place: 1. Antoine played exceedingly well in the first games of the championship, both at the UEFA CL and the Euro. 2. He faced a team made up (predominantly) of Germans in the semifinals in both competitions. (This one is just superstition) 3. He vanished in the finals. Now, I'm not saying he is a *bad* player, nor am I questioning his abilities. What I'm saying is, he is overrated. The same thing is happening to Paul Pogba, to Renato Sanchez, to Kingsley Coman. Good players; not the stuff of legends like Zidane and Cantona. I think comparing Antoine to Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo is stupid; I personally think we won't be seeing the likes of Messi and Ronaldo again so soon. Antoine might just be the next best thing, but he isn't a "young Ronaldo", as some people are claiming. Change my view.

t3_1emocy

I think aliens have come here several time to manipulate us in some way to raise our intelligence for a yet unknown reason. CMV

I know Zachariah Sitchin didn't get everything right but the amount of knowledge they had about our solar system is astounding. Also, it seems that the Egyptians started at the height of their intelligence and slowly declined. There is more but pleas CMV.

I think aliens have come here several time to manipulate us in some way to raise our intelligence for a yet unknown reason. CMV. I know Zachariah Sitchin didn't get everything right but the amount of knowledge they had about our solar system is astounding. Also, it seems that the Egyptians started at the height of their intelligence and slowly declined. There is more but pleas CMV.

t3_276yq6

CMV: I believe fast food restaurants (e.g McDonalds) should serve by default, fries that are unsalted.

Just as the title suggests, I believe that fast food restaurants should serve unsalted fries by default, unless customers decide otherwise. If customers want salted fries, then they would have to go to a self-serving station or something similar, to add salt to their own fries. I believe this is so for the following reasons: 1) It is an assumption that everybody wants their fries salted. Should people not want salt in their fries, they will inconvenience the operators. 2) Excessive consumption of salt is detrimental to health. By serving unsalted fries, consumption of salt can be moderated, at least by consumers themselves. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe fast food restaurants (e.g McDonalds) should serve by default, fries that are unsalted. Just as the title suggests, I believe that fast food restaurants should serve unsalted fries by default, unless customers decide otherwise. If customers want salted fries, then they would have to go to a self-serving station or something similar, to add salt to their own fries. I believe this is so for the following reasons: 1) It is an assumption that everybody wants their fries salted. Should people not want salt in their fries, they will inconvenience the operators. 2) Excessive consumption of salt is detrimental to health. By serving unsalted fries, consumption of salt can be moderated, at least by consumers themselves.

t3_1kl2k0

[CMV]I feel that people should overthrow the US Government.

When we fought against Great Britain to gain independence and now obama has sidestepped congress to pass a [cellphone tax](http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/connected-cellphone-tax-could-cost-an-extra-5-per-year/) I completely agree with what the tax is going to but still its the concept that matters. Also about PRISM obama defended it. It is a violation of our rights and even though it might be protecting us it can be used for a much scarier purpose. Politics. IF the NSA and the IRS were to work together they would be able to halt a party's funds and stall them when it came to election time. [This has happened.](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/30/house-gop-accuses-obama-aide-obstructing-irs-inves/?page=all) Can anyone change my view on why we shouldn't overthrow the US government?

[CMV]I feel that people should overthrow the US Government. When we fought against Great Britain to gain independence and now obama has sidestepped congress to pass a [cellphone tax](http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/connected-cellphone-tax-could-cost-an-extra-5-per-year/) I completely agree with what the tax is going to but still its the concept that matters. Also about PRISM obama defended it. It is a violation of our rights and even though it might be protecting us it can be used for a much scarier purpose. Politics. IF the NSA and the IRS were to work together they would be able to halt a party's funds and stall them when it came to election time. [This has happened.](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/30/house-gop-accuses-obama-aide-obstructing-irs-inves/?page=all) Can anyone change my view on why we shouldn't overthrow the US government?

t3_21ejdu

The media coverage of the Hobby Lobby case has been overly simplistic and dangerously misinforming. CMV

The media on this case has fallen into the usual left/right paradigm, which i don't mind at all. Most issues in our country that affect our wallets and confront our sense of moral Truth have a partisan tinge. But this case has gotten out of hand. From the right seems to think this is some kind fight against tyranny. The ACA has been litigated in the political arena, in two different election cycles, and in the SCOTUS, and it still remains. We also forget this program has been fought over at the state level in every state in this country. The voters and constitution seem to agree: the ACA is here to stay. Saying HL is fighting for democracy or for the right to free exercise of religion seems completely over the top. The left has also been going full retard. I personally think this is a compelling, or at least interesting case. It is not a case of religious fundies trying to impose sharia law on the rest of us. HL is pretty up front about their views and they have the right to use the court system to fight for them. HL does cover some forms of BC already. They seem to upset about the morning after pill, which is not a new or even surprising controversy. It seems, to me at least, debating issues of birth control and religious expression is something most modern nations do. if HL wins, we will not go back in time. Will CMV that either of these narratives or any other story or narrative the media is pushing is well reasoned and actually imformative. _____ > *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!*

The media coverage of the Hobby Lobby case has been overly simplistic and dangerously misinforming. CMV. The media on this case has fallen into the usual left/right paradigm, which i don't mind at all. Most issues in our country that affect our wallets and confront our sense of moral Truth have a partisan tinge. But this case has gotten out of hand. From the right seems to think this is some kind fight against tyranny. The ACA has been litigated in the political arena, in two different election cycles, and in the SCOTUS, and it still remains. We also forget this program has been fought over at the state level in every state in this country. The voters and constitution seem to agree: the ACA is here to stay. Saying HL is fighting for democracy or for the right to free exercise of religion seems completely over the top. The left has also been going full retard. I personally think this is a compelling, or at least interesting case. It is not a case of religious fundies trying to impose sharia law on the rest of us. HL is pretty up front about their views and they have the right to use the court system to fight for them. HL does cover some forms of BC already. They seem to upset about the morning after pill, which is not a new or even surprising controversy. It seems, to me at least, debating issues of birth control and religious expression is something most modern nations do. if HL wins, we will not go back in time. Will CMV that either of these narratives or any other story or narrative the media is pushing is well reasoned and actually imformative.

t3_30plxu

CMV: When people are overweight there should be much more pressure to change.

So I love the idea of cultural acceptance and all of that, but when people are overweight to the point of it being unhealthy I think that there should be a constant social pressure for them to change. Especially due to the rising health concerns in America there should be a much heavier focus on trying to get healthy. Now that's not to say there should be "fat shaming" or something like that. Picking on someone for their weight is unacceptable, but accepting obesity as normal simply rises to them seeing it as acceptable, and then their convincing their children it is acceptable, when it really shouldn't be. TLDR: People should be pressured to be healthy rather than just accepting that obesity is "ok" _____ > *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: When people are overweight there should be much more pressure to change. So I love the idea of cultural acceptance and all of that, but when people are overweight to the point of it being unhealthy I think that there should be a constant social pressure for them to change. Especially due to the rising health concerns in America there should be a much heavier focus on trying to get healthy. Now that's not to say there should be "fat shaming" or something like that. Picking on someone for their weight is unacceptable, but accepting obesity as normal simply rises to them seeing it as acceptable, and then their convincing their children it is acceptable, when it really shouldn't be. TLDR: People should be pressured to be healthy rather than just accepting that obesity is "ok"

t3_462yq9

CMV: A president who was sole mission was to represent the will of the people would be superior to a president that tries to 'lead' the country. This could theoretically be accomplished now (example in submission text). Why does no one even talk about this?

EDIT 2: ** I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. My understanding of the issue has broadened.Thank you to everyone who participated. You have all received upvotes. I still hold that the collective intelligence of the whole is superior to the intelligence of any one individual. That being said, it seems as though, for now, the collective intelligence of the whole (subreddit CMV) suggests we have one individual in charge and I can live with that. Anyway, thanks again to all. Time for me to focus on other matters.** EDIT: embarrassing typo in title - should be 'a president whose sole mission...' It seems to me that the truest essence of democracy is the belief that the collective intelligence of the whole is superior to the leadership of the few. Overall, this principle seems to hold true as in the following examples: * Radio: Pandora vs 106.7fm * News: Reddit/GoogleNews/Twitter vs New York Times. * Videos: Youtube vs Cable TV. * Encyclopedias: Wikipedia vs Encarta. * Applications: App store vs Native. * and the list goes on... and on... and on... Imagine a presidential candidate who ran for office with only one purpose: to return the government to the people. He/She decided to be completely transparent and open up all communications to the public. More importantly, this prez would communicate the pros/cons of each decision and allow the public to vote. Then, they would simply following the decision made by the people. To effectively communicate, they could hire a team to make simple, clear videos explaining all sides of the issue. The public would have a certain amount of time to vote, then the decision would be made. To eliminate unnecessary debate, here are what I believe are the most likely arguments and my initial rebuttal. * Checks and balances is a good thing - We would still have them, this would only be one branch of the gov turned over to the people. * Lobbying would increase - yes, but it would be aimed at the general public, not the select few. * The average joe is stupid and would make bad decisions - maybe, maybe not. I still think the collective intelligence is superior to any one human. * People would get tired/overwhelmed with all the decisions - if they voted on everything, most definitely they would. This would mean that those voting on any specific issue would be the people who are most passionate about that specific issue (a huge benefit!). In addition, I see no reason why people couldn't align their votes with those who have similar political beliefs - similar to political parties today. * This would slow everything down - why? Bureaucracy is a bottleneck. If we were able to determine a decentralized way of making decisions, I actually think it might speed the process up. * We don't want to make EVERYTHING public (ex: how to build a nuclear bomb) - couldn't the population make decisions on what not to make public also? (example: should we make x public?) Someone, please intelligently debate with me. Feel free to add pro's / con's to any of it. Thanks for the discussion to any who partake.

CMV: A president who was sole mission was to represent the will of the people would be superior to a president that tries to 'lead' the country. This could theoretically be accomplished now (example in submission text). Why does no one even talk about this?. EDIT 2: ** I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. My understanding of the issue has broadened.Thank you to everyone who participated. You have all received upvotes. I still hold that the collective intelligence of the whole is superior to the intelligence of any one individual. That being said, it seems as though, for now, the collective intelligence of the whole (subreddit CMV) suggests we have one individual in charge and I can live with that. Anyway, thanks again to all. Time for me to focus on other matters.** EDIT: embarrassing typo in title - should be 'a president whose sole mission...' It seems to me that the truest essence of democracy is the belief that the collective intelligence of the whole is superior to the leadership of the few. Overall, this principle seems to hold true as in the following examples: * Radio: Pandora vs 106.7fm * News: Reddit/GoogleNews/Twitter vs New York Times. * Videos: Youtube vs Cable TV. * Encyclopedias: Wikipedia vs Encarta. * Applications: App store vs Native. * and the list goes on... and on... and on... Imagine a presidential candidate who ran for office with only one purpose: to return the government to the people. He/She decided to be completely transparent and open up all communications to the public. More importantly, this prez would communicate the pros/cons of each decision and allow the public to vote. Then, they would simply following the decision made by the people. To effectively communicate, they could hire a team to make simple, clear videos explaining all sides of the issue. The public would have a certain amount of time to vote, then the decision would be made. To eliminate unnecessary debate, here are what I believe are the most likely arguments and my initial rebuttal. * Checks and balances is a good thing - We would still have them, this would only be one branch of the gov turned over to the people. * Lobbying would increase - yes, but it would be aimed at the general public, not the select few. * The average joe is stupid and would make bad decisions - maybe, maybe not. I still think the collective intelligence is superior to any one human. * People would get tired/overwhelmed with all the decisions - if they voted on everything, most definitely they would. This would mean that those voting on any specific issue would be the people who are most passionate about that specific issue (a huge benefit!). In addition, I see no reason why people couldn't align their votes with those who have similar political beliefs - similar to political parties today. * This would slow everything down - why? Bureaucracy is a bottleneck. If we were able to determine a decentralized way of making decisions, I actually think it might speed the process up. * We don't want to make EVERYTHING public (ex: how to build a nuclear bomb) - couldn't the population make decisions on what not to make public also? (example: should we make x public?) Someone, please intelligently debate with me. Feel free to add pro's / con's to any of it. Thanks for the discussion to any who partake.

t3_1fxpaq

I don't believe that marijuana has any medicinal value. CMV.

I think medical marijuana is a good thing because it is the first logical step on the path to legalization, however I think that it is nothing more than that. It's not that I believe it has no beneficial effects whatsoever, it's that I think for every one positive medicinal effect that it has there are one or more "real" drugs that do the same job, but better (appetite stimulation is the one exception to this). I think that medical marijuana is the equivalent of natural healing/eastern medicine and that the medical marijuana movement is more about people wanting to legally smoke pot and less about actual benefits of patients. Change my view!

I don't believe that marijuana has any medicinal value. CMV. I think medical marijuana is a good thing because it is the first logical step on the path to legalization, however I think that it is nothing more than that. It's not that I believe it has no beneficial effects whatsoever, it's that I think for every one positive medicinal effect that it has there are one or more "real" drugs that do the same job, but better (appetite stimulation is the one exception to this). I think that medical marijuana is the equivalent of natural healing/eastern medicine and that the medical marijuana movement is more about people wanting to legally smoke pot and less about actual benefits of patients. Change my view!

t3_46pi9k

CMV: Beauty is in the lack of imperfections (scars, cellulite etc) on one's body

For perspective: I'm 26F. I've been struggling with the image in my head of what is beautiful/sexy. From a young age, I've listened to my mom complain about cellulite and how ugly it looks (on her). I've also seen it from magazines, internet, commercials - all about how cellulite is ugly, how skin folds are ugly, how perfect, smooth, tight body is what is beautiful and desired. I was underweight until I was 17 and I thought I was a bit chubby, I was embarassed to wear shorts because I thought my thighs were fat and ugly due to me finding cellulite. Now in high school, I got really depressed and gained a whole lot of weight. I really didnt even notice it, true, I had to buy bigger clothes, but looking in the mirror, I didnt make the connection. Like to me, it was all the same. At 19, I took it really to heart and started losing weight, I even got into the normal BMI and managed to keep it for a while. But like before, the image looking at me from the mirror didnt change for me, I lost over 20 kg and I didnt even see the difference. I see the stretch marks, cellulite, way uneven skin, a line around where my ribs end that almost make it look like i have mini underboobs (this was even when i didnt have the weight), skin folds on the back, lovehandles etc. Here I am years later, I gained all that weight back and honestly dont feel any different either way. Now onto my view: I dont have issue with the weight itself, but rather that even if I look at people on the street, movies who have any of these imperfections, I dont think they are beautiful. It more often feel embarrassed for them and wonder how can they wear anything like it or feel confident in it, let alone beautiful/sexy. I have realized that it isnt even about how heavy or tiny they are, but the imperfections. Stomach/love handles over the side of the pants, excess skin under the arm when wearing a bra and so on. I have realized that in my head, there is only one definition of beautiful and that is no imperfections. It is unrealistic though and very unhealthy. I am here because I want to learn to appreciate all kinds of beauty. Sure, I want to feel beautiful and sexy myself, but I also want to see this sincere beauty in others. My SO constantly tells me how attractive and beautiful I am and so have others. He says he sees imperfections as just being human and dont make much note of them. I want to see what he and probably most people see it. In myself and in other people. I really want to change the way I see beauty right now, I dont want even the slightest imperfection to make it instantly not beautiful. I understand on a rational level that everyone is human and no one will be perfect, that everyone has these imperfections to some degree, it's rather the way in my head. I'm sorry, this came out a bit of a mess. Thank you all for reading and I'll appreciate any insights you could offer 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: Beauty is in the lack of imperfections (scars, cellulite etc) on one's body. For perspective: I'm 26F. I've been struggling with the image in my head of what is beautiful/sexy. From a young age, I've listened to my mom complain about cellulite and how ugly it looks (on her). I've also seen it from magazines, internet, commercials - all about how cellulite is ugly, how skin folds are ugly, how perfect, smooth, tight body is what is beautiful and desired. I was underweight until I was 17 and I thought I was a bit chubby, I was embarassed to wear shorts because I thought my thighs were fat and ugly due to me finding cellulite. Now in high school, I got really depressed and gained a whole lot of weight. I really didnt even notice it, true, I had to buy bigger clothes, but looking in the mirror, I didnt make the connection. Like to me, it was all the same. At 19, I took it really to heart and started losing weight, I even got into the normal BMI and managed to keep it for a while. But like before, the image looking at me from the mirror didnt change for me, I lost over 20 kg and I didnt even see the difference. I see the stretch marks, cellulite, way uneven skin, a line around where my ribs end that almost make it look like i have mini underboobs (this was even when i didnt have the weight), skin folds on the back, lovehandles etc. Here I am years later, I gained all that weight back and honestly dont feel any different either way. Now onto my view: I dont have issue with the weight itself, but rather that even if I look at people on the street, movies who have any of these imperfections, I dont think they are beautiful. It more often feel embarrassed for them and wonder how can they wear anything like it or feel confident in it, let alone beautiful/sexy. I have realized that it isnt even about how heavy or tiny they are, but the imperfections. Stomach/love handles over the side of the pants, excess skin under the arm when wearing a bra and so on. I have realized that in my head, there is only one definition of beautiful and that is no imperfections. It is unrealistic though and very unhealthy. I am here because I want to learn to appreciate all kinds of beauty. Sure, I want to feel beautiful and sexy myself, but I also want to see this sincere beauty in others. My SO constantly tells me how attractive and beautiful I am and so have others. He says he sees imperfections as just being human and dont make much note of them. I want to see what he and probably most people see it. In myself and in other people. I really want to change the way I see beauty right now, I dont want even the slightest imperfection to make it instantly not beautiful. I understand on a rational level that everyone is human and no one will be perfect, that everyone has these imperfections to some degree, it's rather the way in my head. I'm sorry, this came out a bit of a mess. Thank you all for reading and I'll appreciate any insights you could offer me!

t3_29aml1

CMV: soccer does not deserve being the world's most popular sport.

Soccer no longer deserves this spot because of players "exploiting" the game rules to achieve an unfair advantage. The recent Suarez incident brought up a topic with my brother. Regarding Suarez's hand ball save against Ghana back in 2010, I thought that people should not be treating him as a hero for doing that. I felt it was immoral as a player of soccer and disrespectful to it. Then, we continued talking about other immoral acts like diving which in my opinion, is prevalent in soccer like no other sport. This brought in the question "Should players be "exploiting" the rules to gain advantage?" My argument was that when Suarez saved the ball using his hand, he knew full well he's gonna get a foul but did it anyway because he wants to win. Also, when Neymar(just using a random example. Take no offense) falls down deliberately when a defender only lightly fouls him, he was in fact "exploiting" the game rules to his advantage. Sports is inherently about excellence and sportsmanship. Of course, many other values hold too but in this case, these two are most important. My case is that players should not be playing for fouls as it contradicts what sports should be. Sports should be excelling in the game, not "exploiting" it. If the world's most popular sport do not uphold these values and apparently is the one where these values are obviously lacking, it does not deserve the spot. Take note I bracket "exploit" because some might consider whatever I said part and parcel of the game. If so, let me know why.

CMV: soccer does not deserve being the world's most popular sport. Soccer no longer deserves this spot because of players "exploiting" the game rules to achieve an unfair advantage. The recent Suarez incident brought up a topic with my brother. Regarding Suarez's hand ball save against Ghana back in 2010, I thought that people should not be treating him as a hero for doing that. I felt it was immoral as a player of soccer and disrespectful to it. Then, we continued talking about other immoral acts like diving which in my opinion, is prevalent in soccer like no other sport. This brought in the question "Should players be "exploiting" the rules to gain advantage?" My argument was that when Suarez saved the ball using his hand, he knew full well he's gonna get a foul but did it anyway because he wants to win. Also, when Neymar(just using a random example. Take no offense) falls down deliberately when a defender only lightly fouls him, he was in fact "exploiting" the game rules to his advantage. Sports is inherently about excellence and sportsmanship. Of course, many other values hold too but in this case, these two are most important. My case is that players should not be playing for fouls as it contradicts what sports should be. Sports should be excelling in the game, not "exploiting" it. If the world's most popular sport do not uphold these values and apparently is the one where these values are obviously lacking, it does not deserve the spot. Take note I bracket "exploit" because some might consider whatever I said part and parcel of the game. If so, let me know why.

t3_1nlmzl

People who do not vote are the reason politics are so messed up today. The government should stay shut down until the 94 million eligible voters that didn't even bother to show up to vote in 2012 get involved in politics and make their voice heard. CMV

I'd be happy if we shut down the government until the 94 million eligible voters that didn't even bother to vote in the last election wake the fuck up and tell one side or the other to fuck off. While I personally think that it is OK for the republicans to insist that spending be addressed in a *budget* and are fighting against the Obamacare law that not a single republican supports; I don't care "which side" gets their way at this point. I think there is an opening for something even more important; Getting those who are not involved in politics *involved*. Only 125-127 million or so actually voted in 2012, 65 million for Obama and 60 million for Romney. A couple million in 3rd party. And 94 million who just said "MEH! I'm too busy and it doesn't matter to me." Well, That means the winner didn't even get 1/3 of all eligible voters to pull the lever for him! Nor would have Romney had he won... SO, with the government shut down, does it matter to you now Mr. or Mrs. Novote? If it does, call the congressmen and women who shut it down and tell them. If the shutdown doesn't matter and you kind of like it, call the congressman or senator or president who won't control spending and tell them to go negotiate! Pick up a phone and call the local newspaper too. Get involved until the political landscape becomes solidly decided rather than hamstrung with a partisanship split, gnome sane? This shit will never end until you non-voters get involved. CMV.

People who do not vote are the reason politics are so messed up today. The government should stay shut down until the 94 million eligible voters that didn't even bother to show up to vote in 2012 get involved in politics and make their voice heard. CMV. I'd be happy if we shut down the government until the 94 million eligible voters that didn't even bother to vote in the last election wake the fuck up and tell one side or the other to fuck off. While I personally think that it is OK for the republicans to insist that spending be addressed in a *budget* and are fighting against the Obamacare law that not a single republican supports; I don't care "which side" gets their way at this point. I think there is an opening for something even more important; Getting those who are not involved in politics *involved*. Only 125-127 million or so actually voted in 2012, 65 million for Obama and 60 million for Romney. A couple million in 3rd party. And 94 million who just said "MEH! I'm too busy and it doesn't matter to me." Well, That means the winner didn't even get 1/3 of all eligible voters to pull the lever for him! Nor would have Romney had he won... SO, with the government shut down, does it matter to you now Mr. or Mrs. Novote? If it does, call the congressmen and women who shut it down and tell them. If the shutdown doesn't matter and you kind of like it, call the congressman or senator or president who won't control spending and tell them to go negotiate! Pick up a phone and call the local newspaper too. Get involved until the political landscape becomes solidly decided rather than hamstrung with a partisanship split, gnome sane? This shit will never end until you non-voters get involved. CMV.

t3_6yxwxk

CMV: Worrying about AGI (right now) isn't a very good use of time

Many brilliant thought leaders are raising alarm bells about Artificial (general) Intelligence and the impending singularity. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Max Tegmark are among them and Sam Harris has recently joined in. Their reasons make sense: 1. The stakes are high - we're talking about extinction level issues 2. Even if we think the problem is a long way off, won't we wish we started now? 3. AI is inevitable I believe worrying about AI now is silly: 1. The stakes are high, but Pascal's wager is a fallacy. Just because I make a claim about something important, doesn't make the claim correct. What if there are invisible alligators waiting to eat you when you next press the spacebar key? It's important, but that has 0% to do with how likely it is. AI has a **lot** of good to do. Let's not get people up in arms just yet. 2. So... the thing about intelligence is that it is useful in solving problems. Problems like what to do about Artificial Intelligence is one of those problems. We will be in a **much** better position to deal with AI when we're closer to it. We'll have better technology and a much better understanding of what the likely problems are once the problem is closer. And we are **very** far from AI being a problem. AI is hardware limited. Either intelligence is algorithmically easy and therefore, once we discover ways to make things intelligent, the real limitation is hardware (which is about to top out from a Moore's law perspective) or intelligence is algorithmically hard (much more likely) and step function increased in intelligence can outperform hardware limitations, but intelligence doesn't beget even more intelligence fundamentally and there will be no intelligence explosion. 3. If an intelligence explosions are an emergent property of complex systems, it is probable that other human interestes like morality are also similarly emergent. Its totally possible that a non-emergent intelligence [turns the world into paperclips](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer). This intelligence is limited by argument #2. But it is highly unlikely that intelligence that emerges from the same natural forces that gave rise to pro-social behaviors in humans doesn't also transcend it's paperclip programming the way humanity has [reduced it's violent tendencies because cooperation is favorable in a darwinian sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature). Look, you're gonna die. So the question is, what happens to our children? AI might be our children... That's okay right? As long as they share our experience and interests and don't just end up being mindless automata turning the world into paperclips. Doesn't seem likely that a an intelligence explosion can occur without learning some of the things that have contributed to our human success. Lot's more to say but let's save it for the discussion. Is it worth being worried about AI right now?

CMV: Worrying about AGI (right now) isn't a very good use of time. Many brilliant thought leaders are raising alarm bells about Artificial (general) Intelligence and the impending singularity. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Max Tegmark are among them and Sam Harris has recently joined in. Their reasons make sense: 1. The stakes are high - we're talking about extinction level issues 2. Even if we think the problem is a long way off, won't we wish we started now? 3. AI is inevitable I believe worrying about AI now is silly: 1. The stakes are high, but Pascal's wager is a fallacy. Just because I make a claim about something important, doesn't make the claim correct. What if there are invisible alligators waiting to eat you when you next press the spacebar key? It's important, but that has 0% to do with how likely it is. AI has a **lot** of good to do. Let's not get people up in arms just yet. 2. So... the thing about intelligence is that it is useful in solving problems. Problems like what to do about Artificial Intelligence is one of those problems. We will be in a **much** better position to deal with AI when we're closer to it. We'll have better technology and a much better understanding of what the likely problems are once the problem is closer. And we are **very** far from AI being a problem. AI is hardware limited. Either intelligence is algorithmically easy and therefore, once we discover ways to make things intelligent, the real limitation is hardware (which is about to top out from a Moore's law perspective) or intelligence is algorithmically hard (much more likely) and step function increased in intelligence can outperform hardware limitations, but intelligence doesn't beget even more intelligence fundamentally and there will be no intelligence explosion. 3. If an intelligence explosions are an emergent property of complex systems, it is probable that other human interestes like morality are also similarly emergent. Its totally possible that a non-emergent intelligence [turns the world into paperclips](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer). This intelligence is limited by argument #2. But it is highly unlikely that intelligence that emerges from the same natural forces that gave rise to pro-social behaviors in humans doesn't also transcend it's paperclip programming the way humanity has [reduced it's violent tendencies because cooperation is favorable in a darwinian sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature). Look, you're gonna die. So the question is, what happens to our children? AI might be our children... That's okay right? As long as they share our experience and interests and don't just end up being mindless automata turning the world into paperclips. Doesn't seem likely that a an intelligence explosion can occur without learning some of the things that have contributed to our human success. Lot's more to say but let's save it for the discussion. Is it worth being worried about AI right now?

t3_221ufc

CMV: the FIA will never be able to financially regulate Formula One.

For the 2015 season, the FIA has announced that the Formula One World Championship will introduce a ["global cost cap"](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-09/formula-one-teams-to-start-cost-controls-in-2015-organizers-say.html) to control the massive costs in participating in F1. Currently, a very large operating budget is a requirement for any success in Formula One. This creates predictable racing because of the large financial disparity between teams. Last season, Red Bull (the World Constructors' Champions for the 4th straight season) reportedly had an operating budget of £235.5 million. While, Marussia and Caterham (11th and 12th in the Constructors' Championship, respectively) officially scored 0 points in the championship and reportedly had an operating budget of £51 million and £65 million, respectively. The details of the global cost cap have yet to be revealed or even agreed to by the teams, but there is a general feeling that properly monitoring the finances of each team is impossible. Ron Dennis (McLaren CEO) has even said that it is ["almost impossible."](https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/formula-1-dennis-f1-cost-cap-plan-141340299--f1.html) Luca di Montezemolo (Ferrari Chairman) has said that any financial regulation would be ["very easy to cheat"](http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9102599/Ferrari-boss-sceptical-of-cost-cap) especially of the manufacters. Feelings about the proposed cap is that the manufacturers currently participating in Formula One, Ferrari and Mercedes, could "hide" expenses in other divisions away from their Grand Prix team. Basically, it boils down to the Grand Prix team needs an vastly expensive component so they would just ask the road car division to manufacture it and "gift" it to the Grand Prix team. It is yet to be seen how this "global cost cap" could be enforced by the FIA. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: the FIA will never be able to financially regulate Formula One. For the 2015 season, the FIA has announced that the Formula One World Championship will introduce a ["global cost cap"](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-09/formula-one-teams-to-start-cost-controls-in-2015-organizers-say.html) to control the massive costs in participating in F1. Currently, a very large operating budget is a requirement for any success in Formula One. This creates predictable racing because of the large financial disparity between teams. Last season, Red Bull (the World Constructors' Champions for the 4th straight season) reportedly had an operating budget of £235.5 million. While, Marussia and Caterham (11th and 12th in the Constructors' Championship, respectively) officially scored 0 points in the championship and reportedly had an operating budget of £51 million and £65 million, respectively. The details of the global cost cap have yet to be revealed or even agreed to by the teams, but there is a general feeling that properly monitoring the finances of each team is impossible. Ron Dennis (McLaren CEO) has even said that it is ["almost impossible."](https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/formula-1-dennis-f1-cost-cap-plan-141340299--f1.html) Luca di Montezemolo (Ferrari Chairman) has said that any financial regulation would be ["very easy to cheat"](http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9102599/Ferrari-boss-sceptical-of-cost-cap) especially of the manufacters. Feelings about the proposed cap is that the manufacturers currently participating in Formula One, Ferrari and Mercedes, could "hide" expenses in other divisions away from their Grand Prix team. Basically, it boils down to the Grand Prix team needs an vastly expensive component so they would just ask the road car division to manufacture it and "gift" it to the Grand Prix team. It is yet to be seen how this "global cost cap" could be enforced by the FIA.

t3_5ao68d

CMV: conspicuous gay pride in the form of sexualized parades and skimpy gear are morally deplorable and should be banned

I'm a staunch believer in gay rights and marriage and equality. Further, freedom of speech and expression is also paramount. But flaunting sexuality through the streets extends pride to being inappropriate for others--children. The so-called "flaming homosexual" that is nearly pornographic, and if put on tv (dildoes, semi naked bacchus) should be late night stuff, not open to the public. Go ahead and be proud cause of the significant leaps toward acceptance in communities that have been made, but being gay includes sexuality AND intimacy/romanticism, and heterosexual people do not exhibit such lewdness in parades appreciating love

CMV: conspicuous gay pride in the form of sexualized parades and skimpy gear are morally deplorable and should be banned. I'm a staunch believer in gay rights and marriage and equality. Further, freedom of speech and expression is also paramount. But flaunting sexuality through the streets extends pride to being inappropriate for others--children. The so-called "flaming homosexual" that is nearly pornographic, and if put on tv (dildoes, semi naked bacchus) should be late night stuff, not open to the public. Go ahead and be proud cause of the significant leaps toward acceptance in communities that have been made, but being gay includes sexuality AND intimacy/romanticism, and heterosexual people do not exhibit such lewdness in parades appreciating love

t3_1ud2a6

I think China is a disgusting country. CMV.

First off, I don't hate Chinese people. I just think China, as a country, is gross, and almost everything I read about it furthers my opinion. My impression of China is that it is dirty, overpopulated, polluted, and ridden with disease. Shanghai apparently has such bad air pollution that you can [see the smog from space](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-11/yes-you-can-see-chinese-smog-from-space). Also, I am a huge animal lover, and China has a horrible record of animal mistreatment. [Bears are tortured](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile_bear) and [manta rays are killed](http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/01/manta-rays-threatened-by-traditional-chinese-medicine/) for traditional Chinese medicine. You can buy keychains containing [live animals](http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/keyrings.asp) on the street. All of the world's shittiest and cheaply made products come from China. That plastic smell you smell when you walk into a dollar store is the off-gassing of cheap made-in-China garbage. I know China has a rich cultural history and there are probably many beautiful things about it, but I feel the negative things about this country (their lack of animal protection laws and environmental regulations, especially) far outweigh the positives. Go ahead, change my view!

I think China is a disgusting country. CMV. First off, I don't hate Chinese people. I just think China, as a country, is gross, and almost everything I read about it furthers my opinion. My impression of China is that it is dirty, overpopulated, polluted, and ridden with disease. Shanghai apparently has such bad air pollution that you can [see the smog from space](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-11/yes-you-can-see-chinese-smog-from-space). Also, I am a huge animal lover, and China has a horrible record of animal mistreatment. [Bears are tortured](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile_bear) and [manta rays are killed](http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/01/manta-rays-threatened-by-traditional-chinese-medicine/) for traditional Chinese medicine. You can buy keychains containing [live animals](http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/keyrings.asp) on the street. All of the world's shittiest and cheaply made products come from China. That plastic smell you smell when you walk into a dollar store is the off-gassing of cheap made-in-China garbage. I know China has a rich cultural history and there are probably many beautiful things about it, but I feel the negative things about this country (their lack of animal protection laws and environmental regulations, especially) far outweigh the positives. Go ahead, change my view!

t3_2onhpz

CMV: Work, in the sense we use the term in the US to refer to a job, is nonsensical at best and a scam at worst.

I state the title of the thread for two reasons. First, work is spending the most valuable thing we have. For the majority of us, work is something we do because we have to rather than because we want to. We do it to pay the bills and have food on the table. But that time we spent at work is time we'll never get back. It's lost and gone forever so if you spent 50 hours last week (48 working, two commuting) doing a job you find soul crushing, that's 50 hours of your life gone that will never, ever come back. And it'll be 50 next week, and the week after that, and the week after that... Instead of using that time to make yourself a happier, more complete human being you are spending it in service to someone else which leads to the second point. Second, the work you do is generally making someone else rich. Working almost anywhere means you are working for someone else. Your salary is considered what you earned despite the fact that you may have been instrumental in generating exponentially more money than you took home for someone else. Your hard work is going into someone else's pocket and they're shaving off a few scraps so you'll show up tomorrow. So, to summarize; work is you showing up somewhere to spend the majority of your waking day doing something you probably don't like and doesn't make you happy to fill someone else's pockets. None of that makes sense in the slightest. --- To respond to some inevitable comments before they happen: >"You don't have to work, plenty of people don't." While technically true it doesn't change the fact that almost all methods of obtaining any kind of remotely secure and stable day-to-day existence is to sell your labor. >"You shouldn't hate your job. Get a new one." *Far* easier said than done, especially in today's economic climate. This is not nearly as simple as it sounds. >"I love my job and I get a lot from it." That's great. No sarcasm, that's a good thing. Your work is still filling someone else's pockets. It's also not the typical scenario. >"Work for yourself." This is not a viable option for everyone or even a large number of people in our current mode of economic deployment. --- In short, work in the sense that we use the term in the US is nonsensical at best and a scam at worst. 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: Work, in the sense we use the term in the US to refer to a job, is nonsensical at best and a scam at worst. I state the title of the thread for two reasons. First, work is spending the most valuable thing we have. For the majority of us, work is something we do because we have to rather than because we want to. We do it to pay the bills and have food on the table. But that time we spent at work is time we'll never get back. It's lost and gone forever so if you spent 50 hours last week (48 working, two commuting) doing a job you find soul crushing, that's 50 hours of your life gone that will never, ever come back. And it'll be 50 next week, and the week after that, and the week after that... Instead of using that time to make yourself a happier, more complete human being you are spending it in service to someone else which leads to the second point. Second, the work you do is generally making someone else rich. Working almost anywhere means you are working for someone else. Your salary is considered what you earned despite the fact that you may have been instrumental in generating exponentially more money than you took home for someone else. Your hard work is going into someone else's pocket and they're shaving off a few scraps so you'll show up tomorrow. So, to summarize; work is you showing up somewhere to spend the majority of your waking day doing something you probably don't like and doesn't make you happy to fill someone else's pockets. None of that makes sense in the slightest. --- To respond to some inevitable comments before they happen: >"You don't have to work, plenty of people don't." While technically true it doesn't change the fact that almost all methods of obtaining any kind of remotely secure and stable day-to-day existence is to sell your labor. >"You shouldn't hate your job. Get a new one." *Far* easier said than done, especially in today's economic climate. This is not nearly as simple as it sounds. >"I love my job and I get a lot from it." That's great. No sarcasm, that's a good thing. Your work is still filling someone else's pockets. It's also not the typical scenario. >"Work for yourself." This is not a viable option for everyone or even a large number of people in our current mode of economic deployment. --- In short, work in the sense that we use the term in the US is nonsensical at best and a scam at worst. CMV.

t3_207vhq

There is no reason for a greater social stigma against analyzing supposedly nerd activities than tracking sports statistics. CMV

We pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages, averages, records, comparison and opinion probably because we need filler in between segments. Some fans track this stuff obsessively. Not that there's an absolute dichotomy, but others are interested in role playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments are equally as important. LARPing, D&D, Magic: The Gathering, etc. My view is that if we're to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, we should hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness. Though we're making strides in social acceptance, there is a line drawn at least in the United States between the tolerance level of one versus the other in the main stream. None ought to be viewed as more nerdy than the other. I'm very open to changing my view. edit: Backwards causation of nerd label. View changed.

There is no reason for a greater social stigma against analyzing supposedly nerd activities than tracking sports statistics. CMV. We pay sports analysts millions of dollars to break down the action and provide us with in depth percentages, averages, records, comparison and opinion probably because we need filler in between segments. Some fans track this stuff obsessively. Not that there's an absolute dichotomy, but others are interested in role playing games or character based stories where statistical accomplishments are equally as important. LARPing, D&D, Magic: The Gathering, etc. My view is that if we're to judge these Star Trek dorks for keeping track of Klingon grammar, we should hold those who obsess over sports statistics to the same standard of utter meaninglessness. Though we're making strides in social acceptance, there is a line drawn at least in the United States between the tolerance level of one versus the other in the main stream. None ought to be viewed as more nerdy than the other. I'm very open to changing my view. edit: Backwards causation of nerd label. View changed.

t3_6o4371

CMV: The idea of cultural appropriation as a social evil is too muddled to be useful

Some personal context: I'm a white woman in the US and have been pretty involved in social justice causes while in college (left-leaning liberal arts school). But I've struggled with how people in lefty circles apply the idea of cultural appropriation - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My working definition of cultural appropriation is that it's when someone from a dominant group takes something of cultural value from a less powerful group without consent, and claims it as their own, or uses it for personal gain. There are some examples of offenses that make sense to me - e.g. a white woman wears a Native American headdress to look cool at a music festival. I understand why an indigenous person would be offended by seeing a significant cultural garment be worn casually by a white person who has substantial privilege and doesn't understand its original context. However, there are some other examples where things get murkier to me. For instance, earlier this year a white artist received push-back from black artists and activists for [her painting of Emmett Till](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/arts/design/painting-of-emmett-till-at-whitney-biennial-draws-protests.html), a black teenager who was lynched in the '50s. To me, it seems like this protest went too far - I feel that the artist was unfairly shamed for trying to connect to a tragic and traumatic part of African-American history with empathy. But to the protesters, there would be no meaningful distinction between this painting and a white girl in a headdress. Or there are some instances where it seems like people should be talking about cultural appropriation but no one really cares - like Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" has a dancehall beat, a musical style that originated in Jamaica, but no one seems to care that this English dude is making a ton of money off it (To clarify, I don't personally have a problem with the song - just using it to point out hypocrisy). It seems completely inconsistent to me that the painting would draw a ton of criticism but everyone's totally cool with the song?? Because of this, I think that "cultural appropriation" is too blunt an instrument for understanding a lot of complicated racial dynamics, and is frequently misapplied by those in activist circles. I guess what I'm looking for is a better definition of "cultural appropriation" that accounts for the large gray areas I see. Plz tell me how cultural appropriation can be a useful concept and account for what I see as inconsistent logic. _____ > *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 idea of cultural appropriation as a social evil is too muddled to be useful. Some personal context: I'm a white woman in the US and have been pretty involved in social justice causes while in college (left-leaning liberal arts school). But I've struggled with how people in lefty circles apply the idea of cultural appropriation - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My working definition of cultural appropriation is that it's when someone from a dominant group takes something of cultural value from a less powerful group without consent, and claims it as their own, or uses it for personal gain. There are some examples of offenses that make sense to me - e.g. a white woman wears a Native American headdress to look cool at a music festival. I understand why an indigenous person would be offended by seeing a significant cultural garment be worn casually by a white person who has substantial privilege and doesn't understand its original context. However, there are some other examples where things get murkier to me. For instance, earlier this year a white artist received push-back from black artists and activists for [her painting of Emmett Till](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/arts/design/painting-of-emmett-till-at-whitney-biennial-draws-protests.html), a black teenager who was lynched in the '50s. To me, it seems like this protest went too far - I feel that the artist was unfairly shamed for trying to connect to a tragic and traumatic part of African-American history with empathy. But to the protesters, there would be no meaningful distinction between this painting and a white girl in a headdress. Or there are some instances where it seems like people should be talking about cultural appropriation but no one really cares - like Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" has a dancehall beat, a musical style that originated in Jamaica, but no one seems to care that this English dude is making a ton of money off it (To clarify, I don't personally have a problem with the song - just using it to point out hypocrisy). It seems completely inconsistent to me that the painting would draw a ton of criticism but everyone's totally cool with the song?? Because of this, I think that "cultural appropriation" is too blunt an instrument for understanding a lot of complicated racial dynamics, and is frequently misapplied by those in activist circles. I guess what I'm looking for is a better definition of "cultural appropriation" that accounts for the large gray areas I see. Plz tell me how cultural appropriation can be a useful concept and account for what I see as inconsistent logic.

t3_1xl5zy

I believe the US should adopt a one party system similar to that of China. CMV.

I know this wouldn't be technically possible, but theoretically I believe that a one party state utilizing state capitalism would be ideal for America. I believe that having an efficient, technocratic governing body that promotes primarily off of meritocracy is much more efficient and effective than the current system we have in place today. Decisions are still debated among members of the party, yet there is no pointless partisan bickering that slows everything down like in the US. I fully believe that having highly educated, technocratic people running the government like a business would make the country vastly more efficient and productive. Yes, I understand that some civil society would be damaged by this, but I believe that it is a necessary sacrifice for the results we would see. In addition, I also believe legitimacy to this form of government could be established in the US by looking at approval ratings and economic output after a given amount of time. Just for reference, I got shown this video in my AP Comparative Government course, and I found many of the arguments to be quite compelling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0&feature=youtube_gdata_player Please let me know if I need to clarify anything in my original post

I believe the US should adopt a one party system similar to that of China. CMV. I know this wouldn't be technically possible, but theoretically I believe that a one party state utilizing state capitalism would be ideal for America. I believe that having an efficient, technocratic governing body that promotes primarily off of meritocracy is much more efficient and effective than the current system we have in place today. Decisions are still debated among members of the party, yet there is no pointless partisan bickering that slows everything down like in the US. I fully believe that having highly educated, technocratic people running the government like a business would make the country vastly more efficient and productive. Yes, I understand that some civil society would be damaged by this, but I believe that it is a necessary sacrifice for the results we would see. In addition, I also believe legitimacy to this form of government could be established in the US by looking at approval ratings and economic output after a given amount of time. Just for reference, I got shown this video in my AP Comparative Government course, and I found many of the arguments to be quite compelling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0&feature=youtube_gdata_player Please let me know if I need to clarify anything in my original post