Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_5htcvk

CMV: The conviction of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is wrong and a case of PC gone wild.

Hello CMV, Just recently in the Netherlands, a politician has been convicted in court for hate speech. The reason for the trial was a question he posed to Dutch voters as to whether they wanted more Moroccans in the country or less. While I personally avoid political labels and attempt to judge each issue independently, I do lean overall more on the left and I am completely sympathetic to minority groups. I believe that things like microaggressions can cause damage, I believe it is wrong to over generalize and punish all people within a group based on the actions of a few, and I think that spreading fear and hatred for immigrants is simply scapegoating and is a cheap political tactic to rile up voters without actually solving any problems. However, despite all that, I believe people need to be free to act in this manor. I believe that the only way to truly reach the best decisions is to always have a comfortable and open discussion. The worst way to deal with potentially harmful speech is to spread education and have discussion. Like prohibition on alcohol in the 1920's, banning speech can actually have the opposite effect as intended and cause more pushback. One of the most common frustrations of the right is that they aren't being talked to anymore, they are being dismissed as racist. This is leading to them withholding their voices, internalizing their thoughts from fear of being called racist, and then seeking out echo chambers where they feel justified in their thoughts. I believe Donald Trumps victory is evidence for this, and I believe the conviction of Geert Wilders will actually end up empowering him, which is backed up pretty strongly by his increase in support. I am trying to understand the other side of this. Wilders did not in fact incite violence in his words, as far as I can tell. I have argued many times to people that PC culture isn't nearly as extreme as it's often made out to be by the right, but to have a government body, an actual legal ruling, convict someone of hate speech in this way seems to be going to far. So what am I missing about this case? Why should the courts get involved in speech like this? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The conviction of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is wrong and a case of PC gone wild. Hello CMV, Just recently in the Netherlands, a politician has been convicted in court for hate speech. The reason for the trial was a question he posed to Dutch voters as to whether they wanted more Moroccans in the country or less. While I personally avoid political labels and attempt to judge each issue independently, I do lean overall more on the left and I am completely sympathetic to minority groups. I believe that things like microaggressions can cause damage, I believe it is wrong to over generalize and punish all people within a group based on the actions of a few, and I think that spreading fear and hatred for immigrants is simply scapegoating and is a cheap political tactic to rile up voters without actually solving any problems. However, despite all that, I believe people need to be free to act in this manor. I believe that the only way to truly reach the best decisions is to always have a comfortable and open discussion. The worst way to deal with potentially harmful speech is to spread education and have discussion. Like prohibition on alcohol in the 1920's, banning speech can actually have the opposite effect as intended and cause more pushback. One of the most common frustrations of the right is that they aren't being talked to anymore, they are being dismissed as racist. This is leading to them withholding their voices, internalizing their thoughts from fear of being called racist, and then seeking out echo chambers where they feel justified in their thoughts. I believe Donald Trumps victory is evidence for this, and I believe the conviction of Geert Wilders will actually end up empowering him, which is backed up pretty strongly by his increase in support. I am trying to understand the other side of this. Wilders did not in fact incite violence in his words, as far as I can tell. I have argued many times to people that PC culture isn't nearly as extreme as it's often made out to be by the right, but to have a government body, an actual legal ruling, convict someone of hate speech in this way seems to be going to far. So what am I missing about this case? Why should the courts get involved in speech like this?

t3_21xwz0

CMV: Free silver is better for for our country's economic health than the gold standard.

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it. You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country. My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union. I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. _____ > *Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)*** *about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through* ***[our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***.

CMV: Free silver is better for for our country's economic health than the gold standard. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it. You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country. My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union. I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

t3_1ogj2n

Capital punishment is never justified CMV

I won't even touch the issue of it costing more, that's the weakest argument against it. Fact is, killing people is wrong. Putting them in prison removes them from society so they can't do what they did anymore. If they killed someone. It's wrong. If they raped and killed a hundred kids, still wrong. If they escaped from prison six times and kept doing it. Get some better bars to hold him in. All the arguments for it are emotional, calling for "justice" or really just revenge. But you've already removed them from society. If the government is supposed to represent us and any amount of people are against capital punishment then the government is forcing us to be murderers against our will. So yeah, even in the face of utterly undeniable evidence of a heinous, heinous crime, capital punishment is wrong.

Capital punishment is never justified CMV. I won't even touch the issue of it costing more, that's the weakest argument against it. Fact is, killing people is wrong. Putting them in prison removes them from society so they can't do what they did anymore. If they killed someone. It's wrong. If they raped and killed a hundred kids, still wrong. If they escaped from prison six times and kept doing it. Get some better bars to hold him in. All the arguments for it are emotional, calling for "justice" or really just revenge. But you've already removed them from society. If the government is supposed to represent us and any amount of people are against capital punishment then the government is forcing us to be murderers against our will. So yeah, even in the face of utterly undeniable evidence of a heinous, heinous crime, capital punishment is wrong.

t3_574oru

CMV: Just because I am related to someone does not mean I have to maintain a relationship with that individual.

Hello, I have stalked Reddit for many years and believe I made an account a long time ago and forgot the login and never linked my email. But a friend of mine posted this sub-Reddit and all of the posts and overall idea intrigued me a great deal. So here is my CMV. As the constructs of the family structure have changed significantly over the last 50 to 100 years it is not uncommon for individuals who are related by blood to no longer associate with each other. Family members, i.e. brothers and sisters grow up and move away from their families and develop their own families. They make their own decisions and sport their own views. Most of the times those views are different than their siblings. In my case I have two brothers, and grew up with them in the same household as my father and mother are still together. However the current situation is my younger brother lives about 30min. away from me, and my other brother lives about 2,000miles away from me. None of us have a "close" relationship and out of the three of us I would say I am the most estranged from the Family unit. Both of my brothers have made life choices that are questionable in terms of my ethics and the younger of the two brothers has on multiple occasions attempted to use me for means to further his own unethical agenda. Now without giving you Redditors an entire book to read, my question or view is that just because I share blood and history with family members does that mean I have to pretend to fain a relationship with them, when ultimately I have no desire to, based on their choices. Supplemental Information *side note, both my brothers have been married (younger is still with his wife, older is divorced) and let me tell you, they have picked some WINNERS! Neither wife has liked me because I don't sugar coat anything when speaking from the heart. *both brothers smoke cigarettes and I do not and also do not want that to be exposed to my children, age 4 and 1. Thanks _____ > *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: Just because I am related to someone does not mean I have to maintain a relationship with that individual. Hello, I have stalked Reddit for many years and believe I made an account a long time ago and forgot the login and never linked my email. But a friend of mine posted this sub-Reddit and all of the posts and overall idea intrigued me a great deal. So here is my CMV. As the constructs of the family structure have changed significantly over the last 50 to 100 years it is not uncommon for individuals who are related by blood to no longer associate with each other. Family members, i.e. brothers and sisters grow up and move away from their families and develop their own families. They make their own decisions and sport their own views. Most of the times those views are different than their siblings. In my case I have two brothers, and grew up with them in the same household as my father and mother are still together. However the current situation is my younger brother lives about 30min. away from me, and my other brother lives about 2,000miles away from me. None of us have a "close" relationship and out of the three of us I would say I am the most estranged from the Family unit. Both of my brothers have made life choices that are questionable in terms of my ethics and the younger of the two brothers has on multiple occasions attempted to use me for means to further his own unethical agenda. Now without giving you Redditors an entire book to read, my question or view is that just because I share blood and history with family members does that mean I have to pretend to fain a relationship with them, when ultimately I have no desire to, based on their choices. Supplemental Information *side note, both my brothers have been married (younger is still with his wife, older is divorced) and let me tell you, they have picked some WINNERS! Neither wife has liked me because I don't sugar coat anything when speaking from the heart. *both brothers smoke cigarettes and I do not and also do not want that to be exposed to my children, age 4 and 1. Thanks

t3_2wzag2

CMV: I believe universal healthcare should be a human right.

This type of post has probably already been made a handful of times but I wanted to include some of my own thoughts. I live in the UK, so I have grown up in a country that does provide universal healthcare. I firmly believe in this model from an ethical and social standpoint. I've recently started reading the book Freakonomics. I wanted to see some discussions of the book on reddit, and I came across an AmA of the author, Steven Levitt. Somebody asked him his views on universal healthcare, to which he replied; 'I'm not so sure about universal healthcare. what i think we really need is for people to pay a big chunk of their own health care costs so the whole system starts to act more like a market and less like an entitlement. when health care is 20% of GDP, we can't treat it like an all you can eat buffet.' Now, I'm not ranting or saying I flat out disagree with his statement factually, because I do not know enough about financial economics to do so, but as somebody who believes universal healthcare "should" be a human right, or 'entitlement' as Steven Levitt has put it, I struggle to understand how humanity as a whole would benefit from persisting with privatised health care. Essentially, to change my view, I would need to be convinced that privatised health care actually does have longstanding benefits for humanity, and not just for the 'economy'. Perhaps sustaining the economy and longevity of humanity come hand in hand, but I've always felt privatised health care primarily serves the rich who own it, and to deny healthcare to somebody who cannot afford it seems outright inhumane to me. Perhaps somebody could show me privatised healthcare actually does benefit humanity as a whole, and not just a small percentage. EDIT: I was asked to link the post that 'changed my view' the most, so here it is. http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2wzag2/cmv_i_believe_universal_healthcare_should_be_a/covh1ws Here is the post that I awarded a 'delta' quite early on. Admittedly I perhaps could have been more involved in the thread but I was quite literally overwhelmed with the amount of replies, to the point that the same types of responses were pouring through, deeming it almost impossible to identify which further posts would be deserving of another delta. Although my view is not changed in that I still believe as a society we should work towards everybody having 'free' access to basic healthcare, I am now aware of the implications of a 'human right', and how that could have serious adverse effects. I'm sorry if I was not totally compliant with the rules of the thread, but overall I see it as a success as it made me see things in a different perspective, and perhaps others have learnt from it as much I have. Thank you for all of your replies.

CMV: I believe universal healthcare should be a human right. This type of post has probably already been made a handful of times but I wanted to include some of my own thoughts. I live in the UK, so I have grown up in a country that does provide universal healthcare. I firmly believe in this model from an ethical and social standpoint. I've recently started reading the book Freakonomics. I wanted to see some discussions of the book on reddit, and I came across an AmA of the author, Steven Levitt. Somebody asked him his views on universal healthcare, to which he replied; 'I'm not so sure about universal healthcare. what i think we really need is for people to pay a big chunk of their own health care costs so the whole system starts to act more like a market and less like an entitlement. when health care is 20% of GDP, we can't treat it like an all you can eat buffet.' Now, I'm not ranting or saying I flat out disagree with his statement factually, because I do not know enough about financial economics to do so, but as somebody who believes universal healthcare "should" be a human right, or 'entitlement' as Steven Levitt has put it, I struggle to understand how humanity as a whole would benefit from persisting with privatised health care. Essentially, to change my view, I would need to be convinced that privatised health care actually does have longstanding benefits for humanity, and not just for the 'economy'. Perhaps sustaining the economy and longevity of humanity come hand in hand, but I've always felt privatised health care primarily serves the rich who own it, and to deny healthcare to somebody who cannot afford it seems outright inhumane to me. Perhaps somebody could show me privatised healthcare actually does benefit humanity as a whole, and not just a small percentage. EDIT: I was asked to link the post that 'changed my view' the most, so here it is. http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2wzag2/cmv_i_believe_universal_healthcare_should_be_a/covh1ws Here is the post that I awarded a 'delta' quite early on. Admittedly I perhaps could have been more involved in the thread but I was quite literally overwhelmed with the amount of replies, to the point that the same types of responses were pouring through, deeming it almost impossible to identify which further posts would be deserving of another delta. Although my view is not changed in that I still believe as a society we should work towards everybody having 'free' access to basic healthcare, I am now aware of the implications of a 'human right', and how that could have serious adverse effects. I'm sorry if I was not totally compliant with the rules of the thread, but overall I see it as a success as it made me see things in a different perspective, and perhaps others have learnt from it as much I have. Thank you for all of your replies.

t3_23jmyp

CMV: Osama bin Laden should've been tried

As the title says, I think Osama bin Laden should have been subject to a trial. With extraordinary rendition and such that the CIA (among other groups) practices, it shouldn't be too difficult to grab Mr. Laden and transfer him to the USA or some other "friendly" territory. If we give the damn Nazis (master-minds of a plot that killed ~12 million) a trial, why not the "master-mind" of a plot that killed ~2,000 people? TL;DR: If we can storm into his house, shoot him (killing him), taking his body, and dumping into the ocean... Why can't we take him, alive, to a "safe-zone," and try him? As the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that **all men are created equal.**"

CMV: Osama bin Laden should've been tried. As the title says, I think Osama bin Laden should have been subject to a trial. With extraordinary rendition and such that the CIA (among other groups) practices, it shouldn't be too difficult to grab Mr. Laden and transfer him to the USA or some other "friendly" territory. If we give the damn Nazis (master-minds of a plot that killed ~12 million) a trial, why not the "master-mind" of a plot that killed ~2,000 people? TL;DR: If we can storm into his house, shoot him (killing him), taking his body, and dumping into the ocean... Why can't we take him, alive, to a "safe-zone," and try him? As the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that **all men are created equal.**"

t3_1nu1r7

NSW, Australia has introduced a law stating anyone who kills a cop while on duty gets a mandatory life sentence. I don't think the life of a cop is more significant than the life of a civilian. CMV.

Some might argue that because they put their life on the line to protect people, they hold more value. But in that case you could argue that a doctor who saves lives is more valuable than a cop. So why don't you get a mandatory life sentence if you kill a doctor? Why are cops so special? I mean, they're still just a person, just as someone who isn't a cop is a person. I'm not implying cops are *less* significant. Here's what I think should happen: Punishment severity depends on crime severity. You shoot someone in cold blood: 20 years. You torture them for several days before shooting them: Life sentence. Either that, or mandatory life sentence for *any* life you take. I mean, why should you one day get to live your life as you please if you taken away someone else's ability to do so? Change my view!

NSW, Australia has introduced a law stating anyone who kills a cop while on duty gets a mandatory life sentence. I don't think the life of a cop is more significant than the life of a civilian. CMV. Some might argue that because they put their life on the line to protect people, they hold more value. But in that case you could argue that a doctor who saves lives is more valuable than a cop. So why don't you get a mandatory life sentence if you kill a doctor? Why are cops so special? I mean, they're still just a person, just as someone who isn't a cop is a person. I'm not implying cops are *less* significant. Here's what I think should happen: Punishment severity depends on crime severity. You shoot someone in cold blood: 20 years. You torture them for several days before shooting them: Life sentence. Either that, or mandatory life sentence for *any* life you take. I mean, why should you one day get to live your life as you please if you taken away someone else's ability to do so? Change my view!

t3_1dxag5

Your IQ value is artificial, meaningless and does not matter, to anyone, whatsoever. This includes yourself. CMV

I believe IQ values are pointless and empty. With all the different potential fields and mental skills and capabilities, trying to combine them into one statistic is impossible, and thus any high (or low) IQ score someone might get in an "intelligence exam" is meaningless. **"But some people are objectively smarter than others"** yes that's true, obviously gifted people and geniuses are real and can objectively be pointed out as more talented than most people *in some areas,* but not all. What I'm saying is that trying to reduce all of a person's skillsets into one standardized generalized comparable single one-size-fits-all numerical value is impossible. It is trying to measure the immeasurable. Also, the lack of a world standard for these tests make them all relative anyway and not at all objective, statistical or scientific. Edit: to clarify my meaning further, I mean that saying "I am smart because a test that I took told me my BrainPower^tm is 156" is ludicrous and childish.

Your IQ value is artificial, meaningless and does not matter, to anyone, whatsoever. This includes yourself. CMV. I believe IQ values are pointless and empty. With all the different potential fields and mental skills and capabilities, trying to combine them into one statistic is impossible, and thus any high (or low) IQ score someone might get in an "intelligence exam" is meaningless. **"But some people are objectively smarter than others"** yes that's true, obviously gifted people and geniuses are real and can objectively be pointed out as more talented than most people *in some areas,* but not all. What I'm saying is that trying to reduce all of a person's skillsets into one standardized generalized comparable single one-size-fits-all numerical value is impossible. It is trying to measure the immeasurable. Also, the lack of a world standard for these tests make them all relative anyway and not at all objective, statistical or scientific. Edit: to clarify my meaning further, I mean that saying "I am smart because a test that I took told me my BrainPower^tm is 156" is ludicrous and childish.

t3_1bxrzr

I don't think the right to vote should be given to everyone automatically. CMW

I think the right to vote should be earned and not given, kinda like taking a drivers license. There are so many people voting for something they don't know anything about or atleast not nearly as much as they should.

I don't think the right to vote should be given to everyone automatically. CMW. I think the right to vote should be earned and not given, kinda like taking a drivers license. There are so many people voting for something they don't know anything about or atleast not nearly as much as they should.

t3_5psbyx

CMV: Everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so out of malice or stupidity

Let me begin by saying that I sincerely want my view changed. I despise the divisive nature of modern American politics, and I consider myself a part of the problem as long as I hold this view. I also have family and friends that voted for Donald Trump, and I would rather not continue to think of those people as either stupid or malicious. That said, I cannot seem to shake this opinion. Donald Trump's campaign was largely based on a) demonstrable falsehoods and b) promises to cause harm to others. These are facts. Therefore, I believe that anyone who voted for Trump must have either done so out of stupidity (or at the very least ignorance), or the desire to cause harm. Examples of malicious voters: * Some individuals support Trump's objectives of deporting illegal aliens without mercy or subjectivity. Others support his objective of discrimination against Muslims. Anyone who supports either of these views is exhibiting a malicious nature to his or her fellow human beings. * Some individuals voted for Trump to "shake things up" or "watch the world burn". These are also malicious reasons to elect a president, as the outcome of "shaking things up" inevitably implies causing harm to a great many people. * Anyone who did not support these views but voted for Trump anyway exhibited malice through complacency and apathy. Examples of stupid voters: * Some people believed the demonstrable falsehoods espoused by the Trump campaign. These people are either willfully ignorant, or just too stupid to notice that they were being lied to. One example of a demonstrable lie by the Trump campaign was that Trump would "drain the swamp" by doing away with cronyism and eliminating corrupt politicians from government. He did the exact opposite by nominating career politicians like Rick Perry and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. There are also countless examples of Donald Trump claiming never to have said or done things that audio and video evidence prove he has done and said. * Some people believed Donald Trump would stand up for the American people, namely the working class, instead of continuing to support corporatism like many of his predecessors. The cabinet nominations of Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, for example, disprove this claim. While it may not have been possible to know that Trump would nominate such individuals to positions of power prior to the election, his close ties to individuals in the business world made this (ultimately false) promise unlikely from the beginning. Furthermore, Trump's beliefs contradict a majority of Americans on a number of issues, including the NSA, recreational marijuana, and abortion. EDIT: I wanted to get the discussion going, but I do have more to add. * Another example of stupidity among Trump supporters: Trump consistently utilizes low-brow [propaganda techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques) (literally, just about every single one listed on Wikipedia) and informal diction specifically to appeal to voters that are below average intelligence and will be unlikely to pick up on these techniques. * Many Trump supporters agree with Trump's objectively incorrect views on issues like global climate change. This is a result of either stupidity or willful ignorance. So please, help me to change this admittedly harmful and negative view. **EDIT 2:** I've awarded deltas, and seem to be getting undue negativity uncharacteristic of this sub, so I'm going to stop replying. Thanks for your comments.

CMV: Everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so out of malice or stupidity. Let me begin by saying that I sincerely want my view changed. I despise the divisive nature of modern American politics, and I consider myself a part of the problem as long as I hold this view. I also have family and friends that voted for Donald Trump, and I would rather not continue to think of those people as either stupid or malicious. That said, I cannot seem to shake this opinion. Donald Trump's campaign was largely based on a) demonstrable falsehoods and b) promises to cause harm to others. These are facts. Therefore, I believe that anyone who voted for Trump must have either done so out of stupidity (or at the very least ignorance), or the desire to cause harm. Examples of malicious voters: * Some individuals support Trump's objectives of deporting illegal aliens without mercy or subjectivity. Others support his objective of discrimination against Muslims. Anyone who supports either of these views is exhibiting a malicious nature to his or her fellow human beings. * Some individuals voted for Trump to "shake things up" or "watch the world burn". These are also malicious reasons to elect a president, as the outcome of "shaking things up" inevitably implies causing harm to a great many people. * Anyone who did not support these views but voted for Trump anyway exhibited malice through complacency and apathy. Examples of stupid voters: * Some people believed the demonstrable falsehoods espoused by the Trump campaign. These people are either willfully ignorant, or just too stupid to notice that they were being lied to. One example of a demonstrable lie by the Trump campaign was that Trump would "drain the swamp" by doing away with cronyism and eliminating corrupt politicians from government. He did the exact opposite by nominating career politicians like Rick Perry and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. There are also countless examples of Donald Trump claiming never to have said or done things that audio and video evidence prove he has done and said. * Some people believed Donald Trump would stand up for the American people, namely the working class, instead of continuing to support corporatism like many of his predecessors. The cabinet nominations of Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, for example, disprove this claim. While it may not have been possible to know that Trump would nominate such individuals to positions of power prior to the election, his close ties to individuals in the business world made this (ultimately false) promise unlikely from the beginning. Furthermore, Trump's beliefs contradict a majority of Americans on a number of issues, including the NSA, recreational marijuana, and abortion. EDIT: I wanted to get the discussion going, but I do have more to add. * Another example of stupidity among Trump supporters: Trump consistently utilizes low-brow [propaganda techniques](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques) (literally, just about every single one listed on Wikipedia) and informal diction specifically to appeal to voters that are below average intelligence and will be unlikely to pick up on these techniques. * Many Trump supporters agree with Trump's objectively incorrect views on issues like global climate change. This is a result of either stupidity or willful ignorance. So please, help me to change this admittedly harmful and negative view. **EDIT 2:** I've awarded deltas, and seem to be getting undue negativity uncharacteristic of this sub, so I'm going to stop replying. Thanks for your comments.

t3_1dkexp

I don't think I would break up with my S.O. if I found out they were having sex with another person. It's just sex, which is natural, not always an emotional attachment. CMV

Couples often make big deals out of it and even break up if they have sex with anyone else but each other. It's not like they are owned, or property of one another. People don't seem to realize how unnatural monogamous relationships are, and that we are essentially trying to exercise a cultural standard on species to which it is largely incompatible with. I do think that two people *can* be in love for a lifetime, and its a beautiful thing when things work out that way, but sex is not love. Maybe I'm just one of the rare people who would be okay with an open relationship. I wouldn't want to share my S.O. with another emotionally, but sex is a human activity, our culture seems to have just made it into something extra.

I don't think I would break up with my S.O. if I found out they were having sex with another person. It's just sex, which is natural, not always an emotional attachment. CMV. Couples often make big deals out of it and even break up if they have sex with anyone else but each other. It's not like they are owned, or property of one another. People don't seem to realize how unnatural monogamous relationships are, and that we are essentially trying to exercise a cultural standard on species to which it is largely incompatible with. I do think that two people *can* be in love for a lifetime, and its a beautiful thing when things work out that way, but sex is not love. Maybe I'm just one of the rare people who would be okay with an open relationship. I wouldn't want to share my S.O. with another emotionally, but sex is a human activity, our culture seems to have just made it into something extra.

t3_1qvnca

I believe that League of Legends is a superior game to DotA2. CMV

I was introduced to the MOBA genre by my friends, and my first MOBA was League of Legends. I want to play DotA2, but my friends are stubborn and urge me back to LoL. I also think that LoL is just an all around easier game and it will be hard to get my friends into it because of how hard it is to learn and how it is a completely different take on a MOBA. In the past, I have tried go get us to all try it together, but they have declined me for there exact reasons, and playing a game alone is nowhere near as fun as playing with friends. Please CMV on this topic and mabye help me convince them too?

I believe that League of Legends is a superior game to DotA2. CMV. I was introduced to the MOBA genre by my friends, and my first MOBA was League of Legends. I want to play DotA2, but my friends are stubborn and urge me back to LoL. I also think that LoL is just an all around easier game and it will be hard to get my friends into it because of how hard it is to learn and how it is a completely different take on a MOBA. In the past, I have tried go get us to all try it together, but they have declined me for there exact reasons, and playing a game alone is nowhere near as fun as playing with friends. Please CMV on this topic and mabye help me convince them too?

t3_2le6r2

CMV:I believe torture to be perfectly ok if guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Simple as the title, I believe that if someone is guilty of a serious crime against another (rape, murder, child abuse, etcetc) the victim or the family of the victim should be legally allowed to torture the guilty party as part of the punishment. I do not believe doing so lowers you to the level of the guilty, as you would be acting out violence on someone who harmed an innocent, while they were completely unjustified in their actions. I also do not believe the moral objections of others should interfere with the legal right of the family/victim. Edit for clarification, I don't believe it should be mandatory, but I believe it should be an available option. I'm speaking of cases in which guilt is almost perfectly assured. (e.g sound witness testimony, DNA, caught in the act, admission of guilt, etc.) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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 torture to be perfectly ok if guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Simple as the title, I believe that if someone is guilty of a serious crime against another (rape, murder, child abuse, etcetc) the victim or the family of the victim should be legally allowed to torture the guilty party as part of the punishment. I do not believe doing so lowers you to the level of the guilty, as you would be acting out violence on someone who harmed an innocent, while they were completely unjustified in their actions. I also do not believe the moral objections of others should interfere with the legal right of the family/victim. Edit for clarification, I don't believe it should be mandatory, but I believe it should be an available option. I'm speaking of cases in which guilt is almost perfectly assured. (e.g sound witness testimony, DNA, caught in the act, admission of guilt, etc.)

t3_71dzl9

CMV: if the United States is Justified in intervening in North Korea

With North Korea's recent nuclear aggression as well as its recent testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles the United States has another reason towards the justification of war with North Korea. The United States has declared war when threatened, even when not directly attacked, before. The best case in point would be World War Two in regards to Germany. While we were never directly attacked by Germany we believe that they were a great enough threat to us and our allies to declare war on them, rather than just Japan. On top of that over the last 8 years President Obama has used the military when human rights are in danger globally. It was used in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And before President Obama did it President Bush also use military intervention on the grounds of human rights in Iraq. If in the past do United States has used both the justification of Human Rights and of a threat to the United States in less severe situations than North Korea is creating right now why should the United States not feel justified in a military intervention into the north half of the Korean peninsula?

CMV: if the United States is Justified in intervening in North Korea. With North Korea's recent nuclear aggression as well as its recent testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles the United States has another reason towards the justification of war with North Korea. The United States has declared war when threatened, even when not directly attacked, before. The best case in point would be World War Two in regards to Germany. While we were never directly attacked by Germany we believe that they were a great enough threat to us and our allies to declare war on them, rather than just Japan. On top of that over the last 8 years President Obama has used the military when human rights are in danger globally. It was used in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And before President Obama did it President Bush also use military intervention on the grounds of human rights in Iraq. If in the past do United States has used both the justification of Human Rights and of a threat to the United States in less severe situations than North Korea is creating right now why should the United States not feel justified in a military intervention into the north half of the Korean peninsula?

t3_3hpq7g

CMV: The US constitution and its amendments need to be re-written or updated and should be every 100 years or so.

The constitution of the United States is over 200 years old and it shows its age. Many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning. Many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people. The fact is, it is outdated. I believe it should be revised every 100 years or so because culture and language are organic. They change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations. Should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable? That thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote? Can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers? The world has changed and I believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant. I also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time. In 100 years will the world still care about gun rights? Will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary? Will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had? We cannot know. We should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers. What I can't understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today. We should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs. We should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are. I am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either. I am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead. Then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed. It should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws. It would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but I believe we would be better for it. CMV ---Edit--- Many responses seem to think I am saying scrap the whole thing and start over. No, I am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today. All men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 15th and 19th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact. Those are examples of what I mean but not the whole of it. To CMV you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms. It would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be. CMV (also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic. Hard to delta from a phone) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The US constitution and its amendments need to be re-written or updated and should be every 100 years or so. The constitution of the United States is over 200 years old and it shows its age. Many amendments are written in unusual english by todays standards, making it difficult to tease out meaning. Many other amendments overlap in meaning and could be combined to simplify them while also covering more people. The fact is, it is outdated. I believe it should be revised every 100 years or so because culture and language are organic. They change based on technology, public conscious, and international relations. Should we follow the advice of a group who believed slavery was acceptable? That thought only white, male, property owners should/could vote? Can you read through the document and understand what was meant or does much of it come across as confusing to todays readers? The world has changed and I believe we need to change with it in order to be relevant. I also believe our ideas and views from today will experience the same degradation over time. In 100 years will the world still care about gun rights? Will the population still speak mostly english or will we add more spanish to our vocabulary? Will words like gay hold the same meaning as it does now or will it return to the usage it once had? We cannot know. We should not force our ideas through time, expecially when future generations will have the same issues understanding us as we do understanding the founding fathers. What I can't understand is why we are clinging to the past, to a group who would likely be viewed as backward racists today. We should take what we believe now and govern by those beliefs. We should update, revise, and examine our core ideas from time to time to at least make sure we still understand what they are. I am not talking about simply throwing the constitution out either. I am saying we should interpret it for today, update it, and use our revised version instead. Then both can be looked at by the next generation and adjusted as needed. It should update and change with the citizenry and the times while still being the timeless core of our laws. It would take a lot of work, a lot would change, but I believe we would be better for it. CMV ---Edit--- Many responses seem to think I am saying scrap the whole thing and start over. No, I am saying we need an updated, reworded one that uses the meanings as we take them today. All men are equal shoule read all persons, prohibition and its repeal should just be removed, the 15th and 19th should be combined and all inclusive with restrictions put in after the fact. Those are examples of what I mean but not the whole of it. To CMV you need to show me that having an old, poorly worded document is better than a revision of it in modern terms. It would be hard to do but it would be better for the nation and easier to work with than if we left it be. CMV (also, deltas incoming for added info on the topic. Hard to delta from a phone)

t3_1nqms4

I think that the stock market is full of capitalist leeches who produce no value yet siphon off capital from the market. CMV

First, a disclaimer: I'm not an economist, and a lot about financial systems confuses me. That said, I think financial markets are infested with capitalist leeches, who make money for doing nothing. My understanding of how an "investment" should work is that you research trends and take an informed guess as to how a company will fair in the future, kind of like political donations; candidates with no chance aren't worth investing in, while in tight races a little investment can push one candidate over the top. You take a little risk and earn a lot of profit when a company succeeds. But this isn't how most professional trading is done. More than half of all trading is [High-frequency trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading). Basically computers watch the market, look for trends and near instantly respond to get a cut of the profit. When a stock goes up, they jump in and buy lots of shares, and then immediately sell when the rise starts to cap. These trades happen within milliseconds, and they're getting faster as infrastructure improves. What value do High frequency trades provide? They are not "investing", they're leeching off other investors. By buying and selling so quickly, they provide no capital for companies to use, as it's gone almost immediately. I always hear about how important Wall Street is to the economy, but how important can it be if it's just a forum for huge companies to suck capital from smaller, legitimate investors? Things can't be as bad as I'm imagining, please CMV. Edit: It seems like HFT is the natural evolution of [Day trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_trading), which I see as similarly useless and exploitative. I'm not too focused on HFT, more on rapid trading in general that doesn't fit the definition of an "investment", or any other conceptual flaws someone might identify.

I think that the stock market is full of capitalist leeches who produce no value yet siphon off capital from the market. CMV. First, a disclaimer: I'm not an economist, and a lot about financial systems confuses me. That said, I think financial markets are infested with capitalist leeches, who make money for doing nothing. My understanding of how an "investment" should work is that you research trends and take an informed guess as to how a company will fair in the future, kind of like political donations; candidates with no chance aren't worth investing in, while in tight races a little investment can push one candidate over the top. You take a little risk and earn a lot of profit when a company succeeds. But this isn't how most professional trading is done. More than half of all trading is [High-frequency trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading). Basically computers watch the market, look for trends and near instantly respond to get a cut of the profit. When a stock goes up, they jump in and buy lots of shares, and then immediately sell when the rise starts to cap. These trades happen within milliseconds, and they're getting faster as infrastructure improves. What value do High frequency trades provide? They are not "investing", they're leeching off other investors. By buying and selling so quickly, they provide no capital for companies to use, as it's gone almost immediately. I always hear about how important Wall Street is to the economy, but how important can it be if it's just a forum for huge companies to suck capital from smaller, legitimate investors? Things can't be as bad as I'm imagining, please CMV. Edit: It seems like HFT is the natural evolution of [Day trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_trading), which I see as similarly useless and exploitative. I'm not too focused on HFT, more on rapid trading in general that doesn't fit the definition of an "investment", or any other conceptual flaws someone might identify.

t3_5ikpe1

CMV: It's better to help Syrian refugees in refugee camps, than it is to send 10,000-65,000 here

Where Refugees come here, most will need government assistance, and for a while they will take in more than they give, why not put the money we spend on resettling a small fraction of Syrian refugees in the United States, instead we spend that money on improving refugee camps, giving them an education, and food, water, and shelter. I am however in support of church, and other refugee resettlement programs that will nominate refugees, AND pay to resettle them here after security screenings. The Iraqi, and Somalian refugees are a different story, due to warlords, and the Shia-sunni split in Iraq, many were in danger for their lifes, refugees in camps in US ally countries are not. The cost of maintaining one refugee in Jordan, Turkey, and Syria is dwarfed by putting them in a western country with higher cost of living For those that say why not do both, the American people already hate foreign aid, if we do both without the necessity political will we get more Trumps, and get zero refugee camp funds, and zero refugee coming here, and zero lives improved. I also think the American people will agree to give funds for refugee camps like when the US government give Indonesia funds for relief in the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. I also believe this issue along with many others kill Hillary in the 2016 election with Fox News repeatedly hyping the danger of Syrian Refugees, and I think they won't be able to complain as much if we spent money improving refugee lives. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's better to help Syrian refugees in refugee camps, than it is to send 10,000-65,000 here. Where Refugees come here, most will need government assistance, and for a while they will take in more than they give, why not put the money we spend on resettling a small fraction of Syrian refugees in the United States, instead we spend that money on improving refugee camps, giving them an education, and food, water, and shelter. I am however in support of church, and other refugee resettlement programs that will nominate refugees, AND pay to resettle them here after security screenings. The Iraqi, and Somalian refugees are a different story, due to warlords, and the Shia-sunni split in Iraq, many were in danger for their lifes, refugees in camps in US ally countries are not. The cost of maintaining one refugee in Jordan, Turkey, and Syria is dwarfed by putting them in a western country with higher cost of living For those that say why not do both, the American people already hate foreign aid, if we do both without the necessity political will we get more Trumps, and get zero refugee camp funds, and zero refugee coming here, and zero lives improved. I also think the American people will agree to give funds for refugee camps like when the US government give Indonesia funds for relief in the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. I also believe this issue along with many others kill Hillary in the 2016 election with Fox News repeatedly hyping the danger of Syrian Refugees, and I think they won't be able to complain as much if we spent money improving refugee lives.

t3_4tx29m

CMV: Windows 10 has not executed malicious practices and reasons for hating on it have no ground.

My argument is in reaction to all the hate I see for Windows 10 on reddit. I am going to dispute all of the common claims I've personally seen against W10. I would love to fully understand if there are actual reasons for people to dislike it, or if claims are unfounded as I believe. **1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it** This is the response I've seen when people ask why people dislike W10. Well, it was broken, and deserved fixing. Firstly, windows 8 came out in 2013, 2 years before W10. 2 years is plenty of time between os releases, especially considering that there were a plethora of problems with windows 8 that needed to be fixed. **2) Forcing updates on people is malicious** I won't deny it, windows 10 forcing updates through various sneaky means is aggressive. However, there is plenty of warrant for it. Whether or not people like it, W10 *is the future* and dealing with different os styles is a nightmare. Microsoft might not even like W10 but they are stuck with it now, they can't unrelease W10. It is the latest version. There is plenty of warrant to upgrade as many people as possible. The people targeted by forcing upgrading are honestly average consumers, people who don't know about programming. By forcing upgrades, microsoft avoids headaches later on of people not understanding the fine differences between W8, W10 and levels the playing field. It ultimately makes everyone's life easier. Allowing people to choose not to upgrade means that people might have W8 into 2015, 2016, or onward, which causes way more problems than it does to just make everyone upgrade. When windows forces an upgrade on your poor mother who doesn't understand what an OS is, *that's exactly what it was designed to do*. People who don't understand computers don't care about OS that much. They see "windows upgrading" and think it's cool. Then if they ever have an issue, when they contact microsoft, the version is standard and won't be an issue. **3) Windows steals too much personal data** I've never actually read an article that specified the data windows is stealing. Windows had a keylogger but that was [blown out of proportion](http://lifehacker.com/windows-10s-keylogger-fiasco-has-been-blown-out-of-pr-1642931793). I'd love to see solid proof of windows taking data with malicious intent. **4) Some of the new features, like cortana, suck** Yeah, Cortana sucks. But, you can disable it. Cortana doesn't affect your daily life, it doesn't intrude on anything. It's basically a search bar on your toolbar. And I do hate how it tries to search the Internet for things but trust me, if cortana used Google instead of bing, and it opened in chrome, I bet people would be all over that. Windows tried something new, that it thought people would like. It isn't a bad thing to try features. Besides, a personalized feed and search bar on your toolbar does sound cool, it's hard to deny. Windows is appealing to the largest crowd. The people that do not understand in the slightest how computers function, and see cortana as cool and innotavite. People who don't understand the Internet, and who use explorer because it gets them to Facebook. I hope that gives a solid argument for W10 and that I've abided by the rules of this sub. Let me know what you think.

CMV: Windows 10 has not executed malicious practices and reasons for hating on it have no ground. My argument is in reaction to all the hate I see for Windows 10 on reddit. I am going to dispute all of the common claims I've personally seen against W10. I would love to fully understand if there are actual reasons for people to dislike it, or if claims are unfounded as I believe. **1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it** This is the response I've seen when people ask why people dislike W10. Well, it was broken, and deserved fixing. Firstly, windows 8 came out in 2013, 2 years before W10. 2 years is plenty of time between os releases, especially considering that there were a plethora of problems with windows 8 that needed to be fixed. **2) Forcing updates on people is malicious** I won't deny it, windows 10 forcing updates through various sneaky means is aggressive. However, there is plenty of warrant for it. Whether or not people like it, W10 *is the future* and dealing with different os styles is a nightmare. Microsoft might not even like W10 but they are stuck with it now, they can't unrelease W10. It is the latest version. There is plenty of warrant to upgrade as many people as possible. The people targeted by forcing upgrading are honestly average consumers, people who don't know about programming. By forcing upgrades, microsoft avoids headaches later on of people not understanding the fine differences between W8, W10 and levels the playing field. It ultimately makes everyone's life easier. Allowing people to choose not to upgrade means that people might have W8 into 2015, 2016, or onward, which causes way more problems than it does to just make everyone upgrade. When windows forces an upgrade on your poor mother who doesn't understand what an OS is, *that's exactly what it was designed to do*. People who don't understand computers don't care about OS that much. They see "windows upgrading" and think it's cool. Then if they ever have an issue, when they contact microsoft, the version is standard and won't be an issue. **3) Windows steals too much personal data** I've never actually read an article that specified the data windows is stealing. Windows had a keylogger but that was [blown out of proportion](http://lifehacker.com/windows-10s-keylogger-fiasco-has-been-blown-out-of-pr-1642931793). I'd love to see solid proof of windows taking data with malicious intent. **4) Some of the new features, like cortana, suck** Yeah, Cortana sucks. But, you can disable it. Cortana doesn't affect your daily life, it doesn't intrude on anything. It's basically a search bar on your toolbar. And I do hate how it tries to search the Internet for things but trust me, if cortana used Google instead of bing, and it opened in chrome, I bet people would be all over that. Windows tried something new, that it thought people would like. It isn't a bad thing to try features. Besides, a personalized feed and search bar on your toolbar does sound cool, it's hard to deny. Windows is appealing to the largest crowd. The people that do not understand in the slightest how computers function, and see cortana as cool and innotavite. People who don't understand the Internet, and who use explorer because it gets them to Facebook. I hope that gives a solid argument for W10 and that I've abided by the rules of this sub. Let me know what you think.

t3_1dlip0

I think living in a house where children were murdered would be uncomfortable. CMV.

Hello, CMV. This is a much more personal Change My View than usual, and I apologise if it seems too out of place, because it actually involves my current situation. To boil it down to its simplest point: two of my friends and I found a great flat to rent for going to university, really nicely decorated and a perfect price—too perfect. I was slightly suspicious from the get-go, sent a link to my mother to ask if she knew anything about it/the area that would make it so heavily undervalued. Turns out, it's actually the flat in which a woman stabbed her three young children in quite a high profile murder case a few years back—just long enough ago that I was too young at the time to really be aware of the news. Now, like I said, this is a beautiful flat. Before we found out, I would have never thought anything of getting it. Good location, good price, all good. However, now I just find it hard to shake the image from my head of these poor kids—and I don't know if I will ever be able to—but I want to. Both of my flatmates are still really keen to take it (they both buy into the whole 'ghosts' thing, which I don't) but I feel like I'm kind of holding us back with my inexplicable squeamishness. I know that someone has died almost everywhere I go—the earth's a few million years old, it's inevitable—but this in particular just bothers me. It feels almost disrespectful to live there, knowing what has taken place. I don't want to feel like this; I want to be able to view the situation practically and make a pragmatic decision. So please, CMV. **EDIT:** In the time I spent needing to think about if I was okay with it, it turns out that someone else managed to scoop up the place who either didn't know about the murder or didn't care. Despite that, many of you made me think differently about the whole situation and I was fully prepared to take the flat if it was offered—because of that, I'm still going to hand out a delta to the comment that really helped.

I think living in a house where children were murdered would be uncomfortable. CMV. Hello, CMV. This is a much more personal Change My View than usual, and I apologise if it seems too out of place, because it actually involves my current situation. To boil it down to its simplest point: two of my friends and I found a great flat to rent for going to university, really nicely decorated and a perfect price—too perfect. I was slightly suspicious from the get-go, sent a link to my mother to ask if she knew anything about it/the area that would make it so heavily undervalued. Turns out, it's actually the flat in which a woman stabbed her three young children in quite a high profile murder case a few years back—just long enough ago that I was too young at the time to really be aware of the news. Now, like I said, this is a beautiful flat. Before we found out, I would have never thought anything of getting it. Good location, good price, all good. However, now I just find it hard to shake the image from my head of these poor kids—and I don't know if I will ever be able to—but I want to. Both of my flatmates are still really keen to take it (they both buy into the whole 'ghosts' thing, which I don't) but I feel like I'm kind of holding us back with my inexplicable squeamishness. I know that someone has died almost everywhere I go—the earth's a few million years old, it's inevitable—but this in particular just bothers me. It feels almost disrespectful to live there, knowing what has taken place. I don't want to feel like this; I want to be able to view the situation practically and make a pragmatic decision. So please, CMV. **EDIT:** In the time I spent needing to think about if I was okay with it, it turns out that someone else managed to scoop up the place who either didn't know about the murder or didn't care. Despite that, many of you made me think differently about the whole situation and I was fully prepared to take the flat if it was offered—because of that, I'm still going to hand out a delta to the comment that really helped.

t3_1ebb7k

I believe that the United States cannot be described by crony capitalism CMV

I believe that the United States should not be described as a crony capitalism, in the sense that the relationship between the businesses and the government is impacted by favouritism and nepotism. Profit growth is the main goal of any corporation, while the goal of a government is the growth of the systems within, and ultimately the state. Because these two frameworks cannot be mutually exclusive at all times, but highly dependent at certain points, the illusion of nepotism is created. Finally, the argument that crony capitalism is a modern version of mercantilism, and that mercantilism is present in the US in some form, therefore the US is a crony capitalist system is illogical.

I believe that the United States cannot be described by crony capitalism CMV. I believe that the United States should not be described as a crony capitalism, in the sense that the relationship between the businesses and the government is impacted by favouritism and nepotism. Profit growth is the main goal of any corporation, while the goal of a government is the growth of the systems within, and ultimately the state. Because these two frameworks cannot be mutually exclusive at all times, but highly dependent at certain points, the illusion of nepotism is created. Finally, the argument that crony capitalism is a modern version of mercantilism, and that mercantilism is present in the US in some form, therefore the US is a crony capitalist system is illogical.

t3_1q6rwu

I believe that democracy can never be imposed, and it can never work in certain countries. CMV.

Giving an example of Russia, which apparently is a democracy but may as well be a sub-dictatorship, with Putin's *iron hand* wielding its power. I believe the people of Russia really want a leader like Putin, and would probably vote him back to power. Democracy has never worked in a place like Russia or China (and many many other countries), and it never will. I think this has more to do with a specific country's history, culture and tradition and that is often not kept in mind with this whole "democracy hoarding/canvassing" mindset, especially of the West. I believe the world will be a more magnanimous place if the west understands this.

I believe that democracy can never be imposed, and it can never work in certain countries. CMV. Giving an example of Russia, which apparently is a democracy but may as well be a sub-dictatorship, with Putin's *iron hand* wielding its power. I believe the people of Russia really want a leader like Putin, and would probably vote him back to power. Democracy has never worked in a place like Russia or China (and many many other countries), and it never will. I think this has more to do with a specific country's history, culture and tradition and that is often not kept in mind with this whole "democracy hoarding/canvassing" mindset, especially of the West. I believe the world will be a more magnanimous place if the west understands this.

t3_4qnkqy

CMV: It is out of privilege that non-Trump supporters can abstain from voting in this year's presidential election.

Non-Trump supporting Americans that are neither Hispanic/Latino nor Muslim that choose to abstain from voting this election rather than vote for Hillary out of principal can do so because they have the privilege of not having to worry about how Trump's policies could negatively affect them and their families. Trump has called for the deportation of millions of [illegal immigrants](http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967) and blocking the immigration of Muslims from so-called ["terror states"](http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-terrorism/). Americans who oppose these policies should therefore vote for Hillary Clinton, and if they do not, it is their privilege that has allowed them to withhold their vote. *Note: I am not entirely convinced of this argument but it has caused me some introspection. A delta will be awarded to anyone who can convince me that this line of reasoning is wrongheaded.

CMV: It is out of privilege that non-Trump supporters can abstain from voting in this year's presidential election. Non-Trump supporting Americans that are neither Hispanic/Latino nor Muslim that choose to abstain from voting this election rather than vote for Hillary out of principal can do so because they have the privilege of not having to worry about how Trump's policies could negatively affect them and their families. Trump has called for the deportation of millions of [illegal immigrants](http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967) and blocking the immigration of Muslims from so-called ["terror states"](http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-terrorism/). Americans who oppose these policies should therefore vote for Hillary Clinton, and if they do not, it is their privilege that has allowed them to withhold their vote. *Note: I am not entirely convinced of this argument but it has caused me some introspection. A delta will be awarded to anyone who can convince me that this line of reasoning is wrongheaded.

t3_3j11n0

CMV: About Transgenderism, sincerely please

I would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality; keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific. In the same way, I would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality. None of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people's outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives (ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender/gay/blue eyes). My flow of logic is as follows: An abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form. If in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person. If in this nonperfect world, a life form's goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations; then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change. Living in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species. More so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be. If a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 100% homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations. In early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life. In 2015, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is. Therefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality. Being transgender is a 'disagreement' between mind and body. In early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human (ie: a plant or a fish) would have a very difficult time achieving it's specie's fundamental goals. In 2015, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire. A homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has 'no' impact on their ability to be happy. Also, I would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied. The easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them; in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations; because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off. But as I have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to. If a person 'chooses' (or not chooses) to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless. But social variations that directly go against how we were 'designed' to live are abnormalities. A transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser. A homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser. A blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser. _____ > *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: About Transgenderism, sincerely please. I would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality; keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific. In the same way, I would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality. None of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people's outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives (ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender/gay/blue eyes). My flow of logic is as follows: An abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form. If in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person. If in this nonperfect world, a life form's goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations; then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change. Living in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species. More so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be. If a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 100% homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations. In early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life. In 2015, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is. Therefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality. Being transgender is a 'disagreement' between mind and body. In early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human (ie: a plant or a fish) would have a very difficult time achieving it's specie's fundamental goals. In 2015, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire. A homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has 'no' impact on their ability to be happy. Also, I would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied. The easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them; in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations; because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off. But as I have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to. If a person 'chooses' (or not chooses) to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless. But social variations that directly go against how we were 'designed' to live are abnormalities. A transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser. A homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser. A blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser.

t3_4dk2u6

CMV: Being famous and having resources does not increase your responsibility to society.

There's a preconceived notion that when a person is famous they have a greater responsibility to society. As a simple talking point they do not. There's this idea out there that famous people influence society, but that's really not the case. More than anything it's the people who listen and buy into that person's percieved value that change society. But a person does not have to be famous to achieve that same effect. For example, a father talking to his children might possess the same capacity to influence them as a famous person because of the relative emotional connection between the father and the child. It's what people are willing to believe for themselves that's important, just because a lot of people are aware of another person does not then make that person more responsible. Just because people are gullible/unwilling to fact check does not place the onus on famous people to be more responsible than any other person. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Being famous and having resources does not increase your responsibility to society. There's a preconceived notion that when a person is famous they have a greater responsibility to society. As a simple talking point they do not. There's this idea out there that famous people influence society, but that's really not the case. More than anything it's the people who listen and buy into that person's percieved value that change society. But a person does not have to be famous to achieve that same effect. For example, a father talking to his children might possess the same capacity to influence them as a famous person because of the relative emotional connection between the father and the child. It's what people are willing to believe for themselves that's important, just because a lot of people are aware of another person does not then make that person more responsible. Just because people are gullible/unwilling to fact check does not place the onus on famous people to be more responsible than any other person.

t3_2o306q

CMV: Bolvar Fordragon is a terrible Hearthstone legendary card and probably won't see much play

I agree with the common sentiment on /r/hearthstone. 1. Bolvar is too slow. If you play it on curve, you get a 4/7, which is a really bad Feugen, since it doesn't have an effect and it can be silenced to a terrible 1/7. But most players won't even draw into it in their first few turns, so by the time you play it, it's already too late in the game to even matter. 2. You can't play it early on because of it's cost. You won't play it late unless you draw into it early, because other cards have better stats for the mana cost. It'll sit in your hand doing nothing. 3. There aren't that many cards that synergize. You really have to play a fast burn aggro deck to get any sort of value out of it. But that kind of deck isn't going to be viable with Paladin because it doesn't fit the Paladin archetype with heals and divine shield. Not even Shockadin is going to work that well with a Bolvar. So unless it get buffed, it's a bad card that won't get played except in niche deck. It's not trash-tier like Gelbin or Magma Rager, but it simply gets outclassed by most other cards in the game. I really want to like this card because I love the righteous-light theme of Paladin. But given the facts, I just can't see how the card is any good... _____ > *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: Bolvar Fordragon is a terrible Hearthstone legendary card and probably won't see much play. I agree with the common sentiment on /r/hearthstone. 1. Bolvar is too slow. If you play it on curve, you get a 4/7, which is a really bad Feugen, since it doesn't have an effect and it can be silenced to a terrible 1/7. But most players won't even draw into it in their first few turns, so by the time you play it, it's already too late in the game to even matter. 2. You can't play it early on because of it's cost. You won't play it late unless you draw into it early, because other cards have better stats for the mana cost. It'll sit in your hand doing nothing. 3. There aren't that many cards that synergize. You really have to play a fast burn aggro deck to get any sort of value out of it. But that kind of deck isn't going to be viable with Paladin because it doesn't fit the Paladin archetype with heals and divine shield. Not even Shockadin is going to work that well with a Bolvar. So unless it get buffed, it's a bad card that won't get played except in niche deck. It's not trash-tier like Gelbin or Magma Rager, but it simply gets outclassed by most other cards in the game. I really want to like this card because I love the righteous-light theme of Paladin. But given the facts, I just can't see how the card is any good...

t3_4gf9nf

CMV: A person of true faith can never fully accept other peoples believes

Hello reddit, I'd like you to change my view on believes. My view is that to truly believe in something you have to have faith, the ability to accept your believe as true no matter what. You do not need actual proof of your believe, you do not need to have witnessed it with your own eyes, because you have faith in your believe you can truly know something to be true. Our believer with faith therefore does not believe anymore since they know their believe to be true. But if their believe is true, or right every other believe has to be wrong. Because of this, complete acceptance between people of true faith is impossible. They would never accept that the believe of someone else might be true and theirs might be false. The furthest acceptance would reach, would be accepting that you can't change their believe, even if you know it to be wrong. I am not talking only about religious faith, but faith in general I would be glad if someone, especially people of faith, could help me change my (kinda dickish) view. EDIT: had to reposte since I messedw up the title. EXIT: thank you to everyone who helped me change my view, but I kiinda have to go to bed anid my phone is messing up the touch screen. Goodbye!

CMV: A person of true faith can never fully accept other peoples believes. Hello reddit, I'd like you to change my view on believes. My view is that to truly believe in something you have to have faith, the ability to accept your believe as true no matter what. You do not need actual proof of your believe, you do not need to have witnessed it with your own eyes, because you have faith in your believe you can truly know something to be true. Our believer with faith therefore does not believe anymore since they know their believe to be true. But if their believe is true, or right every other believe has to be wrong. Because of this, complete acceptance between people of true faith is impossible. They would never accept that the believe of someone else might be true and theirs might be false. The furthest acceptance would reach, would be accepting that you can't change their believe, even if you know it to be wrong. I am not talking only about religious faith, but faith in general I would be glad if someone, especially people of faith, could help me change my (kinda dickish) view. EDIT: had to reposte since I messedw up the title. EXIT: thank you to everyone who helped me change my view, but I kiinda have to go to bed anid my phone is messing up the touch screen. Goodbye!

t3_54nija

CMV: "Girls like assholes" is generally true for short term relationships.

All too often common wisdom is dismissed simply because the layman does not have the resources or pedigree to back his claim. In fact, he will often be painted as a bigot and shamed into submission. But I find that many social observations tend to be more true than false. Sure, it isn't endearing to see an obese redneck rant about how the blackies are running wild in their crime sprees, but statistically, blacks are the most incarcerated group in America by a massive margin. The redneck didn't need a $100,000 study to confirm this. Likewise, dating advice along the lines of "nice guys finish last" and "girls always fall for douchebags" also seem to be accurate. People do not want these statements to be true - it goes against the new era of pop feminism, where women are oppressed angels who lack moral deficiency in any way, shape, or form. Yet despite shaming the layman as neckbeared virgin douchebros, many scientific studies seem to have shown that yes, aggressiveness and dominance in short term relationships is a major plus, even if it brings others down. If you have studied human sexuality, you'll come upon the fact that, during ovulation, women are not only more likely to seek short-term sex, but they also prefer very masculine traits. For example, [men who focused on intrasexual competition were seen as more attractive for short-term dates, especially when ovulating.(http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/3/203.abstract) [Here's another study that came to the same conclusions.] (http://evp.sagepub.com/content/11/1/147470491301100122.full) In summary: >This study indicates that not only the physical appearance but also behavioral traits – in this case, appetitive aggression in combination with no trauma symptoms – constitute signals for presumed genetic male fitness. Men who seek dominance and find pleasure in aggression are not a profitable option for a stable relationship because they pose a threat to the family, demonstrate less parental investment and engage in extra-pair copulation. Consequently, as predicted, women in our study prefer men with low appetitive aggression as a long-term mate. Instead of a more aggressive man, a kinder, more sensitive man, might be a better option for a long-term mate" If anyone doubts this model, there are dozens more studies to back them up. Other noteworthy details: when ovulating, [women prefer the scents of dominant men](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/) But people may say that dominance doesn't equal violence. However, more interesting is that bullies, the pinnacle of schoolyard assholes, [have the highest confidence, social status, and even have the most sex.] (http://news.nationalpost.com/health/provocative-new-study-finds-bullies-have-highest-self-esteem-social-status-lowest-rates-of-depression?__lsa=3610-c4b8) And in one last study, [happiness was found to be the most attractive trait for women, but one of the least for men.] (http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-content/files_mf/tracybeall2011emotion.pdf) Pride was the opposite - it was great for men, awful for women. In the end, it seems nice guys DO finish last...at least in short-term mating. While a woman may enjoy his providership traits, she won't want to have sex as passionately as with one of the muscular, arrogant cads. There is a limit to assholery, of course. But in the end, nice guys fail consistently because they are nice - and that's not an attractive short-term trait. If they want casual sex, they need to work on their aggression, confidence, dominance, physique, and status - not be "legitimately nice." TL;DR - Women find assholes attractive for short term sex. If you want short term sex, "be an asshole" is a solid piece of advice.

CMV: "Girls like assholes" is generally true for short term relationships. All too often common wisdom is dismissed simply because the layman does not have the resources or pedigree to back his claim. In fact, he will often be painted as a bigot and shamed into submission. But I find that many social observations tend to be more true than false. Sure, it isn't endearing to see an obese redneck rant about how the blackies are running wild in their crime sprees, but statistically, blacks are the most incarcerated group in America by a massive margin. The redneck didn't need a $100,000 study to confirm this. Likewise, dating advice along the lines of "nice guys finish last" and "girls always fall for douchebags" also seem to be accurate. People do not want these statements to be true - it goes against the new era of pop feminism, where women are oppressed angels who lack moral deficiency in any way, shape, or form. Yet despite shaming the layman as neckbeared virgin douchebros, many scientific studies seem to have shown that yes, aggressiveness and dominance in short term relationships is a major plus, even if it brings others down. If you have studied human sexuality, you'll come upon the fact that, during ovulation, women are not only more likely to seek short-term sex, but they also prefer very masculine traits. For example, [men who focused on intrasexual competition were seen as more attractive for short-term dates, especially when ovulating.(http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/3/203.abstract) [Here's another study that came to the same conclusions.] (http://evp.sagepub.com/content/11/1/147470491301100122.full) In summary: >This study indicates that not only the physical appearance but also behavioral traits – in this case, appetitive aggression in combination with no trauma symptoms – constitute signals for presumed genetic male fitness. Men who seek dominance and find pleasure in aggression are not a profitable option for a stable relationship because they pose a threat to the family, demonstrate less parental investment and engage in extra-pair copulation. Consequently, as predicted, women in our study prefer men with low appetitive aggression as a long-term mate. Instead of a more aggressive man, a kinder, more sensitive man, might be a better option for a long-term mate" If anyone doubts this model, there are dozens more studies to back them up. Other noteworthy details: when ovulating, [women prefer the scents of dominant men](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/) But people may say that dominance doesn't equal violence. However, more interesting is that bullies, the pinnacle of schoolyard assholes, [have the highest confidence, social status, and even have the most sex.] (http://news.nationalpost.com/health/provocative-new-study-finds-bullies-have-highest-self-esteem-social-status-lowest-rates-of-depression?__lsa=3610-c4b8) And in one last study, [happiness was found to be the most attractive trait for women, but one of the least for men.] (http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-content/files_mf/tracybeall2011emotion.pdf) Pride was the opposite - it was great for men, awful for women. In the end, it seems nice guys DO finish last...at least in short-term mating. While a woman may enjoy his providership traits, she won't want to have sex as passionately as with one of the muscular, arrogant cads. There is a limit to assholery, of course. But in the end, nice guys fail consistently because they are nice - and that's not an attractive short-term trait. If they want casual sex, they need to work on their aggression, confidence, dominance, physique, and status - not be "legitimately nice." TL;DR - Women find assholes attractive for short term sex. If you want short term sex, "be an asshole" is a solid piece of advice.

t3_4fhqrr

CMV: Actively encouraging everyone to vote is overall harmful to a democratic society.

I would like to start off by clarifying that I do not support voter suppression, poll taxes, poll tests, or restrictions on voting rights in any form. I even disapprove of removing felons' rights to vote. That said, I reject those things not because I believe broadening the voter pool benefits society, but because such restrictions are far too dangerous to allow people to meddle with. The temptation by those in power to restrict the rights of voters who disagree with them is too much for people to resist, so as a necessary evil we must prohibit such meddling in any way. More to the point, though, I believe that actively encouraging *everyone* to vote is the other side of that same coin - it is rounding up reactionary, low information voters to vote for your position on an issue. It warps democracy from being about a collective process to discuss and decide policy, into a competition to see who can bus the most warm bodies to the polls. Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Voting without being informed is an abuse of that responsibility, and encouraging uninformed voters to go to the polls is aiding in that abuse for your own political benefit. A democratic society functions best when the voters are rational and informed. They (ideally) learn what they can about any issue, make a subjective decision based on their internal values, and then vote for a candidate or proposal that they believe will best accomplish that. While obviously not always true, the people who make a point to go out and vote on their own tend to be the ones who actually care enough to put the time and effort into the process as described in my previous paragraph. They're the closest we get in reality, anyway. Deliberately rounding up non-voters and pushing them towards the polls dredges up the opposite - low information, reactionary voters whose only knowledge on the issues likely comes from the partisan individuals who gave them the voter registration sheet. They seldom take the time to seek out the other side and hear their version of the story. So, while these people have every right to vote, they're abusing that right and partisan organizations designed to "get out the vote" are complicit in that. They're harming the overall system for their own gain. Change my view.

CMV: Actively encouraging everyone to vote is overall harmful to a democratic society. I would like to start off by clarifying that I do not support voter suppression, poll taxes, poll tests, or restrictions on voting rights in any form. I even disapprove of removing felons' rights to vote. That said, I reject those things not because I believe broadening the voter pool benefits society, but because such restrictions are far too dangerous to allow people to meddle with. The temptation by those in power to restrict the rights of voters who disagree with them is too much for people to resist, so as a necessary evil we must prohibit such meddling in any way. More to the point, though, I believe that actively encouraging *everyone* to vote is the other side of that same coin - it is rounding up reactionary, low information voters to vote for your position on an issue. It warps democracy from being about a collective process to discuss and decide policy, into a competition to see who can bus the most warm bodies to the polls. Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Voting without being informed is an abuse of that responsibility, and encouraging uninformed voters to go to the polls is aiding in that abuse for your own political benefit. A democratic society functions best when the voters are rational and informed. They (ideally) learn what they can about any issue, make a subjective decision based on their internal values, and then vote for a candidate or proposal that they believe will best accomplish that. While obviously not always true, the people who make a point to go out and vote on their own tend to be the ones who actually care enough to put the time and effort into the process as described in my previous paragraph. They're the closest we get in reality, anyway. Deliberately rounding up non-voters and pushing them towards the polls dredges up the opposite - low information, reactionary voters whose only knowledge on the issues likely comes from the partisan individuals who gave them the voter registration sheet. They seldom take the time to seek out the other side and hear their version of the story. So, while these people have every right to vote, they're abusing that right and partisan organizations designed to "get out the vote" are complicit in that. They're harming the overall system for their own gain. Change my view.

t3_4ns1p1

CMV:Technocracy is the most effective government structure.

Technocracy is the most effective structure of government if implemented correctly. My reasons for thinking it is superior to other forms of government are listed below: Autocracy-By giving power to one person it relies on their good intentions, however, a person who gains power an supports their own absolute power most likely doesn't have good intentions. Democracy-Democracy puts power in the hands of the people, who obviously care for the interests of the people, however, they may not have the expertise or knowledge to help themselves and may pass laws that have unintended side effects. Also, democracy would require a major time investment from everyone to be involved. Republicanism-All though this remedies the problem of time investment that democracy has, it gains qualities of autocracy by putting possibly unqualified people in power who may place their own interests before others. Another problem is that politicians are trained to enter the political spectrum-people who have been trained to get elected above all else are less likely to be empathetic to others interests. Furthermore, they will not have been trained in the sciences or technical fields so they may pass laws to appeal to their electorate without knowledge of their side effects. Partied republic-Partied republics help people choose the candidates they might support easier, but a side effect is splitting along party lines and polarization. I see the partizan republic as the "lazy man's government" because it removes much thought from politics and makes people have an oversimplified us versus them mindset. Now, all of these have their benefits and costs, but I think they are all inferior to technocracy for the reasons below. Technocracy places power in the hands of a group, so it minimizes the effects of greed and corruption. Technocratic leaders would be leaders of a specific field and this would all contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. Technocratic leaders would spend much of their career in their specific field before gaining power and thus would not learn the tricks many politicians use to manipulate people. Technocratic leaders would not be directly subject to the people and would not be subject to polarization or mob mentality. Instead, they would be meritocratically chosen by councils of leaders of their respective fields. Unlike monarchy(not mentioned because no one really argues for it) or, to some degree, republicanism, people are treated equally and sons of leaders or major politicians would not gain an advantage. Since it would be based on achievement instead of expensive campaigns, rich people wouldn't have an unfair advantage over poor people. Politically motivated laws would be eradicated. Since there would be no parties and each leader would contribute according to their area of expertise, people wouldn't create laws catering to certain groups. Technocracy takes the requirement for knowledgeable leaders up to 11 by necessitating that leaders be the _best_ in their fields. Unfortunately, less intelligent people would have a lower chance of gaining power, but I don't think anyone would argue that we should have unintelligent leaders. My view is that technocracy would produce a council of motivated, intelligent leaders that work together for the benefit of society. Change 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:Technocracy is the most effective government structure. Technocracy is the most effective structure of government if implemented correctly. My reasons for thinking it is superior to other forms of government are listed below: Autocracy-By giving power to one person it relies on their good intentions, however, a person who gains power an supports their own absolute power most likely doesn't have good intentions. Democracy-Democracy puts power in the hands of the people, who obviously care for the interests of the people, however, they may not have the expertise or knowledge to help themselves and may pass laws that have unintended side effects. Also, democracy would require a major time investment from everyone to be involved. Republicanism-All though this remedies the problem of time investment that democracy has, it gains qualities of autocracy by putting possibly unqualified people in power who may place their own interests before others. Another problem is that politicians are trained to enter the political spectrum-people who have been trained to get elected above all else are less likely to be empathetic to others interests. Furthermore, they will not have been trained in the sciences or technical fields so they may pass laws to appeal to their electorate without knowledge of their side effects. Partied republic-Partied republics help people choose the candidates they might support easier, but a side effect is splitting along party lines and polarization. I see the partizan republic as the "lazy man's government" because it removes much thought from politics and makes people have an oversimplified us versus them mindset. Now, all of these have their benefits and costs, but I think they are all inferior to technocracy for the reasons below. Technocracy places power in the hands of a group, so it minimizes the effects of greed and corruption. Technocratic leaders would be leaders of a specific field and this would all contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. Technocratic leaders would spend much of their career in their specific field before gaining power and thus would not learn the tricks many politicians use to manipulate people. Technocratic leaders would not be directly subject to the people and would not be subject to polarization or mob mentality. Instead, they would be meritocratically chosen by councils of leaders of their respective fields. Unlike monarchy(not mentioned because no one really argues for it) or, to some degree, republicanism, people are treated equally and sons of leaders or major politicians would not gain an advantage. Since it would be based on achievement instead of expensive campaigns, rich people wouldn't have an unfair advantage over poor people. Politically motivated laws would be eradicated. Since there would be no parties and each leader would contribute according to their area of expertise, people wouldn't create laws catering to certain groups. Technocracy takes the requirement for knowledgeable leaders up to 11 by necessitating that leaders be the _best_ in their fields. Unfortunately, less intelligent people would have a lower chance of gaining power, but I don't think anyone would argue that we should have unintelligent leaders. My view is that technocracy would produce a council of motivated, intelligent leaders that work together for the benefit of society. Change it!

t3_1gct01

I don't believe that really small minority groups need visibility, especially personal identity ones. CMV, please?

Ok, I am going to preface this with where I am coming from. I am asexual and neutrois. I pretty squarely fall into a minority category of some sort. I feel people's reaction might be different if I didn't. But I can't really be involved with either group because all day long they talk about "erasure" and "awareness" and "visibility." I am pretty sure people like me make up less than a bip (1/100 of 1%) of the population. It's not really erasure if it barely exists. Why shouldn't we just be chucked in with LGBT? Why does it have to be LGBTQA~NTPAUEYANAIFY? I think in the big picture it doesn't matter. As far as rights go, most of the smaller groups will be covered when the larger groups are covered. I just don't think awareness and visibility are a big deal. I don't care if you (or anyone else) don't know what neutrois is because in the end it doesn't matter. I've probably not even told anyone. My gender and sexual identity are literally a non-issue. So why should I care that people know who or what I am? Why should I care that my little group be recognized by the general public? I noticed I mention relevancy a lot. Are smaller minorities relevant? What do they do or not do for society and politics? **Update**: ChronicMonstah has given me pause with the fact that greater exposure to more types of people can help the uninformed comes to a more open minded state of mind. I still need convincing that really small groups are the way to go or that I should care personally. I'd like to hear more. If you guys are really good at this I might bring some of my other opinions here. I do enjoy hearing the other side. I want to know in all honesty why people care so much that everyone knows what their "title" means. [This was prompted by recent posts on both my forums talking about erasure and awareness and getting banned on one for asking "Does this really matter?" I think my view is changeable but perhaps it would be best if I talked to people somewhat removed from the issue. People close to it tend to be much more emotional and that doesn't really work on me.]

I don't believe that really small minority groups need visibility, especially personal identity ones. CMV, please?. Ok, I am going to preface this with where I am coming from. I am asexual and neutrois. I pretty squarely fall into a minority category of some sort. I feel people's reaction might be different if I didn't. But I can't really be involved with either group because all day long they talk about "erasure" and "awareness" and "visibility." I am pretty sure people like me make up less than a bip (1/100 of 1%) of the population. It's not really erasure if it barely exists. Why shouldn't we just be chucked in with LGBT? Why does it have to be LGBTQA~NTPAUEYANAIFY? I think in the big picture it doesn't matter. As far as rights go, most of the smaller groups will be covered when the larger groups are covered. I just don't think awareness and visibility are a big deal. I don't care if you (or anyone else) don't know what neutrois is because in the end it doesn't matter. I've probably not even told anyone. My gender and sexual identity are literally a non-issue. So why should I care that people know who or what I am? Why should I care that my little group be recognized by the general public? I noticed I mention relevancy a lot. Are smaller minorities relevant? What do they do or not do for society and politics? **Update**: ChronicMonstah has given me pause with the fact that greater exposure to more types of people can help the uninformed comes to a more open minded state of mind. I still need convincing that really small groups are the way to go or that I should care personally. I'd like to hear more. If you guys are really good at this I might bring some of my other opinions here. I do enjoy hearing the other side. I want to know in all honesty why people care so much that everyone knows what their "title" means. [This was prompted by recent posts on both my forums talking about erasure and awareness and getting banned on one for asking "Does this really matter?" I think my view is changeable but perhaps it would be best if I talked to people somewhat removed from the issue. People close to it tend to be much more emotional and that doesn't really work on me.]

t3_1ide2n

I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV

I believe that free capitalist markets are a natural phenomenon that is more or less inevitable in any human society (or collection of societies). I also believe it to be a generally positive thing that should be cultivated and encouraged because of its massive potential to improve the quality of life for all participants. However, just like any other natural phenomenon or animal of nature, we as humanity cannot maximize its benefits without "harnessing" it. In the context of our current modern world, I view this “harnessing” process manifesting itself as regulation by an impartial party (typically a government). The nutshell of my view: I believe that a society cannot reap the maximum benefits from a capitalistic marketplace without impartial governmental regulation. Just as bridling a horse transforms a grazing animal into an efficient form of transportation, managing the growth and behavior of “the marketplace” allows a society to draw the most benefit. **Update:** I think there may be some misunderstanding of the view I hold. My position is that capitalist markets, left to their own devices, can exist just fine. However, I believe that intervention is generally required in order to shape that market into something that benefits society. It may even be that a completely unregulated market provides some kind of benefit already. I only contend that said benefit can only reach its maximum potential when steered to do so.

I believe that a properly regulated market provides a superior benefit to society than a free unregulated market. CMV. I believe that free capitalist markets are a natural phenomenon that is more or less inevitable in any human society (or collection of societies). I also believe it to be a generally positive thing that should be cultivated and encouraged because of its massive potential to improve the quality of life for all participants. However, just like any other natural phenomenon or animal of nature, we as humanity cannot maximize its benefits without "harnessing" it. In the context of our current modern world, I view this “harnessing” process manifesting itself as regulation by an impartial party (typically a government). The nutshell of my view: I believe that a society cannot reap the maximum benefits from a capitalistic marketplace without impartial governmental regulation. Just as bridling a horse transforms a grazing animal into an efficient form of transportation, managing the growth and behavior of “the marketplace” allows a society to draw the most benefit. **Update:** I think there may be some misunderstanding of the view I hold. My position is that capitalist markets, left to their own devices, can exist just fine. However, I believe that intervention is generally required in order to shape that market into something that benefits society. It may even be that a completely unregulated market provides some kind of benefit already. I only contend that said benefit can only reach its maximum potential when steered to do so.

t3_3icnoj

CMV: I believe that modern day americans of non-native descent have just as much claim to the lands of the U.S./Canada/Mexico as native americans.

What happened to the native Americans was an atrocity. It was one of the worst acts of humanity on the scale of the slave trade and holocaust and other infamous tragic events. I won't try to justify them. However, I do believe that modern Americans, white, black, hispanic, or asian, now have just as much claim to the lands we live on and share as Americans of native descent. Land is land - it is not sacred or "owned" to any one people or race simply due to the "I was there first" argument. White people are not entitled to Europe, Black People are not entitled to Africa, and Asians are not entitled to Asia. We are all humans. It should be the legal entities, not the historical ties, that should bind a people with its land. People feel otherwise because the lands may be considered "traditional" to a certain race.But in reality, land is owned by the legal force and organization (and thus the people) which inhabits the area and that is capable enough of establishing its dominion. EVERYONE who is born into the legal boundaries of a nation is entitled to it's rescources - not because one is born a certain race or people. Do I condone what happened to the native americans? No it was horrible. But do I consider Europe my home just because I'm white? No. I was born in the Americas, I have made my home here, I feel it is just as much mine as it is a native american's. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that modern day americans of non-native descent have just as much claim to the lands of the U.S./Canada/Mexico as native americans. What happened to the native Americans was an atrocity. It was one of the worst acts of humanity on the scale of the slave trade and holocaust and other infamous tragic events. I won't try to justify them. However, I do believe that modern Americans, white, black, hispanic, or asian, now have just as much claim to the lands we live on and share as Americans of native descent. Land is land - it is not sacred or "owned" to any one people or race simply due to the "I was there first" argument. White people are not entitled to Europe, Black People are not entitled to Africa, and Asians are not entitled to Asia. We are all humans. It should be the legal entities, not the historical ties, that should bind a people with its land. People feel otherwise because the lands may be considered "traditional" to a certain race.But in reality, land is owned by the legal force and organization (and thus the people) which inhabits the area and that is capable enough of establishing its dominion. EVERYONE who is born into the legal boundaries of a nation is entitled to it's rescources - not because one is born a certain race or people. Do I condone what happened to the native americans? No it was horrible. But do I consider Europe my home just because I'm white? No. I was born in the Americas, I have made my home here, I feel it is just as much mine as it is a native american's.

t3_3olwo4

CMV: There's no reason gun ownership should be a fundamental right.

This isn't about how gun ownership *isn't* a right in the United States per the Constitution, it is that it shouldn't be. Just because it is in the Constitution, does not make it a fundamental right. A ban on alcohol was also in the Constitution and nobody realistically argues that you had a moral obligation to not drink alcohol, but only between the years of 1920-1933. Basically, this argument is that the Constitution is not a moral document and we need to stop treating it as absolute moral law and instead treat it as a framework for governance. If the framework is broken, we fix it. This is also not an argument about how realistic removing the second amendment is. I'm just tired of seeing the argument that the second amendment's mere existence is enough to call guns a "fundamental right." _____ Edit: I'm putting this up here because I can't be asked to reword this for every person who brings this up. Not owning a gun does not take away your right to self defense. There are non-lethal mechanism through which you can defend yourself. Tasers exist. Mace exists. Rubber bullets. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's no reason gun ownership should be a fundamental right. This isn't about how gun ownership *isn't* a right in the United States per the Constitution, it is that it shouldn't be. Just because it is in the Constitution, does not make it a fundamental right. A ban on alcohol was also in the Constitution and nobody realistically argues that you had a moral obligation to not drink alcohol, but only between the years of 1920-1933. Basically, this argument is that the Constitution is not a moral document and we need to stop treating it as absolute moral law and instead treat it as a framework for governance. If the framework is broken, we fix it. This is also not an argument about how realistic removing the second amendment is. I'm just tired of seeing the argument that the second amendment's mere existence is enough to call guns a "fundamental right." _____ Edit: I'm putting this up here because I can't be asked to reword this for every person who brings this up. Not owning a gun does not take away your right to self defense. There are non-lethal mechanism through which you can defend yourself. Tasers exist. Mace exists. Rubber bullets.

t3_5xhkc4

CMV: I don't believe that straight women are sexually attracted to the male body.

On a rational level I am aware that humanity hasn't died out and what I believe obviously can't be true. However the last months I can't push the impression aside that the male-female-attraction-mechanism is a very one sided one. Just to list some points (not even starting with testosterone increasing libido etc.): - While I personally do get compliments quite often for a beard or muscles or a button-down shirt it's only by other (straight) men and some women older than 40. Same aged women never do this. - The gender ratio is roughly 50:50. If we assume that each half has as many straight people as the other, there should be one single man for each single woman. Yet everywhere, IRL and especially online, I nearly only hear the men crying about this ("25 and still no girlfriend. What do?"). As if women wouldn't - Reddit's men and women subs: From my point of view the man here discuss extremely much about the female body, while the women seem to be sick and tired of getting asked if they like body hair, beards and so on. Again it seems as if women don't care at all and are mostly uninterested in even talking about the topic. - The female passivity in dating (even today mostly men have to do the approaching) makes me believe that they don't actually desire a sexual partner. They don't mind if they have one, but if not they don't start getting desperate like the modern man does (see points above). - Female sexuality is often described as something more emotional. A tall man with muscles etc. isn't automatically sexual desirable. In the male world physical attraction is separated from mental attraction. A hot girl who's nasty, dumb and evil is still hot and (at least for a ONS) desirable. As far as I understood it it doesn't seem to work this way vice versa. If that's true and it's a purely emotional thing it would mean every women is technically bisexual and could fall in love with another woman if she offers the desired mental traits. - there are nearly no male strippers / prostitutes I've come to the conclusion that there is no female interest in the male body at all. Women living in relationships with men seem to do this mostly to have someone to have an emotional connection with and maybe because of the subliminal instinctive knowledge that you need a male to reproduce (at least until science can replace sperm on an industrial level). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe that straight women are sexually attracted to the male body. On a rational level I am aware that humanity hasn't died out and what I believe obviously can't be true. However the last months I can't push the impression aside that the male-female-attraction-mechanism is a very one sided one. Just to list some points (not even starting with testosterone increasing libido etc.): - While I personally do get compliments quite often for a beard or muscles or a button-down shirt it's only by other (straight) men and some women older than 40. Same aged women never do this. - The gender ratio is roughly 50:50. If we assume that each half has as many straight people as the other, there should be one single man for each single woman. Yet everywhere, IRL and especially online, I nearly only hear the men crying about this ("25 and still no girlfriend. What do?"). As if women wouldn't - Reddit's men and women subs: From my point of view the man here discuss extremely much about the female body, while the women seem to be sick and tired of getting asked if they like body hair, beards and so on. Again it seems as if women don't care at all and are mostly uninterested in even talking about the topic. - The female passivity in dating (even today mostly men have to do the approaching) makes me believe that they don't actually desire a sexual partner. They don't mind if they have one, but if not they don't start getting desperate like the modern man does (see points above). - Female sexuality is often described as something more emotional. A tall man with muscles etc. isn't automatically sexual desirable. In the male world physical attraction is separated from mental attraction. A hot girl who's nasty, dumb and evil is still hot and (at least for a ONS) desirable. As far as I understood it it doesn't seem to work this way vice versa. If that's true and it's a purely emotional thing it would mean every women is technically bisexual and could fall in love with another woman if she offers the desired mental traits. - there are nearly no male strippers / prostitutes I've come to the conclusion that there is no female interest in the male body at all. Women living in relationships with men seem to do this mostly to have someone to have an emotional connection with and maybe because of the subliminal instinctive knowledge that you need a male to reproduce (at least until science can replace sperm on an industrial level).

t3_1gtq6k

AskWomen (and maybe even AskMen) should be sub reddits of r/circlejerk. CMV.

I have gone into subs such as AskWomen, TwoXChromosomes, etc, and posted a few non-charged, non-offensive, literally harmless and general comments, sometimes weakly in opposition to someone's opinion. Not only was I downvoted directly into hell, I was chastised and insulted for sharing my opinions in either thread. Now, you can check my comments. I'm no troll, I'm not overly sarcastic, and I'm not mean. I just sometimes oppose the grain; And then the users absolutely punish me. (maybe this happens to women when they go to ask men, but I don't see downvote parades nearly as often there) I don't really know what I've done wrong, and truly don't believe that it's my fault, but I've found that if you don't jerk it in the same fashion of the subreddit, they'll shit on you until you leave their fapping session. It only happens to me in those departments. Therefore, I believe that AskWomen, TwoXChromosomes, and the like should be turned into r/circlejerk. CMV.

AskWomen (and maybe even AskMen) should be sub reddits of r/circlejerk. CMV. I have gone into subs such as AskWomen, TwoXChromosomes, etc, and posted a few non-charged, non-offensive, literally harmless and general comments, sometimes weakly in opposition to someone's opinion. Not only was I downvoted directly into hell, I was chastised and insulted for sharing my opinions in either thread. Now, you can check my comments. I'm no troll, I'm not overly sarcastic, and I'm not mean. I just sometimes oppose the grain; And then the users absolutely punish me. (maybe this happens to women when they go to ask men, but I don't see downvote parades nearly as often there) I don't really know what I've done wrong, and truly don't believe that it's my fault, but I've found that if you don't jerk it in the same fashion of the subreddit, they'll shit on you until you leave their fapping session. It only happens to me in those departments. Therefore, I believe that AskWomen, TwoXChromosomes, and the like should be turned into r/circlejerk. CMV.

t3_3chnd1

CMV: Turning your head to check your blind spot is unsafe compared to alternatives

I hate driving. One of the main reasons is (aside from being kind of a shitty driver myself), I feel like turning your head 135 degrees to check your blind spot is extremely dangerous, even though it's part of the standard procedure for changing into another lane. This is especially bad now that I've got a [Madza 3](http://images.newcars.com/images/car-pictures/original/2014-Mazda-Mazda3-Sedan-i-SV-4dr-Sedan-Photo-3.png), since the backseat windows are so high up that I have to crane my neck and can barely make out what's going on in my blind spot anyways. Also, having to turn my head to such a wide angle means there's a lot more time when my eyes aren't in front of me, on the road ahead. I understand that it's absolutely essential to make sure there's nobody in your blind spot. But there's lots of solutions that allow you to use mirrors to check instead, among them being - [adjusting your sideviews to incorporate the blind spot](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots) - [buying one of these](http://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-C0400-Passenger-Adjustable/dp/B001DKT0DO/ref=sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1436313257&sr=1-1&keywords=blind+spot+mirror) Both of these options let you keep at least your peripheral vision on the road and greatly reduces the time it takes you check your blind spot. Edit: Apparently, I've been doing it wrong the whole time. You guys are right, there shouldn't be any reason to take 2 seconds to do a shoulder check - I tend to scan the whole rear side of my car instead of looking at a specific spot. Thanks for the responses, I'm gonna go on youtube now and figure out how to drive more properly

CMV: Turning your head to check your blind spot is unsafe compared to alternatives. I hate driving. One of the main reasons is (aside from being kind of a shitty driver myself), I feel like turning your head 135 degrees to check your blind spot is extremely dangerous, even though it's part of the standard procedure for changing into another lane. This is especially bad now that I've got a [Madza 3](http://images.newcars.com/images/car-pictures/original/2014-Mazda-Mazda3-Sedan-i-SV-4dr-Sedan-Photo-3.png), since the backseat windows are so high up that I have to crane my neck and can barely make out what's going on in my blind spot anyways. Also, having to turn my head to such a wide angle means there's a lot more time when my eyes aren't in front of me, on the road ahead. I understand that it's absolutely essential to make sure there's nobody in your blind spot. But there's lots of solutions that allow you to use mirrors to check instead, among them being - [adjusting your sideviews to incorporate the blind spot](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots) - [buying one of these](http://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-C0400-Passenger-Adjustable/dp/B001DKT0DO/ref=sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1436313257&sr=1-1&keywords=blind+spot+mirror) Both of these options let you keep at least your peripheral vision on the road and greatly reduces the time it takes you check your blind spot. Edit: Apparently, I've been doing it wrong the whole time. You guys are right, there shouldn't be any reason to take 2 seconds to do a shoulder check - I tend to scan the whole rear side of my car instead of looking at a specific spot. Thanks for the responses, I'm gonna go on youtube now and figure out how to drive more properly

t3_3argex

CMV: GMOs are a relatively new development, and should be labeled and treated with caution

While I am not at all for the scare mongering and paranoia, I simply think that there isn't enough evidence to show that GMOs are completely safe to completely accept them with no questions asked. It seems very suspicious to me that large companies are lobbying so hard to avoid having to label GMOs, as I don't see why they would put so much time or money into fighting it unless there was something they were trying to hide. I have always tended to be wary of large corporations and their practices, but I feel like my current view is riddled with ignorance and misinformation. 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: GMOs are a relatively new development, and should be labeled and treated with caution. While I am not at all for the scare mongering and paranoia, I simply think that there isn't enough evidence to show that GMOs are completely safe to completely accept them with no questions asked. It seems very suspicious to me that large companies are lobbying so hard to avoid having to label GMOs, as I don't see why they would put so much time or money into fighting it unless there was something they were trying to hide. I have always tended to be wary of large corporations and their practices, but I feel like my current view is riddled with ignorance and misinformation. Change my view?

t3_1w06o1

The United States would have been better off if the Civil War resulted in two different countries in the North and South. CMV.

As we have seen today, there are competing ideologies in the United States which has resulted in a federal government which can't seem to get anything done as a result of the conservative and liberal ideologies clashing with each other (I understand it is much more complicated than this, but I am speaking in general terms for the sake of argument). If the Civil War had resulted in two separate countries being created, it would have resulted in a more liberal country and a more conservative country, each being able to accomplish more with there being less disagreements within Congress. With the United States having grown to the size that it is today, having it be split into two different countries at the time of the Civil War would prevent the types of gridlock we see within our federal government today based on the competing ideologies that are seen in the north and the south. Please reddit, CMV.

The United States would have been better off if the Civil War resulted in two different countries in the North and South. CMV. As we have seen today, there are competing ideologies in the United States which has resulted in a federal government which can't seem to get anything done as a result of the conservative and liberal ideologies clashing with each other (I understand it is much more complicated than this, but I am speaking in general terms for the sake of argument). If the Civil War had resulted in two separate countries being created, it would have resulted in a more liberal country and a more conservative country, each being able to accomplish more with there being less disagreements within Congress. With the United States having grown to the size that it is today, having it be split into two different countries at the time of the Civil War would prevent the types of gridlock we see within our federal government today based on the competing ideologies that are seen in the north and the south. Please reddit, CMV.

t3_1yk5ok

I think all drugs should be legal to buy. CMV

Holding drugs as illegal does little to nothing when it comes to preventing drug abuse, people still find them and people still abuse them, that will never change. If they were under government control, the government could put a humungous tax on it to discourage people from buying it and also benefit by putting less people in prison. Also with less illegal drug selling comes less violent crime and gang activity. The drug-free taxpayer wins by having less taxes to pay, the government wins by both discouraging behavior, raising revenues and getting people out of prison, and the drug abuser cannot obtain the drugs as easily. The entire situation has improved. What is wrong with this idea?

I think all drugs should be legal to buy. CMV. Holding drugs as illegal does little to nothing when it comes to preventing drug abuse, people still find them and people still abuse them, that will never change. If they were under government control, the government could put a humungous tax on it to discourage people from buying it and also benefit by putting less people in prison. Also with less illegal drug selling comes less violent crime and gang activity. The drug-free taxpayer wins by having less taxes to pay, the government wins by both discouraging behavior, raising revenues and getting people out of prison, and the drug abuser cannot obtain the drugs as easily. The entire situation has improved. What is wrong with this idea?

t3_1rfpyg

I think we will soon reach the limit of what technology can accomplish and cannot invent our way out of our problems anymore. CMV

I'm probably suggesting that has been suggested my many people at every point in modern history but is it different now? I infer this perspective from a perceived lack of human innovation in terms of radical new concepts. What I do observe is the diminishing returns from optimizing existing ideas and technologies. I feel that the only way to somewhat resolve the world's current problems(energy, overpopulation, resources, mass economic disparity, etc) involve sacrifices that people( including myself) aren't willing to make until there is no other choice. Additional edit: The one thing i don't understand is why there is such certainty that of innovative new technologies. The probably possibilities of future social unrest, totalitarian restriction on knowledge or another large scale war due to scarcity of key resources may come faster than the assumed solutions will. We could have come out of the dark ages, or we could have not, I can't really say that even today's technology was bound to exist. I almost feel that assuming technological breakthroughs will solve everything is a comfortable way of thinking but not practical.

I think we will soon reach the limit of what technology can accomplish and cannot invent our way out of our problems anymore. CMV. I'm probably suggesting that has been suggested my many people at every point in modern history but is it different now? I infer this perspective from a perceived lack of human innovation in terms of radical new concepts. What I do observe is the diminishing returns from optimizing existing ideas and technologies. I feel that the only way to somewhat resolve the world's current problems(energy, overpopulation, resources, mass economic disparity, etc) involve sacrifices that people( including myself) aren't willing to make until there is no other choice. Additional edit: The one thing i don't understand is why there is such certainty that of innovative new technologies. The probably possibilities of future social unrest, totalitarian restriction on knowledge or another large scale war due to scarcity of key resources may come faster than the assumed solutions will. We could have come out of the dark ages, or we could have not, I can't really say that even today's technology was bound to exist. I almost feel that assuming technological breakthroughs will solve everything is a comfortable way of thinking but not practical.

t3_22bbex

CMV: I believe that with enough money or influence, one could do many things that we're told can't be done in this day and age. Such as frame someone for a murder, or fake a suicide.

I'd like to make one thing clear first: I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist at all. I know a lot of 'conspiracy theorists' probably say that as well, but I mean it. They'd probably say "but I mean it" too, but now I'm rambling. We are shown in movies and TV dramas that corruption can exist and leads to the covering up of certain things, whether it's [[hover for spoiler](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/22bbex/cmv_i_believe_that_with_enough_money_or_influence/ "Frank Underwood throwing the reporter in front of a train and having the power to cover it up in House of Cards")] or [[hover for spoiler](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/22bbex/cmv_i_believe_that_with_enough_money_or_influence/ "rich people with political influence framing someone for a murder in Prison Break, etc.")]. But after watching it, we always shrug it off as "just a movie". And maybe that's true. There's a very good chance that these movies are completely fabricated, or include massive loopholes that wouldn't allow these corruptions to exist in real life, but my logic always comes down to this: *is it really that hard to believe that people with millions, often billions, of dollars could afford to pull off something like this?* Something I'm interested in and never seem to be able to find the answer to, is a professional's opinion on how possible it is to fake a suicide. And whether someone with a motive, and a lot of money and connections, would be able to pull it off. Especially if people can believe the person has a reason to kill themselves. (Yes, I'm kind of hinting at Kurt Cobain here). And also how possible it would be to frame someone. Pay for a whole set up that would be believed by the legal system. I can't seem to shake the opinion that money can buy these things. 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 just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that with enough money or influence, one could do many things that we're told can't be done in this day and age. Such as frame someone for a murder, or fake a suicide. I'd like to make one thing clear first: I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist at all. I know a lot of 'conspiracy theorists' probably say that as well, but I mean it. They'd probably say "but I mean it" too, but now I'm rambling. We are shown in movies and TV dramas that corruption can exist and leads to the covering up of certain things, whether it's [[hover for spoiler](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/22bbex/cmv_i_believe_that_with_enough_money_or_influence/ "Frank Underwood throwing the reporter in front of a train and having the power to cover it up in House of Cards")] or [[hover for spoiler](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/22bbex/cmv_i_believe_that_with_enough_money_or_influence/ "rich people with political influence framing someone for a murder in Prison Break, etc.")]. But after watching it, we always shrug it off as "just a movie". And maybe that's true. There's a very good chance that these movies are completely fabricated, or include massive loopholes that wouldn't allow these corruptions to exist in real life, but my logic always comes down to this: *is it really that hard to believe that people with millions, often billions, of dollars could afford to pull off something like this?* Something I'm interested in and never seem to be able to find the answer to, is a professional's opinion on how possible it is to fake a suicide. And whether someone with a motive, and a lot of money and connections, would be able to pull it off. Especially if people can believe the person has a reason to kill themselves. (Yes, I'm kind of hinting at Kurt Cobain here). And also how possible it would be to frame someone. Pay for a whole set up that would be believed by the legal system. I can't seem to shake the opinion that money can buy these things. CMV.

t3_1ewskd

I believe that humanity would be better off living in a Matrix-like utopia with no capacity to do evil than in the world we live in right now. CMV

To clarify: When living in this matrix world, nobody is aware that they are living inside a machine and experiencing an illusion. It is also not possible for these people to break out of the system. The term "evil" describes anything that a person can do that would cause intentional harm to another person. For example, there would be no such thing as murder or stealing in this world. We would not have the mental capacity/abilities to carry out such acts. I also want to add on that in addition to not being able to make "evil" choices, people inside this matrix can only make "good" choices whereby "good" choices are defined as either an action that brings some sort of benefit to someone else or an action that causes no harm to anyone. For example, I see that you have spilled your groceries outside your car. I have no obligation to help you, but I can either make one of two choices: help you pick up your groceries or ignore the situation provided that I have ascertained no one will be in significant harm's way. One final clarification to help people understand the scenario I'm creating: I want to stress that we aren't "robots" per se. Think of it this way: if you were in this matrix world, you would still be you. You would retain your personality, your physical attributes, your thoughts, etc. but you just would no longer have the capacity to think "evil" thoughts or conduct "evil" actions.

I believe that humanity would be better off living in a Matrix-like utopia with no capacity to do evil than in the world we live in right now. CMV. To clarify: When living in this matrix world, nobody is aware that they are living inside a machine and experiencing an illusion. It is also not possible for these people to break out of the system. The term "evil" describes anything that a person can do that would cause intentional harm to another person. For example, there would be no such thing as murder or stealing in this world. We would not have the mental capacity/abilities to carry out such acts. I also want to add on that in addition to not being able to make "evil" choices, people inside this matrix can only make "good" choices whereby "good" choices are defined as either an action that brings some sort of benefit to someone else or an action that causes no harm to anyone. For example, I see that you have spilled your groceries outside your car. I have no obligation to help you, but I can either make one of two choices: help you pick up your groceries or ignore the situation provided that I have ascertained no one will be in significant harm's way. One final clarification to help people understand the scenario I'm creating: I want to stress that we aren't "robots" per se. Think of it this way: if you were in this matrix world, you would still be you. You would retain your personality, your physical attributes, your thoughts, etc. but you just would no longer have the capacity to think "evil" thoughts or conduct "evil" actions.

t3_5svlbf

CMV: I believe the voting age should be lowered to 16

In western democratic countries the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16. My main reasoning for this is that at age 16, people are typically still in high school and have reticently, or are actively learning about subjects that make voters knowledgeable. Subjects such as history, civics, law, geography, and economics. For this reason, I would argue that the average 16/17 year old potentially has as much, or more knowledge about the political process than the typical voter. Secondly, I believe that engaging people in the political process at a younger age will encourage the younger demographics to stay engaged throughout their lifetime. It is currently a problem nearly everywhere that young people simply do not vote. There are many reasons why this could be true, but I think one main one is that they feel like they don't know enough about the political process to make a decision on which candidate to vote for. I believe if they could vote at a younger age, students would be able to learn about the political process and how to register to vote while in high school, and therefore feel they can make an informed decision. College students, and young members of the workforce however, are often not exposed to learning about politics. They are also often living in temporary rental dorms/apartments/housing, and do not know how to register as a voter. By the time they own property and have full-time careers, people are often so far removed from learning about the political process that they forget and have no desire to re-learn it. My third point is that there are many political issues that affect young people just as much or more than the typical voter. Issues such as the environment, education, or the long-term economy arguably matter much more to the younger generation. Lastly, the most common counter-argument I hear is that young people don't pay taxes, so they should not have a say in how they are distributed. By this logic though, the elderly, people on social security or disability, or others who do not pay taxes should also not get to vote. Taxes are not the only thing governments do (although it may seem like it). Policy is very important too, and I believe most young people have strong opinions on many policies. Why I want my view changed: I want to see if there is a good argument against lowering the voting age. I am often laughed at for suggesting it, but I truly believe it will raise voter turn out and get much more people involved in the political process for life. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe the voting age should be lowered to 16. In western democratic countries the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16. My main reasoning for this is that at age 16, people are typically still in high school and have reticently, or are actively learning about subjects that make voters knowledgeable. Subjects such as history, civics, law, geography, and economics. For this reason, I would argue that the average 16/17 year old potentially has as much, or more knowledge about the political process than the typical voter. Secondly, I believe that engaging people in the political process at a younger age will encourage the younger demographics to stay engaged throughout their lifetime. It is currently a problem nearly everywhere that young people simply do not vote. There are many reasons why this could be true, but I think one main one is that they feel like they don't know enough about the political process to make a decision on which candidate to vote for. I believe if they could vote at a younger age, students would be able to learn about the political process and how to register to vote while in high school, and therefore feel they can make an informed decision. College students, and young members of the workforce however, are often not exposed to learning about politics. They are also often living in temporary rental dorms/apartments/housing, and do not know how to register as a voter. By the time they own property and have full-time careers, people are often so far removed from learning about the political process that they forget and have no desire to re-learn it. My third point is that there are many political issues that affect young people just as much or more than the typical voter. Issues such as the environment, education, or the long-term economy arguably matter much more to the younger generation. Lastly, the most common counter-argument I hear is that young people don't pay taxes, so they should not have a say in how they are distributed. By this logic though, the elderly, people on social security or disability, or others who do not pay taxes should also not get to vote. Taxes are not the only thing governments do (although it may seem like it). Policy is very important too, and I believe most young people have strong opinions on many policies. Why I want my view changed: I want to see if there is a good argument against lowering the voting age. I am often laughed at for suggesting it, but I truly believe it will raise voter turn out and get much more people involved in the political process for life.

t3_1oo39u

CMV: Through censoring violent or gruesome footage of world events shown in the media, we are sanitising our world view which leads to inaction where there would otherwise be intervention.

For example, new footage was recently released of the Westgate mall siege in Kenya that took place in September. On the evening news, much of the footage was deemed too horrifying to broadcast. However, by refraining from broadcasting those images, the media is effectively pulling the wool over the public's eyes, allowing them to remain ignorant to many of the horrors perpetrated by the attackers. On a separate note, while refraining to show the extent of the violence that took place, the media makes sure to show the attackers praying during the attack. Surely that isn't the issue. Why is it relevant that they were praying? What seems relevant to me is that they murdered kids.

CMV: Through censoring violent or gruesome footage of world events shown in the media, we are sanitising our world view which leads to inaction where there would otherwise be intervention. For example, new footage was recently released of the Westgate mall siege in Kenya that took place in September. On the evening news, much of the footage was deemed too horrifying to broadcast. However, by refraining from broadcasting those images, the media is effectively pulling the wool over the public's eyes, allowing them to remain ignorant to many of the horrors perpetrated by the attackers. On a separate note, while refraining to show the extent of the violence that took place, the media makes sure to show the attackers praying during the attack. Surely that isn't the issue. Why is it relevant that they were praying? What seems relevant to me is that they murdered kids.

t3_2ficdk

CMV: I believe that Teachers and Professors are the only professions that deserve tenure.

Teachers deal with alot of problems. They deal with students that try to get them fired over a bad grade. They deal with students that don't want to or can't learn, which makes the teachers look unsuccessful. While other jobs have other problems, teachers need this protection because their students, the problems, face little to no consequences for lying since they are mostly minors in the eyes of the law. As for Professors, they need tenure to give freedom to teach controversial subjects without students getting upset about the subject and seeking the professor's removal from the institution. _____ > *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 Teachers and Professors are the only professions that deserve tenure. Teachers deal with alot of problems. They deal with students that try to get them fired over a bad grade. They deal with students that don't want to or can't learn, which makes the teachers look unsuccessful. While other jobs have other problems, teachers need this protection because their students, the problems, face little to no consequences for lying since they are mostly minors in the eyes of the law. As for Professors, they need tenure to give freedom to teach controversial subjects without students getting upset about the subject and seeking the professor's removal from the institution.

t3_1g2nb6

I believe the Xbox One will be a good console. CMV

I don't see what the problem is. People argue that it's no longer a game console... but it still plays games, and has excellent titles coming. So what if it has other entertainment available? The 360 has Netflix, Hulu, and other non-gaming apps. Does that hinder the experience in any way? No. With the Kinect, there's no reason to be paranoid. You can turn it off or pause it if you want. I guarantee someone at launch will check whether the Kinect records or uploads data.

I believe the Xbox One will be a good console. CMV. I don't see what the problem is. People argue that it's no longer a game console... but it still plays games, and has excellent titles coming. So what if it has other entertainment available? The 360 has Netflix, Hulu, and other non-gaming apps. Does that hinder the experience in any way? No. With the Kinect, there's no reason to be paranoid. You can turn it off or pause it if you want. I guarantee someone at launch will check whether the Kinect records or uploads data.

t3_18wz48

I think labeling of GMOs is a reasonable step to allow consumers to manage their own risk. CMV

I live in two social worlds. I'm a young, liberal working in the arts and I'm a passionate skeptic. My artsy friends are largely terrified of GMOs for totally irrational reasons based on urban legends and poor representations of actual incidents. In the skeptical communities I participate in though, any caution about GMOs is mocked and derided as anti-science. Reading available studies, I have to concede that the GMO crops on the market seem fairly well studied and the specific risks that critics point to are largely without merit. However... I believe in the law of unintended consequences. I program and I build and I know that in complex systems, making very novel changes can have effects on a system very difficult to predict. When we started using DDT, we had no idea that it would cause bird's eggshells to thin, damaging the populations. We're not that far away from a time when doctors would recommend smoking for weight loss. Look at BPA. It was used in plastics since the 50s, and it took almost 50 years for scientists to begin to suspect that it could have some adverse health and environmental effects. And we still don't have a fully clear idea of what level of risk is involved. A lot of supporters of GMOs like to say that we've always been modifying organisms, so there is no difference between, GMOs and traditional crops. I don't buy that. It's a difference of degree and type. Back to the law of unintended consequences, scale and speed of changes makes a difference. We've always been burning carbon, since we started making fire, but the scale in which we burn carbon in power plants and vehicles is vastly different and has vastly different effects. We probably wouldn't have too much climate change from a bunch of smallish campfires. Again, I don't think many, if any of the particular threats activists point to have merit, and I personally have no problem consuming GMO produce. But I think changes on a certain scale represent an unknown, novel risk that consumers have a right to manage on their own. Convince me I'm wrong and that those calling for labelling are unjustified.

I think labeling of GMOs is a reasonable step to allow consumers to manage their own risk. CMV. I live in two social worlds. I'm a young, liberal working in the arts and I'm a passionate skeptic. My artsy friends are largely terrified of GMOs for totally irrational reasons based on urban legends and poor representations of actual incidents. In the skeptical communities I participate in though, any caution about GMOs is mocked and derided as anti-science. Reading available studies, I have to concede that the GMO crops on the market seem fairly well studied and the specific risks that critics point to are largely without merit. However... I believe in the law of unintended consequences. I program and I build and I know that in complex systems, making very novel changes can have effects on a system very difficult to predict. When we started using DDT, we had no idea that it would cause bird's eggshells to thin, damaging the populations. We're not that far away from a time when doctors would recommend smoking for weight loss. Look at BPA. It was used in plastics since the 50s, and it took almost 50 years for scientists to begin to suspect that it could have some adverse health and environmental effects. And we still don't have a fully clear idea of what level of risk is involved. A lot of supporters of GMOs like to say that we've always been modifying organisms, so there is no difference between, GMOs and traditional crops. I don't buy that. It's a difference of degree and type. Back to the law of unintended consequences, scale and speed of changes makes a difference. We've always been burning carbon, since we started making fire, but the scale in which we burn carbon in power plants and vehicles is vastly different and has vastly different effects. We probably wouldn't have too much climate change from a bunch of smallish campfires. Again, I don't think many, if any of the particular threats activists point to have merit, and I personally have no problem consuming GMO produce. But I think changes on a certain scale represent an unknown, novel risk that consumers have a right to manage on their own. Convince me I'm wrong and that those calling for labelling are unjustified.

t3_1g04yr

I think 'liking' content on facebook should be abolished. CMV.

Facebook was originally made to interact with people. Your family, your coworkers and your friends got the opportunity to stay in touch with you in an easy way. I feel like 'the like button' has completely faded the original idea of facebook. It almost feels like people are forcing 'funny' statuses just to get likes. It's not about maintaining contact anymore, it's really all about likes. I also think liking content can be misinterpreted in a lot of ways. When I see a status saying that someone's grandmother has died, I see a lot of people 'liking' that status, while they probably don't like it at all. Some people say this can be prevented by giving facebook a dislike button, but I think that would still have the same effect as just the like button: people are forcing funniness (is this even a word?). **Edit:** added last paragraph

I think 'liking' content on facebook should be abolished. CMV. Facebook was originally made to interact with people. Your family, your coworkers and your friends got the opportunity to stay in touch with you in an easy way. I feel like 'the like button' has completely faded the original idea of facebook. It almost feels like people are forcing 'funny' statuses just to get likes. It's not about maintaining contact anymore, it's really all about likes. I also think liking content can be misinterpreted in a lot of ways. When I see a status saying that someone's grandmother has died, I see a lot of people 'liking' that status, while they probably don't like it at all. Some people say this can be prevented by giving facebook a dislike button, but I think that would still have the same effect as just the like button: people are forcing funniness (is this even a word?). **Edit:** added last paragraph

t3_1tyrxw

I think traditional wedding bands are a waste of money, CMV!

Yesterday I saw a family friend who has a tattoo of a ring on his finger and a few things struck me. First off, especially in the case of a first wedding, the young couple is trying to start their lives together, and I find it kinda silly that it is a requirement of that process to rack up a four-digit jewelry bill. Further, I believe the strength of the relationship can speak for itself if the couple is against tatting up their fingers. In the case of tattoos, I am assuming some people are going to argue about the permanence of the tattoo, but I think that marriage is designed to be permanent and that if you're worried about an irrelevant tattoo remaining on your finger after your divorce--don't get married. Anyway, I formed this opinion just yesterday and I am really interested to hear what people have to say about it!

I think traditional wedding bands are a waste of money, CMV!. Yesterday I saw a family friend who has a tattoo of a ring on his finger and a few things struck me. First off, especially in the case of a first wedding, the young couple is trying to start their lives together, and I find it kinda silly that it is a requirement of that process to rack up a four-digit jewelry bill. Further, I believe the strength of the relationship can speak for itself if the couple is against tatting up their fingers. In the case of tattoos, I am assuming some people are going to argue about the permanence of the tattoo, but I think that marriage is designed to be permanent and that if you're worried about an irrelevant tattoo remaining on your finger after your divorce--don't get married. Anyway, I formed this opinion just yesterday and I am really interested to hear what people have to say about it!

t3_1egtnn

I think Atheism is a narrow-minded and arrogant ideology. CMV

I just think that it's arrogant of us to say that we KNOW something doesn't exist because of proof that we've come up with on out own. I am not a devout believer in a God, and i do believe that science has many great explanations, however, i think it's narrow minded to think that things cant exist outside of the established rules of science, and arrogant to tink we, as a race have it all figured out. Bear in mind that i've come across two "types" of athiest: * those who dont believe in a god. * those who believe there are/is no god(s) The latter is what i'm talking about in this CMV as i don't agree the former is even considered atheism. Edit Im sorry i have to leave work now, i should've waited to post this when i got home but i will get back to you EDIT 2: great discussion guys, thanks EDIT 3: view changed because of me generalizing the word atheist.

I think Atheism is a narrow-minded and arrogant ideology. CMV. I just think that it's arrogant of us to say that we KNOW something doesn't exist because of proof that we've come up with on out own. I am not a devout believer in a God, and i do believe that science has many great explanations, however, i think it's narrow minded to think that things cant exist outside of the established rules of science, and arrogant to tink we, as a race have it all figured out. Bear in mind that i've come across two "types" of athiest: * those who dont believe in a god. * those who believe there are/is no god(s) The latter is what i'm talking about in this CMV as i don't agree the former is even considered atheism. Edit Im sorry i have to leave work now, i should've waited to post this when i got home but i will get back to you EDIT 2: great discussion guys, thanks EDIT 3: view changed because of me generalizing the word atheist.

t3_5musyf

CMV: It should take multiple reddit downvotes to get a score below zero

Whilst officially the downvote button is not a disagree button, too many people use it as such, and this helps produce an echo-chamber which discourages and punishes minority perspectives. I am in favour of making it requiring multiple downvotes for each point below zero. And since upvotes will be worth 1 point each, a sizable minority can keep it positive. The precise ratio should be set by each sub's moderator depending how tolerant they are of dissenting views. For example, a rape-survivors sub could keep a 1:1 ratio, but a heated debate sub like CMV should have a 1:10 ratio. I think for most subs, a 1:3 ratio would be best, as a view supported by a third of a community should not downvoted into oblivion. I do not see a hard limit at zero to be an alternative, as downvotes still have a place to punish spam and trolling. \*edit\* I'm talking about comments and not posts, as posts are already capped at zero. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It should take multiple reddit downvotes to get a score below zero. Whilst officially the downvote button is not a disagree button, too many people use it as such, and this helps produce an echo-chamber which discourages and punishes minority perspectives. I am in favour of making it requiring multiple downvotes for each point below zero. And since upvotes will be worth 1 point each, a sizable minority can keep it positive. The precise ratio should be set by each sub's moderator depending how tolerant they are of dissenting views. For example, a rape-survivors sub could keep a 1:1 ratio, but a heated debate sub like CMV should have a 1:10 ratio. I think for most subs, a 1:3 ratio would be best, as a view supported by a third of a community should not downvoted into oblivion. I do not see a hard limit at zero to be an alternative, as downvotes still have a place to punish spam and trolling. \*edit\* I'm talking about comments and not posts, as posts are already capped at zero.

t3_354dl4

CMV: I spend quite a lot of money and time on gambling and see nothing wrong with this.

There is a heavy negative stigma around gambling which I think is mostly just a stigma and not based on the facts of what most gamblers are like and why they gamble. I'm a student who works part-time, earning about $170/week. Of this $170 I'll probably dedicate $50-70 of this towards gambling which of course, sometimes translates into losing this amount but most weeks I won't lose all of it. If I had to guess, on average I would lose maybe $20-30 a week. The reason why I think the stigma is not entirely deserved is because I believe (I don't have empirical statistics for this) the *vast* majority of gamblers are not problem gamblers and do so within their means. However, more importantly, the thing which non-gamblers seem to not understand, from my experience, is that we do so for entertainment purposes more so than as a stream of income. Most gamblers know that we're going to lose money in the long-run but just like with almost any enjoyable activity, you have to pay to partake in it. On any given Saturday night, I could choose to go with some friends to a bar and spend $30-50 on food and alcohol, have a good night, then go home. Or on the same night I could bring $30-50 with me to the casino which would most likely last a couple of hours or more and have a decent chance of not spending as much money as I would have if I went to the bar. Why is it that just because it was gambling that one is somehow worse than the other?

CMV: I spend quite a lot of money and time on gambling and see nothing wrong with this. There is a heavy negative stigma around gambling which I think is mostly just a stigma and not based on the facts of what most gamblers are like and why they gamble. I'm a student who works part-time, earning about $170/week. Of this $170 I'll probably dedicate $50-70 of this towards gambling which of course, sometimes translates into losing this amount but most weeks I won't lose all of it. If I had to guess, on average I would lose maybe $20-30 a week. The reason why I think the stigma is not entirely deserved is because I believe (I don't have empirical statistics for this) the *vast* majority of gamblers are not problem gamblers and do so within their means. However, more importantly, the thing which non-gamblers seem to not understand, from my experience, is that we do so for entertainment purposes more so than as a stream of income. Most gamblers know that we're going to lose money in the long-run but just like with almost any enjoyable activity, you have to pay to partake in it. On any given Saturday night, I could choose to go with some friends to a bar and spend $30-50 on food and alcohol, have a good night, then go home. Or on the same night I could bring $30-50 with me to the casino which would most likely last a couple of hours or more and have a decent chance of not spending as much money as I would have if I went to the bar. Why is it that just because it was gambling that one is somehow worse than the other?

t3_2dd9f4

CMV: Luck is more responsible for success than hard work.

I know popular thought says hard work = success. But my life has convinced me otherwise. In times when I've worked harder than ever, I've not been able to reach my goals. Yet in times when I cruised, I achieved things other people struggle to. I see people work so hard (equally hard) and what determines why one person achieves when another doesnt if not pure luck? Of course you do the prep work and maximize exposure to opportunities but beyond that I feel like its just pure circumstance and timing. _____ > *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: Luck is more responsible for success than hard work. I know popular thought says hard work = success. But my life has convinced me otherwise. In times when I've worked harder than ever, I've not been able to reach my goals. Yet in times when I cruised, I achieved things other people struggle to. I see people work so hard (equally hard) and what determines why one person achieves when another doesnt if not pure luck? Of course you do the prep work and maximize exposure to opportunities but beyond that I feel like its just pure circumstance and timing.

t3_4j7nei

CMV: Patriotism is pointless and potentially dangerous

A little context. I'm from Northern Ireland and for those that don't know, for the majority of the 20th Century we endured a period known as 'The Troubles'. To GROSSLY over simplify, this came down to a disagreement between nationalist catholics (not exclusively) and protestant unionists (again not exclusively) whether Northern Ireland should be part of the UK or as a United Ireland. I felt it was important to include that little explanation because in a lot of ways, this conflict was fueled by a sense of Patriotism from both sides, inherently clashing ideologies that led to decades of senseless violence, lost progress and a shitty political system that we're stuck with to this very day. This is the crux of my argument. When looking at the concept of being patriotic, for whatever country it may be, you are essentially pledging yourself to what I can only see to be arbitrary divisions. For example, many English people I know who consider themselves to be patriots love the identity of being British. And sure, that's fine, but the pros of being proud of a country are far outweighed by the cons. Patriotism causes arbitrary divisions between human beings for illogical reasons. It feels like it's fueled by reactionary emotions rather than cold hard logic. Worst of all is when this patriotism escalates to catastrophic levels. For example, fascism was built as an ultra nationalist ideology, and that didn't work particularly well. In Britain the monarchy is heavily tied to patriotism, but in the US, as far as I can see, patriotism has reached ludicrous levels of senselessness. This is by no means a jab at Americans in general, in fact, the few I know are perfectly charming people. What I don't understand is why they insist that the US is the greatest country in the world. By what stats do they back up this statement? What objective metric do they use? And even still, whatever metric they choose will have been influenced by the unintentional indoctrination drilled into many of the citizens the day they were born. During the Iraq War and in the aftermath of 9/11 this patriotism seemed to reach even greater heights. Team America parodied it perfectly with the theme song, "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" I've kind of went on a tangent, but I want to try and focus my argument. We are all born in our individual countries. We have no choice in what country we are born, and for many, being proud of your meaningless country is not only expected, but openly criticised when you don't. Why someone would pledge themselves to a country that they has no choice in being a part of is quite frankly, beyond me. Quick disclaimer, I know now every patriot is a jingoistic asshole. However, I do believe that there is no reason whatsoever to be a patriot for your country for no reason other than you were born there. I realises that i have used sweeping generalisations and I know there is exceptions to the rules, but these people undeniably exist. This sense of superiority over other countries, full of human beings with thoughts and feelings who are no different than a patriot's, is nothing more than a division of geographical birth places. I see no reason why any citizen should worship or pledge allegiance to their country. Apologies for lack of structure. Thanks in advance

CMV: Patriotism is pointless and potentially dangerous. A little context. I'm from Northern Ireland and for those that don't know, for the majority of the 20th Century we endured a period known as 'The Troubles'. To GROSSLY over simplify, this came down to a disagreement between nationalist catholics (not exclusively) and protestant unionists (again not exclusively) whether Northern Ireland should be part of the UK or as a United Ireland. I felt it was important to include that little explanation because in a lot of ways, this conflict was fueled by a sense of Patriotism from both sides, inherently clashing ideologies that led to decades of senseless violence, lost progress and a shitty political system that we're stuck with to this very day. This is the crux of my argument. When looking at the concept of being patriotic, for whatever country it may be, you are essentially pledging yourself to what I can only see to be arbitrary divisions. For example, many English people I know who consider themselves to be patriots love the identity of being British. And sure, that's fine, but the pros of being proud of a country are far outweighed by the cons. Patriotism causes arbitrary divisions between human beings for illogical reasons. It feels like it's fueled by reactionary emotions rather than cold hard logic. Worst of all is when this patriotism escalates to catastrophic levels. For example, fascism was built as an ultra nationalist ideology, and that didn't work particularly well. In Britain the monarchy is heavily tied to patriotism, but in the US, as far as I can see, patriotism has reached ludicrous levels of senselessness. This is by no means a jab at Americans in general, in fact, the few I know are perfectly charming people. What I don't understand is why they insist that the US is the greatest country in the world. By what stats do they back up this statement? What objective metric do they use? And even still, whatever metric they choose will have been influenced by the unintentional indoctrination drilled into many of the citizens the day they were born. During the Iraq War and in the aftermath of 9/11 this patriotism seemed to reach even greater heights. Team America parodied it perfectly with the theme song, "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" I've kind of went on a tangent, but I want to try and focus my argument. We are all born in our individual countries. We have no choice in what country we are born, and for many, being proud of your meaningless country is not only expected, but openly criticised when you don't. Why someone would pledge themselves to a country that they has no choice in being a part of is quite frankly, beyond me. Quick disclaimer, I know now every patriot is a jingoistic asshole. However, I do believe that there is no reason whatsoever to be a patriot for your country for no reason other than you were born there. I realises that i have used sweeping generalisations and I know there is exceptions to the rules, but these people undeniably exist. This sense of superiority over other countries, full of human beings with thoughts and feelings who are no different than a patriot's, is nothing more than a division of geographical birth places. I see no reason why any citizen should worship or pledge allegiance to their country. Apologies for lack of structure. Thanks in advance

t3_2eatf2

CMV there is nothing wrong with Voter ID laws

i apologize for formatting and grammar before i start. Voter ID laws are just common sense. in roughly one to two hours you can... go to your local RMV Apply to get an ID from the state (pretty much a drivers license just says ID on it in big red letters) and register to vote i did this the day i turned 18 as i lived in an area where public transportation is popular so i didn't need a license. they gave me a temporary paper ID and a week later boom i had my nice photo ID from the state. It seems absurd to me that we card people to get into over 18 or over 21 shows/concerts/clubs, when they buy cigarettes, when they buy booze, and countless other examples yet when it comes to voter id laws if you support them you are in favor of "oppressing minorities" It just makes sense to make sure the people who are voting are who they say they are.

CMV there is nothing wrong with Voter ID laws. i apologize for formatting and grammar before i start. Voter ID laws are just common sense. in roughly one to two hours you can... go to your local RMV Apply to get an ID from the state (pretty much a drivers license just says ID on it in big red letters) and register to vote i did this the day i turned 18 as i lived in an area where public transportation is popular so i didn't need a license. they gave me a temporary paper ID and a week later boom i had my nice photo ID from the state. It seems absurd to me that we card people to get into over 18 or over 21 shows/concerts/clubs, when they buy cigarettes, when they buy booze, and countless other examples yet when it comes to voter id laws if you support them you are in favor of "oppressing minorities" It just makes sense to make sure the people who are voting are who they say they are.

t3_1f9nmm

I think Fox News needs to STFU about the IRS thing. CMV.

This is one I came up with walking past my work cafeteria which always has Fox news on a giant TV. It's going to be a bit different, because I don't actually have a reason for thinking this. It seems like Fox might have a point this time. The problem is, *it doesn't matter*. After five years of constant manufactured outrage and attacking my values 24 hours a day, at this point, I can't even look at Megyn Kelly's face without getting angry. The fact that she might be right this time just annoys me. I suppose if I dig deeper, there are reasons for this emotional reaction. It looks like the IRS and possibly the Obama administration was wrong this time. I'd just rather hear about it from a more neutral source perhaps. Coming from Fox, it just sounds like they finally found something that would stick to the wall and now they're gloating about it. It's also seems like they're on this story along with Benghazi 24/7, compared to other news networks that cover other news as well. CMV.

I think Fox News needs to STFU about the IRS thing. CMV. This is one I came up with walking past my work cafeteria which always has Fox news on a giant TV. It's going to be a bit different, because I don't actually have a reason for thinking this. It seems like Fox might have a point this time. The problem is, *it doesn't matter*. After five years of constant manufactured outrage and attacking my values 24 hours a day, at this point, I can't even look at Megyn Kelly's face without getting angry. The fact that she might be right this time just annoys me. I suppose if I dig deeper, there are reasons for this emotional reaction. It looks like the IRS and possibly the Obama administration was wrong this time. I'd just rather hear about it from a more neutral source perhaps. Coming from Fox, it just sounds like they finally found something that would stick to the wall and now they're gloating about it. It's also seems like they're on this story along with Benghazi 24/7, compared to other news networks that cover other news as well. CMV.

t3_29fb1d

CMV: There shouldn't be a separate museum for African American history in the Smithsonian.

So, DC is adding a museum to the Smithsonian and it is the African American History and Culture Museum. Normally, I'm all for adding museums and making more available for the public to see and providing resources for people to learn, but I don't think this museum is a good idea in its current form. Here's why: 1. There is currently an American History Museum and African American history is and should be strongly present in that museum. African American history *is* American history. 2. If anything, they should be building a second American History museum and spreading the exhibits out so that everything is better incorporated and less segregated. Creating a separate museum seems divisive. Like saying, "Here's American (white people) history, if you want to learn about other people who live here, they have separate museums." 3. There are already a lot of museums. People who come to DC try to fit in as much as they can and the most popular museums are Natural History, Air and Space, and American History. People are probably going to pick only one history museum unless they're really into it. If the reason for the museum is to get more people to learn about black history and culture, it seems like it would be a better move to have that history spread out and incorporated into American History parts 1 and 2 (possibly based on time periods). I understand if people may be unhappy that there isn't enough in the American History Museum about minorities or women, but the way to solve that isn't to create a separate museum. Creating a separate museum just intensifies feelings of separateness. So, I really want to believe the new museum will do more good than not, but it honestly seems like a bad idea to me. 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: There shouldn't be a separate museum for African American history in the Smithsonian. So, DC is adding a museum to the Smithsonian and it is the African American History and Culture Museum. Normally, I'm all for adding museums and making more available for the public to see and providing resources for people to learn, but I don't think this museum is a good idea in its current form. Here's why: 1. There is currently an American History Museum and African American history is and should be strongly present in that museum. African American history *is* American history. 2. If anything, they should be building a second American History museum and spreading the exhibits out so that everything is better incorporated and less segregated. Creating a separate museum seems divisive. Like saying, "Here's American (white people) history, if you want to learn about other people who live here, they have separate museums." 3. There are already a lot of museums. People who come to DC try to fit in as much as they can and the most popular museums are Natural History, Air and Space, and American History. People are probably going to pick only one history museum unless they're really into it. If the reason for the museum is to get more people to learn about black history and culture, it seems like it would be a better move to have that history spread out and incorporated into American History parts 1 and 2 (possibly based on time periods). I understand if people may be unhappy that there isn't enough in the American History Museum about minorities or women, but the way to solve that isn't to create a separate museum. Creating a separate museum just intensifies feelings of separateness. So, I really want to believe the new museum will do more good than not, but it honestly seems like a bad idea to me. CMV.

t3_1w205y

I think that Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US, CMV

That is not to say it will be easy, but it rarely is when a person is well known, or has kept their name in the public eye for a significant time. Also working against him is the nature of the crimes dealing with Classified Information, however both of these has been dealt with in our history, to say that it is "impossible" to have a fair trial is an insult to our judicial system and any potential juror. Legally speaking, I see no reason he cannot get a speedy trial, it would likely be public, but there is a concern because of the nature of the information. I think that we proved during the Manning trial that it is possible to try a case with National Security implications. As to impartiality, I have never believed that breadth of coverage HAS to effect the jury, that is up to people, and their willingness to make a final judgement on a preponderance of the facts presented in the case. CMV

I think that Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US, CMV. That is not to say it will be easy, but it rarely is when a person is well known, or has kept their name in the public eye for a significant time. Also working against him is the nature of the crimes dealing with Classified Information, however both of these has been dealt with in our history, to say that it is "impossible" to have a fair trial is an insult to our judicial system and any potential juror. Legally speaking, I see no reason he cannot get a speedy trial, it would likely be public, but there is a concern because of the nature of the information. I think that we proved during the Manning trial that it is possible to try a case with National Security implications. As to impartiality, I have never believed that breadth of coverage HAS to effect the jury, that is up to people, and their willingness to make a final judgement on a preponderance of the facts presented in the case. CMV

t3_308z2z

CMV: Nobody truly deserves to be (very) rich.

Now, I should preface this with saying that I don't believe that everybody should earn exactly the same. I just don't think anybody deserves to be, say, a multimillionaire. The reasons for this are as follows: People often put several reasons forward for someone being deserving of their wealth. 1. The most common I hear is that they've worked hard for it. But have they? Certainly, a lot of self-made millionaires have worked hard. But I think you would be hard pressed to show that any of those wealthy people have worked much harder than someone on minimum wage. There are plenty of people in low-income jobs that work their asses off, but still only earn a fraction of what wealthy people earn. And even if you could show that wealthy people worked harder, then their wealth should be proportional to the amount they have worked more than someone earning less. This is clearly not the case. 2. The second reason, is that they have talent, and should be rewarded for that. But, as talent, by definition, is something you have due to luck (i.e genes, environment etc.), you do not truly deserve being rewarded for it. It is basically dumb luck that you were born in your exact body, or with parents good enough to nurture your talents. If you object to talent being completely due to luck, but rather hard work, see my previous point. 3. The third, which is linked to the second, is that a person had a great idea, and should be rewarded for it. But can you truly say about anyone that their idea came to them in a vacuum? Did they not benefit greatly from school, parents, genes, economy or any other societal factor that would make their accomplishment less due their own genius/inventiveness/whatever? Because of these arguments I don't believe that anyone truly deserves wealth, and we should remember that when someone argues for tax cuts for the wealthy, because «they worked hard for that money». Now, I'm very open to the fact that I might have overlooked some good reasons for why people deserve to be rich, so that's why I'm posting it here. EDIT: Thank you for all of your replies, it has been an interesting debate like I hoped it would be. I haven't had time to answer every counter-argument, but I've read most of them. Definitely interesting. _____ > *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: Nobody truly deserves to be (very) rich. Now, I should preface this with saying that I don't believe that everybody should earn exactly the same. I just don't think anybody deserves to be, say, a multimillionaire. The reasons for this are as follows: People often put several reasons forward for someone being deserving of their wealth. 1. The most common I hear is that they've worked hard for it. But have they? Certainly, a lot of self-made millionaires have worked hard. But I think you would be hard pressed to show that any of those wealthy people have worked much harder than someone on minimum wage. There are plenty of people in low-income jobs that work their asses off, but still only earn a fraction of what wealthy people earn. And even if you could show that wealthy people worked harder, then their wealth should be proportional to the amount they have worked more than someone earning less. This is clearly not the case. 2. The second reason, is that they have talent, and should be rewarded for that. But, as talent, by definition, is something you have due to luck (i.e genes, environment etc.), you do not truly deserve being rewarded for it. It is basically dumb luck that you were born in your exact body, or with parents good enough to nurture your talents. If you object to talent being completely due to luck, but rather hard work, see my previous point. 3. The third, which is linked to the second, is that a person had a great idea, and should be rewarded for it. But can you truly say about anyone that their idea came to them in a vacuum? Did they not benefit greatly from school, parents, genes, economy or any other societal factor that would make their accomplishment less due their own genius/inventiveness/whatever? Because of these arguments I don't believe that anyone truly deserves wealth, and we should remember that when someone argues for tax cuts for the wealthy, because «they worked hard for that money». Now, I'm very open to the fact that I might have overlooked some good reasons for why people deserve to be rich, so that's why I'm posting it here. EDIT: Thank you for all of your replies, it has been an interesting debate like I hoped it would be. I haven't had time to answer every counter-argument, but I've read most of them. Definitely interesting.

t3_5bfi4d

CMV: internet pornography is mostly harmless to society

I see quite often criticism of the impact of porn, especially internet porn, on society. I think these criticisms are excessive. They usually come in 2 categories : - the first criticism is the degradation of the image of women in porn, that degrades the image of women in general, and might lead to abuse. I certainly agree that porn gives a very degraded image of women, depicted usually as mere objects for the enjoyment of men. But I am not sure that this has social consequences. After all the situation of women in society today is much better than before the rise of pornography. Violence, and sexual abuse of women, is much more considered than it used to be. It is of course not ideal, but it is hard to find evidence that pornography lead to a degradation of the status of women in society. the second argument is the argument of addiction : the rise of internet pornography leads many people (mostly men) to become addicted to porn, and so become less socially functionnal. Porn addiction is a thing, but any addiction is bad. And porn addiction seems like a very benigne form of addiction. It does not cost you a lot of money, it is not harmfull to your health, like alcohol or gambling for example. I would not say that pornography is good for society, though there are some possibilities (some consider it reduces rape and sexual agressions). But on the whole the criticism of the impact on porn for society seem to me very excessive. Am I missing something? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: internet pornography is mostly harmless to society. I see quite often criticism of the impact of porn, especially internet porn, on society. I think these criticisms are excessive. They usually come in 2 categories : - the first criticism is the degradation of the image of women in porn, that degrades the image of women in general, and might lead to abuse. I certainly agree that porn gives a very degraded image of women, depicted usually as mere objects for the enjoyment of men. But I am not sure that this has social consequences. After all the situation of women in society today is much better than before the rise of pornography. Violence, and sexual abuse of women, is much more considered than it used to be. It is of course not ideal, but it is hard to find evidence that pornography lead to a degradation of the status of women in society. the second argument is the argument of addiction : the rise of internet pornography leads many people (mostly men) to become addicted to porn, and so become less socially functionnal. Porn addiction is a thing, but any addiction is bad. And porn addiction seems like a very benigne form of addiction. It does not cost you a lot of money, it is not harmfull to your health, like alcohol or gambling for example. I would not say that pornography is good for society, though there are some possibilities (some consider it reduces rape and sexual agressions). But on the whole the criticism of the impact on porn for society seem to me very excessive. Am I missing something?

t3_27d22y

CMV: The feminist movement is detrimental to men with low self esteem and recent trend of #YesAllWomen only further hampers it.

Men such as I, don't have half the balls to make a pass at a woman, let alone the balls to ask a woman on a date. All the things SJWs and /r/twoxchrmosomes talk about is something that most men don't do. It's massively a stereotype. Anecdotal evidence is not a clear indicator of "oppression" that's blown out of proportion. In many cases, men don't even get half a chance. For example, Women claim equal rights, but don't even pursue a man because social norms claim they are to be pursued. #YesAllWomen only rides on the coattails of the Santa Barbara shooting,and has zero to do with feminism.

CMV: The feminist movement is detrimental to men with low self esteem and recent trend of #YesAllWomen only further hampers it. Men such as I, don't have half the balls to make a pass at a woman, let alone the balls to ask a woman on a date. All the things SJWs and /r/twoxchrmosomes talk about is something that most men don't do. It's massively a stereotype. Anecdotal evidence is not a clear indicator of "oppression" that's blown out of proportion. In many cases, men don't even get half a chance. For example, Women claim equal rights, but don't even pursue a man because social norms claim they are to be pursued. #YesAllWomen only rides on the coattails of the Santa Barbara shooting,and has zero to do with feminism.

t3_3igfxf

CMV: External validation matters a lot.

The idea that the only one you have to please is yourself is not conducive to real word results. I could think I'm really attractive but get no dates. I could think I'm really likeable but have no friends. I could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money. And it would all be pointless. Do you have to please everybody? No. Howard Stern has 10 million people who hate him but also 10 million people who like him, and that's why he's successful. Yes I can have internal value but I'd just be in a solipsistic bubble of nothingness convincing myself otherwise.

CMV: External validation matters a lot. The idea that the only one you have to please is yourself is not conducive to real word results. I could think I'm really attractive but get no dates. I could think I'm really likeable but have no friends. I could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money. And it would all be pointless. Do you have to please everybody? No. Howard Stern has 10 million people who hate him but also 10 million people who like him, and that's why he's successful. Yes I can have internal value but I'd just be in a solipsistic bubble of nothingness convincing myself otherwise.

t3_1g8dms

I think that the "classics" tend to be over-praised. CMV

By "classics" I mean books, art, and other entertainment that is more than about fifty years old and remains relevant. It seems like, once a piece of entertainment persists for a certain amount of time, it becomes perfect--whenever anybody criticizes it, a legion of loyal fans rush to defend it. Any flaw is either imagined or excused by saying "It doesn't matter, because of x and y (usually having to do with the time or situation in which it was created)." A good example of this is Lord of the Rings--in my experience, a lot of people hold it up as being one of the greatest fantasy novels of all time. Tolkien did an amazing job worldbuilding, certainly, but his focus on the world means that other parts suffer. He drags the reader through slow scenes that don't move the plot forward, then recounts battles and other action-focused sections of his books as if he is writing a history--in other words, he essentially tells the reader what is going on, then brushes past them. I'm not saying that LotR is terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it is put on a pedestal that it doesn't entirely deserve when compared to other fantasy books. The works of Charles Dickens are another quick example: The man was paid by the word, and it shows. His books are good, with some excellent bits and a lot of padding. I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is this: Classics, in the arts, are not perfect, but people often insist on treating them as if they are. I think that they should be respected for their place in history but given more realistic portrayals when compared to more current works. The work of a child prodigy is considered impressive for what it is, but it does not instantly become great art unless it is comparable to the best work by adults. Its flaws can be explained by saying "A child did it," but they cannot be excused by it. I see old things the same way. They are impressive and deserving of respect, but not flawless, and the flaws cannot be excused by saying "Someone did it a long time ago." CMV.

I think that the "classics" tend to be over-praised. CMV. By "classics" I mean books, art, and other entertainment that is more than about fifty years old and remains relevant. It seems like, once a piece of entertainment persists for a certain amount of time, it becomes perfect--whenever anybody criticizes it, a legion of loyal fans rush to defend it. Any flaw is either imagined or excused by saying "It doesn't matter, because of x and y (usually having to do with the time or situation in which it was created)." A good example of this is Lord of the Rings--in my experience, a lot of people hold it up as being one of the greatest fantasy novels of all time. Tolkien did an amazing job worldbuilding, certainly, but his focus on the world means that other parts suffer. He drags the reader through slow scenes that don't move the plot forward, then recounts battles and other action-focused sections of his books as if he is writing a history--in other words, he essentially tells the reader what is going on, then brushes past them. I'm not saying that LotR is terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it is put on a pedestal that it doesn't entirely deserve when compared to other fantasy books. The works of Charles Dickens are another quick example: The man was paid by the word, and it shows. His books are good, with some excellent bits and a lot of padding. I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is this: Classics, in the arts, are not perfect, but people often insist on treating them as if they are. I think that they should be respected for their place in history but given more realistic portrayals when compared to more current works. The work of a child prodigy is considered impressive for what it is, but it does not instantly become great art unless it is comparable to the best work by adults. Its flaws can be explained by saying "A child did it," but they cannot be excused by it. I see old things the same way. They are impressive and deserving of respect, but not flawless, and the flaws cannot be excused by saying "Someone did it a long time ago." CMV.

t3_1kv8w1

I believe high schools are mostly bullshit. CMV!

[Non native English speaker. Don't hate] I believe high schools are mostly bullshit. I believe, after proper diagnosis and compatibility to higher education, or professional education adaptability some kids aged 14-18 are way better off starting professional school learning desired skills like welding, woodcrafting, masonry, roofing, nursing, cooking, sailing, kindergarten teaching, plumping, electricity, car repair and up to engineering. Not everyone needs a college degree, a high school diploma is absolutely worthless in the market and I know how some kids suffer just sitting in class all day doing nothing, and the market is overflown as it is for plenty of areas. CMV!

I believe high schools are mostly bullshit. CMV!. [Non native English speaker. Don't hate] I believe high schools are mostly bullshit. I believe, after proper diagnosis and compatibility to higher education, or professional education adaptability some kids aged 14-18 are way better off starting professional school learning desired skills like welding, woodcrafting, masonry, roofing, nursing, cooking, sailing, kindergarten teaching, plumping, electricity, car repair and up to engineering. Not everyone needs a college degree, a high school diploma is absolutely worthless in the market and I know how some kids suffer just sitting in class all day doing nothing, and the market is overflown as it is for plenty of areas. CMV!

t3_3v27p4

CMV: Abortion should be an option able to be chosen by the father.

This idea stems a bit from a thread I was reading earlier about fatherless, or single mom homes. My view currently is that the mother has 100% legal control over whether to abort or give birth to their child, while the father has no legal control. If this is incorrect please let say so, but as far as I know, the father cannot force an abortion or birth to an unwilling pregnant woman. My idea is to set whether an abortion or birth is legal as a square chart of whether the couple agrees on the choice. For example, if both want to have the baby, birth; either one says no, abortion; both say no, abortion. Why should this change be made? It seems that one of the main causes of fatherless homes is the idea that growing up without a father is normal to a lot of these young women/men who are then more likely to perpetuate the cycle. If a father is going to be absent from their child's life, and wanted an abortion at the time of pregnancy, the abortion should be an option he has a legal choice to. The child support seems unfair in this case where if the mother doesn't want to pay to support a child she can get an abortion. The father is forced to pay based on the mother's choice only. My argument for why this is beneficial to society is because a child born to an absent parent is less likely to suceed, have worse life quality, and the sole parent has the financial stress of raising a child (which may be overstated as it can be placed on the father as well through child support payments). These kids are also more likely to commit crimes, and the single parent is more likely to use government assistance, which has a negative impact on the economy (which I know is not incredibly large of a burden on the budget, but it would clear funds for education or other uses). There can be exceptions where a person legally signs to be the 2nd parent of the child, and then the mother has to give birth. For example, father wants to have child, and he has his girlfriend/boyfriend/relative, etc. sign as parent, mother has to give birth to child. These are my initial thoughts on the matter. Change my view! Edit: This is the simple version of whether the child is born or not. The accurate one takes into account whether a 2nd person is willing to serve as a parent to that child, and in that case the baby will be born. For context, yes means the baby is born, no means abortion. || Dad | | ---|---|---|---- | | **Yes** | **No** **Mom**|**Yes** | Yes | No |**No**| No | No Edit 2: I've come to the conclusion that the emotional turmoil to the mother being subjected to an unwanted medical procedure should she not be able to find a 2nd parent for the child is probably worse than any benefit to come from this. Let's keep the discussion going though.

CMV: Abortion should be an option able to be chosen by the father. This idea stems a bit from a thread I was reading earlier about fatherless, or single mom homes. My view currently is that the mother has 100% legal control over whether to abort or give birth to their child, while the father has no legal control. If this is incorrect please let say so, but as far as I know, the father cannot force an abortion or birth to an unwilling pregnant woman. My idea is to set whether an abortion or birth is legal as a square chart of whether the couple agrees on the choice. For example, if both want to have the baby, birth; either one says no, abortion; both say no, abortion. Why should this change be made? It seems that one of the main causes of fatherless homes is the idea that growing up without a father is normal to a lot of these young women/men who are then more likely to perpetuate the cycle. If a father is going to be absent from their child's life, and wanted an abortion at the time of pregnancy, the abortion should be an option he has a legal choice to. The child support seems unfair in this case where if the mother doesn't want to pay to support a child she can get an abortion. The father is forced to pay based on the mother's choice only. My argument for why this is beneficial to society is because a child born to an absent parent is less likely to suceed, have worse life quality, and the sole parent has the financial stress of raising a child (which may be overstated as it can be placed on the father as well through child support payments). These kids are also more likely to commit crimes, and the single parent is more likely to use government assistance, which has a negative impact on the economy (which I know is not incredibly large of a burden on the budget, but it would clear funds for education or other uses). There can be exceptions where a person legally signs to be the 2nd parent of the child, and then the mother has to give birth. For example, father wants to have child, and he has his girlfriend/boyfriend/relative, etc. sign as parent, mother has to give birth to child. These are my initial thoughts on the matter. Change my view! Edit: This is the simple version of whether the child is born or not. The accurate one takes into account whether a 2nd person is willing to serve as a parent to that child, and in that case the baby will be born. For context, yes means the baby is born, no means abortion. || Dad | | ---|---|---|---- | | **Yes** | **No** **Mom**|**Yes** | Yes | No |**No**| No | No Edit 2: I've come to the conclusion that the emotional turmoil to the mother being subjected to an unwanted medical procedure should she not be able to find a 2nd parent for the child is probably worse than any benefit to come from this. Let's keep the discussion going though.

t3_3m54q5

CMV: Now (or soon) is the time to buy a VW or Audi

With the world losing their minds about the scandal and stock prices plummeting by an incredible amount in a very short period of time, now would be the time to make a KILLER deal on a car, no? NPR reported that the dealerships were pretty quiet. Enough perhaps that they would bend over backwards for anyone who dared step on the lot. You just *know* there are hungry salesmen, and the company will likely be in a position to make great promotions or at least be open to significant negotiation, just to get some capital. This isn't going to blow over very quickly, so sitting on the product seems unlikely.... As far as maintenance and repair, I doubt they are going to fold, but their reputation will take a hell of a hit. Any thoughts?

CMV: Now (or soon) is the time to buy a VW or Audi. With the world losing their minds about the scandal and stock prices plummeting by an incredible amount in a very short period of time, now would be the time to make a KILLER deal on a car, no? NPR reported that the dealerships were pretty quiet. Enough perhaps that they would bend over backwards for anyone who dared step on the lot. You just *know* there are hungry salesmen, and the company will likely be in a position to make great promotions or at least be open to significant negotiation, just to get some capital. This isn't going to blow over very quickly, so sitting on the product seems unlikely.... As far as maintenance and repair, I doubt they are going to fold, but their reputation will take a hell of a hit. Any thoughts?

t3_4re5gw

CMV: Darius is a better League champion than Garen.

The two champs have similar movesets, but Darius' kit outclasses the lesser Garen's. Darius' far outclasses Garen's Judgment in that it scales its lifesteal proportional to how many champs it's hitting, while Garen's Judgment doesn't increase his durability at all. Darius' W is an amazing lasthitting mechanism which has a shorter CD at level 3 on, and while Garen's does more damage, it doesn't slow the target at all, which leads into Darius' third superior skill, Apprehend. Garen's only gapclosing skill is his strike, but it can only affect one hero and doesn't synergize with any of his other abilities. Darius' E comboes beautifully with his Decimate and additionally grants permanent armor pen per level. Lastly, Darius' ult is better than Garen's in that it synergizes better with his W and Q, while Garen's is dependent, fundamentally, on your opponent having a recent kill in order to deal that precious True damage which Darius' has automatically. Moreover, Garen's ult doesn't reset its CD upon killing someone with it. I really want a reason to play Garen more often since I own both champs, but for now I'm building up to Mastery 6 with Darius since he seems so much better than his Demacian counterpart. Convince me why the Might of Demacia is worth summoning. _____ > *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: Darius is a better League champion than Garen. The two champs have similar movesets, but Darius' kit outclasses the lesser Garen's. Darius' far outclasses Garen's Judgment in that it scales its lifesteal proportional to how many champs it's hitting, while Garen's Judgment doesn't increase his durability at all. Darius' W is an amazing lasthitting mechanism which has a shorter CD at level 3 on, and while Garen's does more damage, it doesn't slow the target at all, which leads into Darius' third superior skill, Apprehend. Garen's only gapclosing skill is his strike, but it can only affect one hero and doesn't synergize with any of his other abilities. Darius' E comboes beautifully with his Decimate and additionally grants permanent armor pen per level. Lastly, Darius' ult is better than Garen's in that it synergizes better with his W and Q, while Garen's is dependent, fundamentally, on your opponent having a recent kill in order to deal that precious True damage which Darius' has automatically. Moreover, Garen's ult doesn't reset its CD upon killing someone with it. I really want a reason to play Garen more often since I own both champs, but for now I'm building up to Mastery 6 with Darius since he seems so much better than his Demacian counterpart. Convince me why the Might of Demacia is worth summoning.

t3_1oe3bn

I believe that freedom is more important than efficiency. CMV

It appears to me that many argue politics based upon what "works." ie: "History shows that ______ works/doesn't work, so let's do/not do that." I don't care if it works if I've had to lose great freedoms along the way. I concede that, in this world where inter-dependency has now become ingrained, some degree of freedom will be sacrificed for the sake of greater safety for all (though it is against my fundamental beliefs). Not that this is anything new (show me something that is), but having now worked behind a razor-wire gate with incarcerated juveniles for over a year, I've grown to detest any restriction of my freedom. I've also grown to understand more thoroughly the comparison of being a citizen under Big Gov and being an inmate. Convince me that I should embrace a system for the fact that it supposedly works, as opposed to rejecting it because it robs me of my freedom. PS: Please define "works" as well [if you don't mind].

I believe that freedom is more important than efficiency. CMV. It appears to me that many argue politics based upon what "works." ie: "History shows that ______ works/doesn't work, so let's do/not do that." I don't care if it works if I've had to lose great freedoms along the way. I concede that, in this world where inter-dependency has now become ingrained, some degree of freedom will be sacrificed for the sake of greater safety for all (though it is against my fundamental beliefs). Not that this is anything new (show me something that is), but having now worked behind a razor-wire gate with incarcerated juveniles for over a year, I've grown to detest any restriction of my freedom. I've also grown to understand more thoroughly the comparison of being a citizen under Big Gov and being an inmate. Convince me that I should embrace a system for the fact that it supposedly works, as opposed to rejecting it because it robs me of my freedom. PS: Please define "works" as well [if you don't mind].

t3_27x5va

CMV: I think that the natural purpose of sex is not to have babies.

I understand that this sounds a little outrageous, but please hear me out. In many species of animal, there is a mating season in which animals have extremely high levels of hormones. These hormones, as I understand it, make the organism want to mate with another organism of the same species. I think the same can be said of humans because, though we don't have a mating season, we still get hormonal fluctuations which are affected by sexual intercourse. Pleasure is just an additional way that evolution, for lack of a better term, coerces us into mating. So, in summary, I don't think animals mate with the intention of producing offspring, but rather to satisfy sexual desires caused by overactive hormones. Babies are simply a consequence of sex. It may, in fact, be unnatural to have sex with the intention of having a baby. Please understand that I could be wrong. I am not a biologist in any sense and am simply postulating, but I think what I wrote makes sense. CMV if you please.

CMV: I think that the natural purpose of sex is not to have babies. I understand that this sounds a little outrageous, but please hear me out. In many species of animal, there is a mating season in which animals have extremely high levels of hormones. These hormones, as I understand it, make the organism want to mate with another organism of the same species. I think the same can be said of humans because, though we don't have a mating season, we still get hormonal fluctuations which are affected by sexual intercourse. Pleasure is just an additional way that evolution, for lack of a better term, coerces us into mating. So, in summary, I don't think animals mate with the intention of producing offspring, but rather to satisfy sexual desires caused by overactive hormones. Babies are simply a consequence of sex. It may, in fact, be unnatural to have sex with the intention of having a baby. Please understand that I could be wrong. I am not a biologist in any sense and am simply postulating, but I think what I wrote makes sense. CMV if you please.

t3_18qnsk

I used to believe strongly in Freedom of Speech, TCMV, CMV back?

I used to believe strongly in Freedom of Speech. I believed that any infringement upon this freedom was fundamentally offensive to my American way of life. I especially defended hate speech, believing that this was the perfect example of why Freedom of Speech was so important. [TCMV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) Now my views on freedom of speech more closely parallel /r/communism's rule on [Bourgeois Free Speech](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wBqU5frsUaD6YrBSuwFjL-JLxzc3Fb75UvcCx0nsX9E/edit?pli=1). So give me your reasons for the sanctity of Free Speech to CMV!

I used to believe strongly in Freedom of Speech, TCMV, CMV back?. I used to believe strongly in Freedom of Speech. I believed that any infringement upon this freedom was fundamentally offensive to my American way of life. I especially defended hate speech, believing that this was the perfect example of why Freedom of Speech was so important. [TCMV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) Now my views on freedom of speech more closely parallel /r/communism's rule on [Bourgeois Free Speech](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wBqU5frsUaD6YrBSuwFjL-JLxzc3Fb75UvcCx0nsX9E/edit?pli=1). So give me your reasons for the sanctity of Free Speech to CMV!

t3_25hlfn

CMV:The minimum age for marriage should be raised to 25.

To keep it short, I think most of us can agree that at age 18, we are not considered emotionally or mentally developed enough to be called true adults nor have we developed into the person we will be for the rest of our lives. Neurological studies prove that the brain is not fully mature until the age of 25-29 years old, so the potential for a couple to marry at 18 being perfectly happy with each other as people could change by the time they are 30. By that time, their brains are now different, which means personality has changed and it is likely that they are no longer compatible. I believe that if the marriage age was raised, many divorces could be prevented. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708 Brain maturation source. EDIT:Well this has been interesting, but I think this has been fleshed out enough. I'll give deltas to the best debaters as I usually do.

CMV:The minimum age for marriage should be raised to 25. To keep it short, I think most of us can agree that at age 18, we are not considered emotionally or mentally developed enough to be called true adults nor have we developed into the person we will be for the rest of our lives. Neurological studies prove that the brain is not fully mature until the age of 25-29 years old, so the potential for a couple to marry at 18 being perfectly happy with each other as people could change by the time they are 30. By that time, their brains are now different, which means personality has changed and it is likely that they are no longer compatible. I believe that if the marriage age was raised, many divorces could be prevented. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708 Brain maturation source. EDIT:Well this has been interesting, but I think this has been fleshed out enough. I'll give deltas to the best debaters as I usually do.

t3_1wx5i9

Are is no difference between republican and democratic presidents CMV

Based on what I've learned of the last 16 years of US presidents, it seems to me that they operate fundamentally the same. Clinton, Bush and Obama has all been enacting similar policies with minor variations. Clinton and Obama have both been war mongers similar to Bush. During Clinton's time 500,000 children died in Iraq. He was blowing up hospitals and blocking charities from providing aid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo Obama has been ordering killings left and right. He has ordered the deaths of US citizens. Recently a family that was having a wedding in Yemen was accidentally massacred. Bush enacted a ton of social welfare too. He expanded medicaid and medicare. He also provided a lot of support for Africa. All 3 presidents enacted social welfare programs that lead to dire consequences for America's citizens. Clinton set the stage for the housing crises. His goal was to make homes accessible for all Americans, but unrealistic interest rates set the stage for the current recession. Bush started No Child Left Behind, which has just made our schools worse. Obama is working on his healthcare system which is causing people to lose coverage and unemployment is increasing. In order to have my Views changed, I'd need to see some fundamental differences between these presidents. It just seems like they are just expanding the government and continuing each other's policies.

Are is no difference between republican and democratic presidents CMV. Based on what I've learned of the last 16 years of US presidents, it seems to me that they operate fundamentally the same. Clinton, Bush and Obama has all been enacting similar policies with minor variations. Clinton and Obama have both been war mongers similar to Bush. During Clinton's time 500,000 children died in Iraq. He was blowing up hospitals and blocking charities from providing aid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo Obama has been ordering killings left and right. He has ordered the deaths of US citizens. Recently a family that was having a wedding in Yemen was accidentally massacred. Bush enacted a ton of social welfare too. He expanded medicaid and medicare. He also provided a lot of support for Africa. All 3 presidents enacted social welfare programs that lead to dire consequences for America's citizens. Clinton set the stage for the housing crises. His goal was to make homes accessible for all Americans, but unrealistic interest rates set the stage for the current recession. Bush started No Child Left Behind, which has just made our schools worse. Obama is working on his healthcare system which is causing people to lose coverage and unemployment is increasing. In order to have my Views changed, I'd need to see some fundamental differences between these presidents. It just seems like they are just expanding the government and continuing each other's policies.

t3_2wyyoy

CMV: If it were somehow possible to travel back in time and assassinate Hitler prior to his rise to power, I would oppose such an action.

Basically the whole butterfly effect. Hitler ultimately failed. The world is not currently a few decades into the Third Reich. The Jewish people are not exterminated. As successful as he was, and as horrible as he was, some ill-advised decisions ultimately doomed him and the Nazi party. The Weimar Republic was a complete mess. Hyperinflation, unemployment, and extremists on both the left and right eager to take advantage of a dejected German people. Who is to say that someone equally extreme wouldn't have filled that power vacuum and not make Hitler's mistakes? The risk of killing him seems too great. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If it were somehow possible to travel back in time and assassinate Hitler prior to his rise to power, I would oppose such an action. Basically the whole butterfly effect. Hitler ultimately failed. The world is not currently a few decades into the Third Reich. The Jewish people are not exterminated. As successful as he was, and as horrible as he was, some ill-advised decisions ultimately doomed him and the Nazi party. The Weimar Republic was a complete mess. Hyperinflation, unemployment, and extremists on both the left and right eager to take advantage of a dejected German people. Who is to say that someone equally extreme wouldn't have filled that power vacuum and not make Hitler's mistakes? The risk of killing him seems too great. CMV.

t3_1i3kjr

I think 'Objectives' on resumés are pointless, CMV

Edit: that should be *résumés* in the title. Clearly I'm not getting the job ;_; --- To clarify, I'm talking about from the empoyer's point of view, not from the job seeker's point of view. A job seeker should tailor his or her resume to each job opening they apply to, and if they know that a certain employer expects an objective field they should definitely add one. I'm arguing, however, that employers should not expect or require one and that it serves no purpose to them in evaluating a candidate. I am on my company's interview team and I do interviews a few times a week, both phone interviews and on-site interviews. The inclusion of the objective field has not seemed to correlate with the quality of the candidate, and what they said in that field has never made me want to hire or not hire someone. The resume, to me, tells me roughly how much experience they have and what kinds of projects they've worked on, both professionally and personally, and what skills they claim to have, as well as what kind of schooling they had. The objective field seems superfluous to me. The objective is "get a job at your company" no matter how it's dressed up as far as I'm concerned. Finding out if they're qualified for that job is what the other stages of the interview are for. It seems pointless to include. CMV!

I think 'Objectives' on resumés are pointless, CMV. Edit: that should be *résumés* in the title. Clearly I'm not getting the job ;_; --- To clarify, I'm talking about from the empoyer's point of view, not from the job seeker's point of view. A job seeker should tailor his or her resume to each job opening they apply to, and if they know that a certain employer expects an objective field they should definitely add one. I'm arguing, however, that employers should not expect or require one and that it serves no purpose to them in evaluating a candidate. I am on my company's interview team and I do interviews a few times a week, both phone interviews and on-site interviews. The inclusion of the objective field has not seemed to correlate with the quality of the candidate, and what they said in that field has never made me want to hire or not hire someone. The resume, to me, tells me roughly how much experience they have and what kinds of projects they've worked on, both professionally and personally, and what skills they claim to have, as well as what kind of schooling they had. The objective field seems superfluous to me. The objective is "get a job at your company" no matter how it's dressed up as far as I'm concerned. Finding out if they're qualified for that job is what the other stages of the interview are for. It seems pointless to include. CMV!

t3_6spfxs

CMV: The FaceApp "ethnicity" filters weren't racist

I'm really struggling to understand the blowback on this one. What is wrong with an app with a simple gimmick that lets you see how somebody would look if they were a different race? Why does this cross the line when a young/old filter or a male/female filter doesn't? I understand that America has a history of blackface, but the context of this is entirely different. The definition of racism is: "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another." That was infused in historical blackface, but it's not at all implied in this app. Article for context if you're not aware of what happened: https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/09/faceapps-ill-advised-new-update-adds-ethnicity-filters/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/09/faceapp-sparks-racist-backlash-black-white-asian-filters/ _____ > *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 FaceApp "ethnicity" filters weren't racist. I'm really struggling to understand the blowback on this one. What is wrong with an app with a simple gimmick that lets you see how somebody would look if they were a different race? Why does this cross the line when a young/old filter or a male/female filter doesn't? I understand that America has a history of blackface, but the context of this is entirely different. The definition of racism is: "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another." That was infused in historical blackface, but it's not at all implied in this app. Article for context if you're not aware of what happened: https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/09/faceapps-ill-advised-new-update-adds-ethnicity-filters/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/09/faceapp-sparks-racist-backlash-black-white-asian-filters/

t3_48w6tt

CMV: Voting in elections is useless

The odds of 1 vote changing the outcome of any large election is very low. But I am not making an argument merely on statistical basis. I don't agree with all of the policies of any given politician. There are too many issues and too less politicians that I get to vote for. There is no way any politician other than myself who truly represents me and will work for my interests. Besides, they analyze voters and misrepresent and lie about their intentions just to get votes all the time. But this is not my argument here. I will assume that there is a politician who truly and honestly represents me for the sake of the argument. Given opposition from other parties and other forces, what is the likelihood that the winning politician will get to implement whatever they promised? Maybe some of it, but this is also not my only argument here. I will assume that they will fulfill all their promises. So if they did everything they promised, it would barely affect me more than it affects everyone else. Which is to say unless their campaign promise was to make me (or a particular minority group I happen to belong to) very rich compared to everyone else (in which case MOST people would NOT vote for them), they would be almost equally good or almost equally bad to so many people, at the end of the day I would have no real advantage over anyone else. Even if I knew the politicians personally and trusted them to benefit my business in some tangible but covert way, I would still not vote because my vote would not count for statistical reasons and I would be much better off using the time to gather bulk votes by paying lobbyists who can get a lot of people to vote or advertising by any other means to vote for my guy... that is if the investment made economic sense to buy the number of votes I would need to buy. I read responses to earlier CMVs which discussed the same topic, and I want to address some of the top voted replies: > Assuming everyone reasons identically to you and acts on that reasoning then nobody would vote and the democracy would no longer function properly No shit Sherlock! If nobody voted, my vote would no longer be statistically insignificant, would it now? If nobody voted, I would run for office, vote for myself and win... or not because I don't want to spend time fixing shit for other people I don't give a shit about. The reality of the situation is most people apparently don't reason like I do. So, my position is absolutely logical, given the reality. >The place your vote literally matters is not in national elections, it's in state propositions and local elections Where tens of thousands of people vote, and my vote is still statistically insignificant and whatever they do after being elected would still not affect me less or more than if I voted. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Voting in elections is useless. The odds of 1 vote changing the outcome of any large election is very low. But I am not making an argument merely on statistical basis. I don't agree with all of the policies of any given politician. There are too many issues and too less politicians that I get to vote for. There is no way any politician other than myself who truly represents me and will work for my interests. Besides, they analyze voters and misrepresent and lie about their intentions just to get votes all the time. But this is not my argument here. I will assume that there is a politician who truly and honestly represents me for the sake of the argument. Given opposition from other parties and other forces, what is the likelihood that the winning politician will get to implement whatever they promised? Maybe some of it, but this is also not my only argument here. I will assume that they will fulfill all their promises. So if they did everything they promised, it would barely affect me more than it affects everyone else. Which is to say unless their campaign promise was to make me (or a particular minority group I happen to belong to) very rich compared to everyone else (in which case MOST people would NOT vote for them), they would be almost equally good or almost equally bad to so many people, at the end of the day I would have no real advantage over anyone else. Even if I knew the politicians personally and trusted them to benefit my business in some tangible but covert way, I would still not vote because my vote would not count for statistical reasons and I would be much better off using the time to gather bulk votes by paying lobbyists who can get a lot of people to vote or advertising by any other means to vote for my guy... that is if the investment made economic sense to buy the number of votes I would need to buy. I read responses to earlier CMVs which discussed the same topic, and I want to address some of the top voted replies: > Assuming everyone reasons identically to you and acts on that reasoning then nobody would vote and the democracy would no longer function properly No shit Sherlock! If nobody voted, my vote would no longer be statistically insignificant, would it now? If nobody voted, I would run for office, vote for myself and win... or not because I don't want to spend time fixing shit for other people I don't give a shit about. The reality of the situation is most people apparently don't reason like I do. So, my position is absolutely logical, given the reality. >The place your vote literally matters is not in national elections, it's in state propositions and local elections Where tens of thousands of people vote, and my vote is still statistically insignificant and whatever they do after being elected would still not affect me less or more than if I voted.

t3_1ev07y

I believe that history as an academic discipline is useless, CMV.

I've studied History up to a Masters level and I do not see the point of it. I do understand that it can provide key skills to those that study it, however, the topics that are researched are useless. Historians just talk to themselves. The conclusions of topics have very little bearing on the world and the million pound/dollar grants given to historical research could be better used elsewhere. What's the point of studying history? Happy to elaborate on anything needed. CMV!

I believe that history as an academic discipline is useless, CMV. I've studied History up to a Masters level and I do not see the point of it. I do understand that it can provide key skills to those that study it, however, the topics that are researched are useless. Historians just talk to themselves. The conclusions of topics have very little bearing on the world and the million pound/dollar grants given to historical research could be better used elsewhere. What's the point of studying history? Happy to elaborate on anything needed. CMV!

t3_214c7p

Tobacco should be reclassified as a schedule I drug and banned completely. CMV.

The definition of a schedule I drug: > Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. To me, this described tobacco more than just about any other substance on earth. People would complain loudly, and the tobacco industry would throw a fit, but there would be no long-term determent to society. In fact, all of humanity would benefit greatly from this ban, *especially tobacco users*, whose lives would be improved and lengthened. EDIT: I am not interested in hearing arguments against drug prohibition in general; That misses the point entirely. We're talking about tobacco here, and nothing else. EDIT2: Okay, guys ... Objecting to the concept of a schedule I drug is not what I'm looking for here. Had I said, "I think that we ought to create laws which establish levels of controls for substances ..." in 1969, you'd be right on the money. This is 2014, and we're talking about the scheduling of one substance here: tobacco. EDIT3: I'm actually falling into a state of intoxication where I'm worried about my ability to type, much less reason, so I won't be able to reply as I have been for many, many hours. Nonetheless, feel free to fire away with potentially view-changing comments, and I promise that I will reply some time tomorrow or perhaps Monday. I've enjoyed my discussions with all of you; Thanks for that. As I told /u/sillybonobo a few minutes ago, I *can* be a needless dick, so if you think I'm being a dick at any point, remember: A) You're probably right, and B) It's not personal. _____ > *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!*

Tobacco should be reclassified as a schedule I drug and banned completely. CMV. The definition of a schedule I drug: > Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. To me, this described tobacco more than just about any other substance on earth. People would complain loudly, and the tobacco industry would throw a fit, but there would be no long-term determent to society. In fact, all of humanity would benefit greatly from this ban, *especially tobacco users*, whose lives would be improved and lengthened. EDIT: I am not interested in hearing arguments against drug prohibition in general; That misses the point entirely. We're talking about tobacco here, and nothing else. EDIT2: Okay, guys ... Objecting to the concept of a schedule I drug is not what I'm looking for here. Had I said, "I think that we ought to create laws which establish levels of controls for substances ..." in 1969, you'd be right on the money. This is 2014, and we're talking about the scheduling of one substance here: tobacco. EDIT3: I'm actually falling into a state of intoxication where I'm worried about my ability to type, much less reason, so I won't be able to reply as I have been for many, many hours. Nonetheless, feel free to fire away with potentially view-changing comments, and I promise that I will reply some time tomorrow or perhaps Monday. I've enjoyed my discussions with all of you; Thanks for that. As I told /u/sillybonobo a few minutes ago, I *can* be a needless dick, so if you think I'm being a dick at any point, remember: A) You're probably right, and B) It's not personal.

t3_37b8mx

CMV: Our biggest fears about self aware robots are that they'll act exactly like us.

Over the past couple of thousand years human beings as a species have done a pretty crappy job of living up to the 3 laws we expect robots to abide by: * A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. * A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. * A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. The conventional trope about A.I is that as soon as robots become self aware they decide the most reasonable thing to do is wipe out all humans. We've seen this in movies like Terminator, Days of Future Past, I Robot, and the recent Age of Ultron. But it isn't just limited to science fiction. Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have both said that we should be very cautious about creating AI. That it could be "the last invention human kind ever develops." I think pragmatically it is always reasonable to proceed with caution. After all introducing foreign life to a new eco-system is something that rarely ever goes well for the existing creatures there, and as Toffler said in "The 3rd Wave" "the invention of a new technology always precipitates the need for a new war." With A.I it is reasonable that we practice caution and be concerned about what we're doing because we're developing both a new technology *and* introducing a new species to an existing ecosystem. So my view is **not that** we *shouldn't* be cautious. **My view is:** When you boil down what people are actually scared of when it comes to robots or AI, we're not scared of something *new* and *unknown* happening. Far from it. We're actually terrified of the same old same old. **IE** The robots will treat *all humans everywhere* the same way we (as a species) routinely treated *some humans in some places.* They won't want to co-exist but rather dominate. They won't borrow from us or adapt to us but destroy and replace us. We're scared of them acting like that because if we were them, that's exactly what we'd do. Maybe our fears are based on projection, we're just scared they'll do what we would do. Or maybe we know the next phase of evolution would be an arc that leans toward peace and we're scared that in order to learn that they'll have to wipe us out.

CMV: Our biggest fears about self aware robots are that they'll act exactly like us. Over the past couple of thousand years human beings as a species have done a pretty crappy job of living up to the 3 laws we expect robots to abide by: * A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. * A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. * A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. The conventional trope about A.I is that as soon as robots become self aware they decide the most reasonable thing to do is wipe out all humans. We've seen this in movies like Terminator, Days of Future Past, I Robot, and the recent Age of Ultron. But it isn't just limited to science fiction. Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have both said that we should be very cautious about creating AI. That it could be "the last invention human kind ever develops." I think pragmatically it is always reasonable to proceed with caution. After all introducing foreign life to a new eco-system is something that rarely ever goes well for the existing creatures there, and as Toffler said in "The 3rd Wave" "the invention of a new technology always precipitates the need for a new war." With A.I it is reasonable that we practice caution and be concerned about what we're doing because we're developing both a new technology *and* introducing a new species to an existing ecosystem. So my view is **not that** we *shouldn't* be cautious. **My view is:** When you boil down what people are actually scared of when it comes to robots or AI, we're not scared of something *new* and *unknown* happening. Far from it. We're actually terrified of the same old same old. **IE** The robots will treat *all humans everywhere* the same way we (as a species) routinely treated *some humans in some places.* They won't want to co-exist but rather dominate. They won't borrow from us or adapt to us but destroy and replace us. We're scared of them acting like that because if we were them, that's exactly what we'd do. Maybe our fears are based on projection, we're just scared they'll do what we would do. Or maybe we know the next phase of evolution would be an arc that leans toward peace and we're scared that in order to learn that they'll have to wipe us out.

t3_1g36ic

I believe capital punishment (or the death penalty) is a good thing.

I believe capital punishment is a good thing. For outstandingly horrible crimes such as multiple murder or child rape combined with murder the death penalty should be handed out. The only alternative which I accept is life long imprisonment. NO early release. A frequent counter argument is the possibility of sending an innocent person to death. Regarding this I think the re-offending rate of murder and rape are around 1%. So if for every 100 death penalty there is 1 innocent, I still think this is the preferable option as a society. The point here is that i think every victim of a re-offender counts the same value as an innocently convicted person. In fact, the number of victims of re-offenders is my central argument here. I personally knew somebody who was murdered by a re-offender. I think 1 innocently convicted person for every 2 re-offender victims is still good rate. CMV.

I believe capital punishment (or the death penalty) is a good thing. I believe capital punishment is a good thing. For outstandingly horrible crimes such as multiple murder or child rape combined with murder the death penalty should be handed out. The only alternative which I accept is life long imprisonment. NO early release. A frequent counter argument is the possibility of sending an innocent person to death. Regarding this I think the re-offending rate of murder and rape are around 1%. So if for every 100 death penalty there is 1 innocent, I still think this is the preferable option as a society. The point here is that i think every victim of a re-offender counts the same value as an innocently convicted person. In fact, the number of victims of re-offenders is my central argument here. I personally knew somebody who was murdered by a re-offender. I think 1 innocently convicted person for every 2 re-offender victims is still good rate. CMV.

t3_6wn7wj

CMV: There's no real point in 'reaching out' to Trump supporters

In the first paragraph, I'll explain what led me to this belief; in the second, I'll explain my reasoning and in the third, I'll explain what would change my mind so you can ignore any part you like. I'm European, not American. I'm also centre left and my views are pretty normal in my country (and most countries afaik). Given that there's been a rise in right wing extremism, I thought it might be good to try to understand why people might support it so I could change people's mind if it ever happened in my country. I also wanted to change minds because seeing the election of Trump did challenge my trust in democracy. (Why should people be allowed to vote if they're going to make such bad choices?) I've since looked at Republican media, Trump suporters and various polls to try to understand his support. I've also argued with Trump supporters on this and other sites (because no adult in my country likes him). As sad as this sounds, I've come to the conclusion that the American right is so fanatical that they can't be convinced of anything and it's silly to try. If a friend or family member comes to you to discuss doubts about Trump, that's fine but otherwise Trump supporters' political opinions should be ignored and avoided. My reasoning is: 1. They won't change their minds. While articles like [this](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-28/why-people-still-support-trump) argue that we should reach out to them, I believe that no argument could work as most of their opinions are so extreme and are contradicted by so much evidence that there's no way they could be convinced because if they were open minded, they wouldn't be Trump supporters in the first place. 2. There's nothing to be learned. While most political movements have some basic theory worth discussing, Trump doesn't. His view is a mix of narcissism, bigotry and internet hate groups. He changes his mind so often that his supporters clearly don't care about his actual policies because he barely has any. Therefore, there's no interesting philosophical theories they can express. 3. There's no common ground. Trump supporters appear to have a different morality than others. They don't seem to empathise with other groups for example. Trumps agenda is mostly destructive but they backed him even though he'll take away programs that help them just to help the wealthy. I want politicians to help people. Most in the world and the American left do. The American right wants them to hurt the outsiders (e.g. immigrants, women, minorities). They're more worried about "antifa" than neo nazis because neo nazis are on their side. They seemed as outraged by the Google engineer being sacked as they were by Charlottesville. I think they support him largely to spite liberals. There's no common ground and they want something so fundamentally different to other people discussion is pointless. 4. Trump is unique to the American right. A corrupt party and propaganda dispensing media means that the American right is probably the only group who would elect Trump. No other mainstream democratic party would vote for auch an idiotic bigot. For example, [this](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450891/joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon-lawless-sheriff-premature-bad-decision) criticses Trump for the recent pardon but it can't help but moan about the left. I haven't seen a political party hate the other side so much in any other country. Therefore, there's no point in learning from them because it won't happen anywhere else. What would change my mind is proof that Trump supporters can be convinced to change their minds because they are morally good people that are intelligence enough to recognise their mistakes so reaching out and speaking with them is worth the difficulties. _____ > *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: There's no real point in 'reaching out' to Trump supporters. In the first paragraph, I'll explain what led me to this belief; in the second, I'll explain my reasoning and in the third, I'll explain what would change my mind so you can ignore any part you like. I'm European, not American. I'm also centre left and my views are pretty normal in my country (and most countries afaik). Given that there's been a rise in right wing extremism, I thought it might be good to try to understand why people might support it so I could change people's mind if it ever happened in my country. I also wanted to change minds because seeing the election of Trump did challenge my trust in democracy. (Why should people be allowed to vote if they're going to make such bad choices?) I've since looked at Republican media, Trump suporters and various polls to try to understand his support. I've also argued with Trump supporters on this and other sites (because no adult in my country likes him). As sad as this sounds, I've come to the conclusion that the American right is so fanatical that they can't be convinced of anything and it's silly to try. If a friend or family member comes to you to discuss doubts about Trump, that's fine but otherwise Trump supporters' political opinions should be ignored and avoided. My reasoning is: 1. They won't change their minds. While articles like [this](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-28/why-people-still-support-trump) argue that we should reach out to them, I believe that no argument could work as most of their opinions are so extreme and are contradicted by so much evidence that there's no way they could be convinced because if they were open minded, they wouldn't be Trump supporters in the first place. 2. There's nothing to be learned. While most political movements have some basic theory worth discussing, Trump doesn't. His view is a mix of narcissism, bigotry and internet hate groups. He changes his mind so often that his supporters clearly don't care about his actual policies because he barely has any. Therefore, there's no interesting philosophical theories they can express. 3. There's no common ground. Trump supporters appear to have a different morality than others. They don't seem to empathise with other groups for example. Trumps agenda is mostly destructive but they backed him even though he'll take away programs that help them just to help the wealthy. I want politicians to help people. Most in the world and the American left do. The American right wants them to hurt the outsiders (e.g. immigrants, women, minorities). They're more worried about "antifa" than neo nazis because neo nazis are on their side. They seemed as outraged by the Google engineer being sacked as they were by Charlottesville. I think they support him largely to spite liberals. There's no common ground and they want something so fundamentally different to other people discussion is pointless. 4. Trump is unique to the American right. A corrupt party and propaganda dispensing media means that the American right is probably the only group who would elect Trump. No other mainstream democratic party would vote for auch an idiotic bigot. For example, [this](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450891/joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon-lawless-sheriff-premature-bad-decision) criticses Trump for the recent pardon but it can't help but moan about the left. I haven't seen a political party hate the other side so much in any other country. Therefore, there's no point in learning from them because it won't happen anywhere else. What would change my mind is proof that Trump supporters can be convinced to change their minds because they are morally good people that are intelligence enough to recognise their mistakes so reaching out and speaking with them is worth the difficulties.

t3_1gt2ny

Cartoons for adults like The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, Family Guy, etc. make me feel uncomfortable. I feel the same way about Futurama, Adventure Time, and The Regular Show. CMV

There's something about it using childish imagery, yet exploring adult things that I can't relate to. I've heard great things about these shows, but it just weirds me out before I can give it a chance. I feel the same way about anime. It's animated so it feels strange that it would not be for kids.

Cartoons for adults like The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, Family Guy, etc. make me feel uncomfortable. I feel the same way about Futurama, Adventure Time, and The Regular Show. CMV. There's something about it using childish imagery, yet exploring adult things that I can't relate to. I've heard great things about these shows, but it just weirds me out before I can give it a chance. I feel the same way about anime. It's animated so it feels strange that it would not be for kids.

t3_2u699g

CMV: I should not work hard in school because having a high-paying job decreases your quality of life.

Doing well in school simply creates a perpetual cycle of hard work for an unforeseeable end, dooming you to a never-ending rat-race that is driven by our over-capitalized, efficiency-obsessed society. This is how I imagine my life if I work hard... Doing well in high school will get me into a more competitive college. A more competitive college means I have to work harder to attain a good GPA than if I went to a lesser college, but I do so anyways in the hope of acquiring a good job and better life after college. After college I find that I have to work even harder in my new, "good" job to compete with my new, harder-working peers. Even though before I was hoping life would be better after college, my life still kind of sucks because I now have even less free time than I had in college since I have to work longer hours in my "good" job. Maybe things will be better higher up the chain? Eventually I become CEO and find myself rewarded with 70 hour work weeks, which suck. I now make $1,000,000 a year, but like doing cheap things like video games for fun, so I don't need 95% of my income. Furthermore, I can almost never take vacations because of my job and find myself sitting on useless money. I may live in a nicer house than your average person, but how is my life any better? Not only do I only have an hour of free time every weekday as opposed to 5 or more, but my stress level is much higher, and I don't do anything for fun that is financially exclusive to the rich. Why shouldn't I just kick back with a slightly above average job and pull in 65k a year? If I live cheaply, my financial security is the same and every other facet of my life is much, much better. Edit: It seems that some of you are misinterpreting what I mean by "kicking back" in school and life. I've always been in the top 10% of my high school in terms of GPA, so by "kicking back" I mean getting an average GPA and going to college and graduate school, not barely getting a GED.

CMV: I should not work hard in school because having a high-paying job decreases your quality of life. Doing well in school simply creates a perpetual cycle of hard work for an unforeseeable end, dooming you to a never-ending rat-race that is driven by our over-capitalized, efficiency-obsessed society. This is how I imagine my life if I work hard... Doing well in high school will get me into a more competitive college. A more competitive college means I have to work harder to attain a good GPA than if I went to a lesser college, but I do so anyways in the hope of acquiring a good job and better life after college. After college I find that I have to work even harder in my new, "good" job to compete with my new, harder-working peers. Even though before I was hoping life would be better after college, my life still kind of sucks because I now have even less free time than I had in college since I have to work longer hours in my "good" job. Maybe things will be better higher up the chain? Eventually I become CEO and find myself rewarded with 70 hour work weeks, which suck. I now make $1,000,000 a year, but like doing cheap things like video games for fun, so I don't need 95% of my income. Furthermore, I can almost never take vacations because of my job and find myself sitting on useless money. I may live in a nicer house than your average person, but how is my life any better? Not only do I only have an hour of free time every weekday as opposed to 5 or more, but my stress level is much higher, and I don't do anything for fun that is financially exclusive to the rich. Why shouldn't I just kick back with a slightly above average job and pull in 65k a year? If I live cheaply, my financial security is the same and every other facet of my life is much, much better. Edit: It seems that some of you are misinterpreting what I mean by "kicking back" in school and life. I've always been in the top 10% of my high school in terms of GPA, so by "kicking back" I mean getting an average GPA and going to college and graduate school, not barely getting a GED.

t3_1fjk7x

I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or perhaps even lower. CMV.

America's drinking problem, mostly, I think can be attributed to our fear of underage people drinking alcohol, which leads to inexperience with it by the time people reach college age and it's readily available. This leads to binge drinking that reaches levels unheard of in much of Europe, where alcohol is introduced in the family setting and doesn't become taboo. Why exactly is our drinking age so high?

I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or perhaps even lower. CMV. America's drinking problem, mostly, I think can be attributed to our fear of underage people drinking alcohol, which leads to inexperience with it by the time people reach college age and it's readily available. This leads to binge drinking that reaches levels unheard of in much of Europe, where alcohol is introduced in the family setting and doesn't become taboo. Why exactly is our drinking age so high?

t3_16s6sq

I think all language is inherently metaphorical and ambiguous, and that there is no such thing as literal language that all reasonable language users will automatically interpret in the same way. CMV.

As a fun experiment, I ask that each person who submits a comment also give me an explanation of a literal coffee table, a literal brainstorm, and a literal virgin, without reading the definitions that any other commenter has provided.

I think all language is inherently metaphorical and ambiguous, and that there is no such thing as literal language that all reasonable language users will automatically interpret in the same way. CMV. As a fun experiment, I ask that each person who submits a comment also give me an explanation of a literal coffee table, a literal brainstorm, and a literal virgin, without reading the definitions that any other commenter has provided.

t3_1ik158

I believe we should be governed by scientists, CMV

Our leaders need to be able to deal with the ever increasing complexity of our technology, economy and society.  Therefore, I think, it should be mandatory that every politician goes through several years of education in undergraduate level mathematics (especially statistics, formal and informal logic, calculus), a technology/engineering related field, economics and ethics.  As a result prestige wouldn’t arise from origin, charisma and eloquence anymore, but from honesty and clear, intelligible logic.

I believe we should be governed by scientists, CMV. Our leaders need to be able to deal with the ever increasing complexity of our technology, economy and society.  Therefore, I think, it should be mandatory that every politician goes through several years of education in undergraduate level mathematics (especially statistics, formal and informal logic, calculus), a technology/engineering related field, economics and ethics.  As a result prestige wouldn’t arise from origin, charisma and eloquence anymore, but from honesty and clear, intelligible logic.

t3_4vny6t

CMV: Forget about "financial abortion". True post-conception gender equality could be achieved via lottery-based forced adoption of unwanted children.

I haven't thought this through too much, so might be easy to CMV. "Financial abortion" is a frequent topic here and the argument against it is typically along the lines of "but when a woman gets an abortion, there is no child that requires care; that is not the case if a man financially aborts, so the situations are different". While there is some validity to that argument, it doesn't address the issue of gender inequality with regards to post-conception reproductive choice. If a man has sex, he risks becoming a parent whether he wants to or not. If a woman has sex, she can always choose to not become a parent via abortion. That's not equal. So couldn't we create equality by putting both genders in a position where they could become unwilling parents? And couldn't we do this by randomly selecting people of both genders to become adoptive parents whether they want to or not? That seems like equality to me. Now both genders face the prospect of becoming parents against their will. If gender equality is the goal (and I'm not saying it is or should be, but I know some people claim it to be the goal), then doesn't this create gender equality in this one area where some people seem to think that gender equality is an impossibility? I'd prefer to stick with the general concept and not get bogged down in details because the details and implementation could be challenging. But I know people will argue the details, so I think the most effective plan would be one where anyone is eligible to become an adoptive parent. I think this would only apply in situation where at least one biological donor does not want to be a parent when the child is born. That child would then get one or two assigned adoptive parents and either be raised by the couple, or by one biological parent and one adoptive parent. Any arguments against co-parenting with a stranger would apply equally to an adoptive parent and a one-night-stand hookup. **Delta's awarded for modification of view** > It would also be unreasonable to impose the risk of having a child on people that do not engage in heterosexual vaginal sex. I'm going to give you a ∆ here and give one to a few others who made the same point. It is a valid point that I considered including in my original view but didn't because I can't get over the difficulties it would cause by having the government need to know everyone's sex life. I should have included that position in my original view, but since I didn't, delta's for everyone who pointed it out.

CMV: Forget about "financial abortion". True post-conception gender equality could be achieved via lottery-based forced adoption of unwanted children. I haven't thought this through too much, so might be easy to CMV. "Financial abortion" is a frequent topic here and the argument against it is typically along the lines of "but when a woman gets an abortion, there is no child that requires care; that is not the case if a man financially aborts, so the situations are different". While there is some validity to that argument, it doesn't address the issue of gender inequality with regards to post-conception reproductive choice. If a man has sex, he risks becoming a parent whether he wants to or not. If a woman has sex, she can always choose to not become a parent via abortion. That's not equal. So couldn't we create equality by putting both genders in a position where they could become unwilling parents? And couldn't we do this by randomly selecting people of both genders to become adoptive parents whether they want to or not? That seems like equality to me. Now both genders face the prospect of becoming parents against their will. If gender equality is the goal (and I'm not saying it is or should be, but I know some people claim it to be the goal), then doesn't this create gender equality in this one area where some people seem to think that gender equality is an impossibility? I'd prefer to stick with the general concept and not get bogged down in details because the details and implementation could be challenging. But I know people will argue the details, so I think the most effective plan would be one where anyone is eligible to become an adoptive parent. I think this would only apply in situation where at least one biological donor does not want to be a parent when the child is born. That child would then get one or two assigned adoptive parents and either be raised by the couple, or by one biological parent and one adoptive parent. Any arguments against co-parenting with a stranger would apply equally to an adoptive parent and a one-night-stand hookup. **Delta's awarded for modification of view** > It would also be unreasonable to impose the risk of having a child on people that do not engage in heterosexual vaginal sex. I'm going to give you a ∆ here and give one to a few others who made the same point. It is a valid point that I considered including in my original view but didn't because I can't get over the difficulties it would cause by having the government need to know everyone's sex life. I should have included that position in my original view, but since I didn't, delta's for everyone who pointed it out.

t3_52vp2d

CMV:God existing would be a disaster due to the number of people burning in hell

...because what this website really *needs* is more edgy people attacking religion, right? So I mainly have the Christian God in mind here because I don't know how heaven/hell works in other religions, but this could well apply to other religions. Really I think the title is self explanatory. There are around 2 billion Christians in the world, which means there are 5 billion non Christians and 5/7s of the world is going to spend eternity being tortured. Arguably one person suffering such a fate would be too many, but since neither Christianity nor any other religion looks set to become a majority religion worldwide, this is the *majority* of all the people who will live who will go to hell, billions of people. More depending whether you believe people of different denominations of your religion go to heaven. Of course, whether something is *desirable* has no bearing on whether it is *true*, but my contention is that God existing would be very undesirable. Prehaps atheists have made their choice and Rejected God, but they are after all a minority. Most people already have a religion and would no more change it then you would yours. The only couterargument I can think of is 'hell isn't actually that bad/doesn't exist'. Well, googling 'hell in the bible' (very rigorous I know) finds mentions of 'a fiery lake of burning sulphur', 'eternal punishment', 'the blazing furnace', a 'lake of fire' and a reference to 'the one who can destroy soul and body in hell'. So, God existing would be a Bad Thing 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:God existing would be a disaster due to the number of people burning in hell. ...because what this website really *needs* is more edgy people attacking religion, right? So I mainly have the Christian God in mind here because I don't know how heaven/hell works in other religions, but this could well apply to other religions. Really I think the title is self explanatory. There are around 2 billion Christians in the world, which means there are 5 billion non Christians and 5/7s of the world is going to spend eternity being tortured. Arguably one person suffering such a fate would be too many, but since neither Christianity nor any other religion looks set to become a majority religion worldwide, this is the *majority* of all the people who will live who will go to hell, billions of people. More depending whether you believe people of different denominations of your religion go to heaven. Of course, whether something is *desirable* has no bearing on whether it is *true*, but my contention is that God existing would be very undesirable. Prehaps atheists have made their choice and Rejected God, but they are after all a minority. Most people already have a religion and would no more change it then you would yours. The only couterargument I can think of is 'hell isn't actually that bad/doesn't exist'. Well, googling 'hell in the bible' (very rigorous I know) finds mentions of 'a fiery lake of burning sulphur', 'eternal punishment', 'the blazing furnace', a 'lake of fire' and a reference to 'the one who can destroy soul and body in hell'. So, God existing would be a Bad Thing CMV

t3_3fy8xy

CMV: The recognition of Europe as a separate continent is a remainder of white supremacy.

Geologically, there is no basis for the traditionally taught list of continents: North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica, and Europe. Europe does not have its own tectonic plate, and was attached to Asia even as far back as 200 million years ago, when the "mega continents" of Laurasia and Gondwana were estimated to have separated. Meanwhile, India and Arabia have their own tectonic plates. There are no geographic boundaries that clearly demarcate Europe which are not also present elsewhere. People usually bring up the Ural mountains, but the Urals are insignificant when compared to the [Himalayas](http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~syamada/map_syamada/PhysicalGeography/C1207Map_elevation_world.jpg). Yet, India is only considered a "sub"-continent, despite having far more geological qualification for continent-hood than Europe. When I've mentioned, or seen the issue mentioned online, the most common response I see is extreme disapproval, with no logically sound arguments defending said disapproval. This is probably due to simple status-quoism, but I'm sure some white people are also insulted at the prospect of losing a geographic "special" status. My position is that if Europe is a continent, then the term "continent" has no meaningful definition, and is purely a social construct. 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: The recognition of Europe as a separate continent is a remainder of white supremacy. Geologically, there is no basis for the traditionally taught list of continents: North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica, and Europe. Europe does not have its own tectonic plate, and was attached to Asia even as far back as 200 million years ago, when the "mega continents" of Laurasia and Gondwana were estimated to have separated. Meanwhile, India and Arabia have their own tectonic plates. There are no geographic boundaries that clearly demarcate Europe which are not also present elsewhere. People usually bring up the Ural mountains, but the Urals are insignificant when compared to the [Himalayas](http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~syamada/map_syamada/PhysicalGeography/C1207Map_elevation_world.jpg). Yet, India is only considered a "sub"-continent, despite having far more geological qualification for continent-hood than Europe. When I've mentioned, or seen the issue mentioned online, the most common response I see is extreme disapproval, with no logically sound arguments defending said disapproval. This is probably due to simple status-quoism, but I'm sure some white people are also insulted at the prospect of losing a geographic "special" status. My position is that if Europe is a continent, then the term "continent" has no meaningful definition, and is purely a social construct. Change my view.

t3_3peucs

CMV: The duck face on girls is never a good look, and can make otherwise attractive women undesirable

Any girl who thinks the duck face is a good look, needs to be informed that she is wrong. This is for a couple of reasons. 1) The duck face over accentuates the labrette and frenulum in a bad way. 2) The duck face causes the cheeks to be pinched. 3) The duck face can cause the eyes to not be in focus correctly sometimes. 4) The size of the lips are increased, which doesn't usually fit the proportions of the face. 5) Gums are usually shown while doing the duck face. 6) An improper amount of teeth are usually visible from doing the duck face. 7) The duck face makes a person look aggressive, as opposed to happy like a smile. For these reasons, I feel that the duck face is a terrible look, and can make otherwise attractive people less attractive. The duck face will never improve what a picture could look like. I have never seen a duck face picture that doesn't immediately make me want to tell at the person that lips in that configuration are not sexy. Edit: Here is a link describing what the definition of beauty is, along with a video explaining it. http://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/ I should also say that 5 and 6 can be part of the duck face, but his examples don't include either. >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. 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! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through ourpopular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

CMV: The duck face on girls is never a good look, and can make otherwise attractive women undesirable. Any girl who thinks the duck face is a good look, needs to be informed that she is wrong. This is for a couple of reasons. 1) The duck face over accentuates the labrette and frenulum in a bad way. 2) The duck face causes the cheeks to be pinched. 3) The duck face can cause the eyes to not be in focus correctly sometimes. 4) The size of the lips are increased, which doesn't usually fit the proportions of the face. 5) Gums are usually shown while doing the duck face. 6) An improper amount of teeth are usually visible from doing the duck face. 7) The duck face makes a person look aggressive, as opposed to happy like a smile. For these reasons, I feel that the duck face is a terrible look, and can make otherwise attractive people less attractive. The duck face will never improve what a picture could look like. I have never seen a duck face picture that doesn't immediately make me want to tell at the person that lips in that configuration are not sexy. Edit: Here is a link describing what the definition of beauty is, along with a video explaining it. http://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/ I should also say that 5 and 6 can be part of the duck face, but his examples don't include either. >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. 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! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through ourpopular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

t3_1hq9ev

I don't really understand how the subjective opinion of a renowned critic is more valid than that of anybody else, CMV

So in light of a lot of things being said about the Lone Ranger movie, I've found myself very conflicted about the subject of critique, specifically about creative work and cinema in particular. Basically, I have always assumed that the final measure of artistic worth was the ultimate internal reaction to the piece, i.e. how much did you like it. And with that in mind I find it hard to see how a lengthy write-up of the flaws of some summer blockbuster can outweigh the fact that some people found it entertaining, and whenever I try to think up arguments they always come off as "stop liking things I don't like". I'm hoping someone can introduce some clarity to this discussion. On one hand, the idea that commercial success is the prime factor for finding a movie's worth disagrees with me on an instinctual level. On the other hand, the idea that a one person can be more "correct" about an artistic work seems to imply that there is some intrinsic measuring stick involved in the evaluation process, which also doesn't seem right.

I don't really understand how the subjective opinion of a renowned critic is more valid than that of anybody else, CMV. So in light of a lot of things being said about the Lone Ranger movie, I've found myself very conflicted about the subject of critique, specifically about creative work and cinema in particular. Basically, I have always assumed that the final measure of artistic worth was the ultimate internal reaction to the piece, i.e. how much did you like it. And with that in mind I find it hard to see how a lengthy write-up of the flaws of some summer blockbuster can outweigh the fact that some people found it entertaining, and whenever I try to think up arguments they always come off as "stop liking things I don't like". I'm hoping someone can introduce some clarity to this discussion. On one hand, the idea that commercial success is the prime factor for finding a movie's worth disagrees with me on an instinctual level. On the other hand, the idea that a one person can be more "correct" about an artistic work seems to imply that there is some intrinsic measuring stick involved in the evaluation process, which also doesn't seem right.

t3_2jtjuu

CMV: Voter Fraud is not a problem, and is simply an excuse to suppress votes.

Some great information here: http://mj-tech.s3.amazonaws.com/ad_w_intersitial.html#interstitial=true&height=67&placement=Interstitial&redirect_url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps This is a good summary of why voter fraud is not a problem in the US and how it is being used as a red herring to distract us from very real attempts by corrupt politicians to suppress votes. There have been no organized instances of voter fraud discovered in decades and most instances of people voting when they shouldn't are immigrants and ex-cons attempting to vote without realizing they are ineligible. The "response" to this non-existent problem, almost universally from Republican and conservative politicians, has been to enact strict ID laws, limit early voting and voting hours and generally making participating in elections more difficult. This is especially harmful to poor and minority communities, in which as many as 25% of potential voters do not have a photo ID and many voters in these communities cannot easily take time off on election day. This seems purposeful as these groups tend to vote Democrat or Independent. Vote suppression is a real problem which distorts American democracy by allowing the middle class, rich, and white a disproportionately high share of the vote. And yet, the narrative that votes are being fraudulently submitted across the country persists, and not only in conservative channels. Many liberals and supposed neutral news stations, media outlets and pundits all buy into voter ID laws, limits on early voting and other restrictions in the name of preventing fraud. So what am I missing? Do I need to change my view? PS: Yes, this is a liberal website. Vote suppression tends to be done by conservatives who obviously wouldn't put the statistics on their own sites and there are very few neutral websites out there which actually post the data on this openly. The data itself often comes from several federal agencies and Congress itself -- it doesn't seem biased -- and this is the best summation of all the information I could find. _____ > *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: Voter Fraud is not a problem, and is simply an excuse to suppress votes. Some great information here: http://mj-tech.s3.amazonaws.com/ad_w_intersitial.html#interstitial=true&height=67&placement=Interstitial&redirect_url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps This is a good summary of why voter fraud is not a problem in the US and how it is being used as a red herring to distract us from very real attempts by corrupt politicians to suppress votes. There have been no organized instances of voter fraud discovered in decades and most instances of people voting when they shouldn't are immigrants and ex-cons attempting to vote without realizing they are ineligible. The "response" to this non-existent problem, almost universally from Republican and conservative politicians, has been to enact strict ID laws, limit early voting and voting hours and generally making participating in elections more difficult. This is especially harmful to poor and minority communities, in which as many as 25% of potential voters do not have a photo ID and many voters in these communities cannot easily take time off on election day. This seems purposeful as these groups tend to vote Democrat or Independent. Vote suppression is a real problem which distorts American democracy by allowing the middle class, rich, and white a disproportionately high share of the vote. And yet, the narrative that votes are being fraudulently submitted across the country persists, and not only in conservative channels. Many liberals and supposed neutral news stations, media outlets and pundits all buy into voter ID laws, limits on early voting and other restrictions in the name of preventing fraud. So what am I missing? Do I need to change my view? PS: Yes, this is a liberal website. Vote suppression tends to be done by conservatives who obviously wouldn't put the statistics on their own sites and there are very few neutral websites out there which actually post the data on this openly. The data itself often comes from several federal agencies and Congress itself -- it doesn't seem biased -- and this is the best summation of all the information I could find.

t3_2irzul

CMV: If both people have been drinking and both people verbally consent, it is NOT rape/sexual assault.

Specifically, I think with this standard, either both people should be considered to be raped, or neither should. I just want to clarify, if somebody is passed out, or if verbal consent is not obtained, it is definitely rape/sexual assault. However, if two people are drunk and consent to sex, then they have made the choice to do so. The law (USA) says that if I get drunk and vandalize something, I am responsible for my actions, even though I was drunk. The law says that if I get drunk and drive a vehicle, I am responsible for my actions even though I was drunk. If I get drunk and consent to sex, I am responsible for my action even though I was drunk, even if I regret it the next day. The law clearly makes it so that people cannot use the "I was drunk" excuse to avoid owning up to their actions and decisions except in this case. It doesn't help that there is a huge double standard among men and women. We usually hear about women regretting their decision the next day and we never see the man be able to counter with "I was drunk too, she raped me". Another aspect I would like to point out are the stereotypical (just using men as an example, either gender can do this to either gender) men who try and get a women to drink more so she consents to sex. If the women is still consenting and the man is still consenting, I think this makes the man an asshole trying to take advantage of a woman, but not a rapist or sexual assaulter. She is not passed out and she gave a verbal yes. A decision was made was made while both parties were under the influence of alcohol and these people are responsible for their actions, just like they would be if the committed a crime. CMV.

CMV: If both people have been drinking and both people verbally consent, it is NOT rape/sexual assault. Specifically, I think with this standard, either both people should be considered to be raped, or neither should. I just want to clarify, if somebody is passed out, or if verbal consent is not obtained, it is definitely rape/sexual assault. However, if two people are drunk and consent to sex, then they have made the choice to do so. The law (USA) says that if I get drunk and vandalize something, I am responsible for my actions, even though I was drunk. The law says that if I get drunk and drive a vehicle, I am responsible for my actions even though I was drunk. If I get drunk and consent to sex, I am responsible for my action even though I was drunk, even if I regret it the next day. The law clearly makes it so that people cannot use the "I was drunk" excuse to avoid owning up to their actions and decisions except in this case. It doesn't help that there is a huge double standard among men and women. We usually hear about women regretting their decision the next day and we never see the man be able to counter with "I was drunk too, she raped me". Another aspect I would like to point out are the stereotypical (just using men as an example, either gender can do this to either gender) men who try and get a women to drink more so she consents to sex. If the women is still consenting and the man is still consenting, I think this makes the man an asshole trying to take advantage of a woman, but not a rapist or sexual assaulter. She is not passed out and she gave a verbal yes. A decision was made was made while both parties were under the influence of alcohol and these people are responsible for their actions, just like they would be if the committed a crime. CMV.

t3_279ogd

CMV: It's acceptable to refuse to sell my product to somebody based on race.

We live in a world where my views are my own. We have freedom of religion and other such views. If I have a right to act upon my religious views, why can I not act upon racial views if they disagree with those of the majority of society and harm nobody but myself? The only person who loses out by me refusing to sell my product to say, Asians, is me. I lose the revenue that I would potentially have gotten from these people when I reduce my market base. NOTE: I am not advocating racism (and would never act in the way I'm suggesting is acceptable), merely saying that the only person who loses in this situation is the seller. EDIT: My V has been C'd. The practice simply isn't universalisable. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's acceptable to refuse to sell my product to somebody based on race. We live in a world where my views are my own. We have freedom of religion and other such views. If I have a right to act upon my religious views, why can I not act upon racial views if they disagree with those of the majority of society and harm nobody but myself? The only person who loses out by me refusing to sell my product to say, Asians, is me. I lose the revenue that I would potentially have gotten from these people when I reduce my market base. NOTE: I am not advocating racism (and would never act in the way I'm suggesting is acceptable), merely saying that the only person who loses in this situation is the seller. EDIT: My V has been C'd. The practice simply isn't universalisable.

t3_1g7zki

I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised. CMV

I hold this belief because it is not the job of law enforcement to protect people from themselves, only each other. I believe that it is a fundamental right to be able to change your body in any way, unless that endangers other human life (Abortion is complicated and irrelevant to this conversation, don't ask me about it). I'm not saying people should do drugs, not at all, but I think it should be an educational and healthcare issue. Also the war on drugs costs many lives each year yet anyone who wants drugs can get them, easily, and from potentially very dangerous people who don't necessarily check how safe they are. I live in the UK by the way and don't have a great understanding of drug laws in other countries (except maybe the US).

I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised. CMV. I hold this belief because it is not the job of law enforcement to protect people from themselves, only each other. I believe that it is a fundamental right to be able to change your body in any way, unless that endangers other human life (Abortion is complicated and irrelevant to this conversation, don't ask me about it). I'm not saying people should do drugs, not at all, but I think it should be an educational and healthcare issue. Also the war on drugs costs many lives each year yet anyone who wants drugs can get them, easily, and from potentially very dangerous people who don't necessarily check how safe they are. I live in the UK by the way and don't have a great understanding of drug laws in other countries (except maybe the US).

t3_1a4dai

CMV I believe that the United States should invest in a global ad campaign.

I believe that a lot of Public Relations problems with the United States, there is a lot of negatives rhetoric and stereotyping of not just the United State's political positions but products and tourist sites and there little or no active effort to provide a countervailing argument. I believe that the United States should run targeted ad campaigns in trouble spots to articulate what we really think and why we do or do not take action. I believe that American products could benefit competitively from carefully managing the implication of "American Made", a similar campaign reversed the shoddy and cheap implication attached to German goods in the run up to the First World War. I believe that destination marketing, or pooling resources from a variety of tourist businesses and locations to encourage travel to a region as opposed to a specific business, would be an effective way to generate more revenue but really to encourage more interaction between everyday Americans and citizens of foreign countries. So, why is this not worth it?

CMV I believe that the United States should invest in a global ad campaign. I believe that a lot of Public Relations problems with the United States, there is a lot of negatives rhetoric and stereotyping of not just the United State's political positions but products and tourist sites and there little or no active effort to provide a countervailing argument. I believe that the United States should run targeted ad campaigns in trouble spots to articulate what we really think and why we do or do not take action. I believe that American products could benefit competitively from carefully managing the implication of "American Made", a similar campaign reversed the shoddy and cheap implication attached to German goods in the run up to the First World War. I believe that destination marketing, or pooling resources from a variety of tourist businesses and locations to encourage travel to a region as opposed to a specific business, would be an effective way to generate more revenue but really to encourage more interaction between everyday Americans and citizens of foreign countries. So, why is this not worth it?

t3_1kc07r

I think that people who complain about working in an office don't realize how lucky they are. CMV.

So here's some background. I'm 21 years old. I'm now working in my sixth summer job. I spent 3 summers working at a summer camp as a counsellor and activity specialist. While i did enjoy these jobs,they were also very exhausting as I pretty much had to keep a rambunctious group of children entertained all day, as well as making sure that they didn't kill themselves or each other. I made under mimimum wage during these summers, making as little as $500 for an entire summer's work during my first summer working at a camp. I then spent another 2 summers doing physical labour, mowing lawns and gardening for one summer, and working in a patio furniture store's warehouse for another. These jobs were also very exhausting due to heavy lifting, assembling confusing patio furniture, working outside during one of my hometown's hottest summers on record, and dealing with shitty customers. I made minimum wage one summer ($10.25/hour) and slightly above minimum wage ($11/hour) for the other. This summer, I'm working in an office for the first time. While the work can be boring and tedious at times it is mostly interesting, and perfectly suffices in passing the time. I've also been praised by my boss for the speed and efficiency in which I complete the tasks assigned to me. This is despite the fact that I spend about 35-40% of the day browsing reddit on my phone. On top of that, I'm now making more than twice the amount of money I made working physical labour. To sum it all up, I'm making double the money, to comfortably do about half the work (which is much easier anyway) I was doing before. This has led me to believe that many people who work in offices don't appreciate how much easier their lives are in comparison to those who make a living out of doing physical labour, child care, education etc. Am I wrong for thinking this? Change my view/

I think that people who complain about working in an office don't realize how lucky they are. CMV. So here's some background. I'm 21 years old. I'm now working in my sixth summer job. I spent 3 summers working at a summer camp as a counsellor and activity specialist. While i did enjoy these jobs,they were also very exhausting as I pretty much had to keep a rambunctious group of children entertained all day, as well as making sure that they didn't kill themselves or each other. I made under mimimum wage during these summers, making as little as $500 for an entire summer's work during my first summer working at a camp. I then spent another 2 summers doing physical labour, mowing lawns and gardening for one summer, and working in a patio furniture store's warehouse for another. These jobs were also very exhausting due to heavy lifting, assembling confusing patio furniture, working outside during one of my hometown's hottest summers on record, and dealing with shitty customers. I made minimum wage one summer ($10.25/hour) and slightly above minimum wage ($11/hour) for the other. This summer, I'm working in an office for the first time. While the work can be boring and tedious at times it is mostly interesting, and perfectly suffices in passing the time. I've also been praised by my boss for the speed and efficiency in which I complete the tasks assigned to me. This is despite the fact that I spend about 35-40% of the day browsing reddit on my phone. On top of that, I'm now making more than twice the amount of money I made working physical labour. To sum it all up, I'm making double the money, to comfortably do about half the work (which is much easier anyway) I was doing before. This has led me to believe that many people who work in offices don't appreciate how much easier their lives are in comparison to those who make a living out of doing physical labour, child care, education etc. Am I wrong for thinking this? Change my view/

t3_1suq0i

I believe that most Muslims will always view gay male relationships as immoral. CMV.

It is perhaps the largest fly in the ointment of the left-wing worldview: when persecuted minorities persecute other people, and there's no other reason for it than religion, blind hatred of the other, or some unholy combination of the two. India, a country with almost 200 million Muslims, just re-criminalized gay sex after a soul-crushingly brief window of four years of governmental indifference on the subject. In the vast majority of Muslim countries, sex between men is punished with prison time or death (the record for lesbianism is more mixed). Of the countries that kill men (and boys under 18) for their homosexuality, all espouse Islamist visions of the state. The ones that don't criminalize gay sex (like Turkey and Iraq) often sought Western, secular models of governance and hence adopted a more moderate stance on the state's intrusion into citizens' private lives. As a proudly left-wing individual (and a gay man) this situation disturbs me quite intensely. One of my best friends grew up in California in a liberal, suburban atmosphere across the bay from San Francisco itself. Despite our very close friendship, his Muslim views have locked his mind into the position that heterosexuality deserves a higher status in society and has repeatedly expressed indifference toward the crimes against humanity committed against gay men by the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others. Having grown up and lived in the US all his life, he's a very moderate Muslim in most ways, but the fact that homosexuals still offend him on some level testifies to me that the religion of Islam (by which I mean its texts) must promulgate a rabidly negative view of homosexuality and homosexual love, a view whose presence in Islamic law he does not deny. I grew up in an American household of extremely integrated secular Jews and had a difficult enough time coming out at the age of sixteen. I can only imagine what it must be like for a gay teenager in rural Iran who is told to deny and rip apart his inner psyche for his whole life, to never reveal his true self to anyone in the world. What a hellish nightmare of an existence it must be for him. I have deep concern that Muslim communities in the West, even after several generations of integration, won't ever accept homosexuality as a natural phenomenon in the human tapestry, that they'll always view it as a problem created by the West, one that only pertains to Western families who suffer from a lack of familial cohesion. Please, I implore you, change my view. I need to know that one day things will get better for these teenagers suffering in silence. My research into even the most moderate strands of Islam has only cemented in my mind the deeply troubling (and just horrifically sad) idea that most Muslims will always view gay men as sinful creatures.

I believe that most Muslims will always view gay male relationships as immoral. CMV. It is perhaps the largest fly in the ointment of the left-wing worldview: when persecuted minorities persecute other people, and there's no other reason for it than religion, blind hatred of the other, or some unholy combination of the two. India, a country with almost 200 million Muslims, just re-criminalized gay sex after a soul-crushingly brief window of four years of governmental indifference on the subject. In the vast majority of Muslim countries, sex between men is punished with prison time or death (the record for lesbianism is more mixed). Of the countries that kill men (and boys under 18) for their homosexuality, all espouse Islamist visions of the state. The ones that don't criminalize gay sex (like Turkey and Iraq) often sought Western, secular models of governance and hence adopted a more moderate stance on the state's intrusion into citizens' private lives. As a proudly left-wing individual (and a gay man) this situation disturbs me quite intensely. One of my best friends grew up in California in a liberal, suburban atmosphere across the bay from San Francisco itself. Despite our very close friendship, his Muslim views have locked his mind into the position that heterosexuality deserves a higher status in society and has repeatedly expressed indifference toward the crimes against humanity committed against gay men by the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others. Having grown up and lived in the US all his life, he's a very moderate Muslim in most ways, but the fact that homosexuals still offend him on some level testifies to me that the religion of Islam (by which I mean its texts) must promulgate a rabidly negative view of homosexuality and homosexual love, a view whose presence in Islamic law he does not deny. I grew up in an American household of extremely integrated secular Jews and had a difficult enough time coming out at the age of sixteen. I can only imagine what it must be like for a gay teenager in rural Iran who is told to deny and rip apart his inner psyche for his whole life, to never reveal his true self to anyone in the world. What a hellish nightmare of an existence it must be for him. I have deep concern that Muslim communities in the West, even after several generations of integration, won't ever accept homosexuality as a natural phenomenon in the human tapestry, that they'll always view it as a problem created by the West, one that only pertains to Western families who suffer from a lack of familial cohesion. Please, I implore you, change my view. I need to know that one day things will get better for these teenagers suffering in silence. My research into even the most moderate strands of Islam has only cemented in my mind the deeply troubling (and just horrifically sad) idea that most Muslims will always view gay men as sinful creatures.

t3_50oy2m

CMV: Existing hydro power (large and small) should be considered a renewable energy source.

The key word here is existing facilities. I do not mean to go build hundreds of dams, but rather continue operating existing facilities or making small improvements. EDIT: Most states legally classify large hydro (>10 MWh) as non renewable. Small hydro is renewable, but makes up for about 1/8th of large as far as production. This is about classification of hydro. 1. Most hydro power facilities are multiuse and serve another purpose such as storage or flood protection. 2. Zero emissions. The facilities are already built and continued operation is zero emission. 3. Environmental damage is done, continued operation will not damage the environment further. 4. Hydro is much more reliable than solar and wind to keep the electric grid where it needs to be. 5. There are many mitigations in place to keep the stream ecology in tact such as fish ladders and bypass screens. 6. Solar farms take up just as much space and are ugly. Hydro is pretty and stimulates the local economy. 7. Water storage is increasingly an issue west of the Rockies. With rising temperatures and fewer glaciers, water storage will become crucial in the future, so demolition is a short sighted option to improve the environment. 8. Pumped water storage is the most efficient way to store energy. With wind and solar both unreliable, we need an efficient way to store energy.

CMV: Existing hydro power (large and small) should be considered a renewable energy source. The key word here is existing facilities. I do not mean to go build hundreds of dams, but rather continue operating existing facilities or making small improvements. EDIT: Most states legally classify large hydro (>10 MWh) as non renewable. Small hydro is renewable, but makes up for about 1/8th of large as far as production. This is about classification of hydro. 1. Most hydro power facilities are multiuse and serve another purpose such as storage or flood protection. 2. Zero emissions. The facilities are already built and continued operation is zero emission. 3. Environmental damage is done, continued operation will not damage the environment further. 4. Hydro is much more reliable than solar and wind to keep the electric grid where it needs to be. 5. There are many mitigations in place to keep the stream ecology in tact such as fish ladders and bypass screens. 6. Solar farms take up just as much space and are ugly. Hydro is pretty and stimulates the local economy. 7. Water storage is increasingly an issue west of the Rockies. With rising temperatures and fewer glaciers, water storage will become crucial in the future, so demolition is a short sighted option to improve the environment. 8. Pumped water storage is the most efficient way to store energy. With wind and solar both unreliable, we need an efficient way to store energy.

t3_1sc2zw

I believe it is ridiculous that most Americans cannot pronounce my name correctly. CMV.

My name is, like many American names, of European origin. It is Graeme, one of my versions of the name, others spelled Graham, Graehm, Graeham, Gram, etc. It is most commonly spelled and pronounced Graham, the pronunciation being GRAM sounding like the word Ram with a Guh before it. My name is pronounced Gray Em. Like the colour GRAY followed by letter M. My father and sister and American born and can pronounce this. Countless other Americans have said it, but they always revert back to calling me Gram. I don't know why. I've heard plenty of people, American and non-American, say it. But Americans seem to refuse to do it even though they can. My best friend of 13 years knows it's Grey-Em but still says Guh-ram. I see this as ridiculous. CMV.

I believe it is ridiculous that most Americans cannot pronounce my name correctly. CMV. My name is, like many American names, of European origin. It is Graeme, one of my versions of the name, others spelled Graham, Graehm, Graeham, Gram, etc. It is most commonly spelled and pronounced Graham, the pronunciation being GRAM sounding like the word Ram with a Guh before it. My name is pronounced Gray Em. Like the colour GRAY followed by letter M. My father and sister and American born and can pronounce this. Countless other Americans have said it, but they always revert back to calling me Gram. I don't know why. I've heard plenty of people, American and non-American, say it. But Americans seem to refuse to do it even though they can. My best friend of 13 years knows it's Grey-Em but still says Guh-ram. I see this as ridiculous. CMV.