Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_221vrf

I think the US is beyond saving. CMV

Today, five Supreme Court justices made a bad decision. Again. This adds fuel to the fire that the US is heavily corrupted and heavily anti-(not rich white male) people. Thing is, I can't see any solution to the US's malaise. Can't rewrite the Constitution since some people see it as sacred and unchanging. Can't undo checks and balances - which this point IMO are a liability - because of the above. Can't ban lobbying, because somehow money is free speech. Can't tell any group which has bought influence - Big Pharma, Big Prisons, the NRA, Cuban exiles, and more - to eat dirt because their precious greenbacks and their feelings will get hurt Can't ditch the electoral college because the little states will feel disenfranchised. Can't fix the voting system because the parties are subsidiaries of corporations. The easiest solution to fix everything is a dictatorship, not necessarily Communist. But even with a corrupted government somehow the people won't be for that either. I can't think of any solutions to help the US that fit its current framework. How often does a powerful nation become obsolete and live for decades in painful decline? Because IMO we're seeing it right now.

I think the US is beyond saving. CMV. Today, five Supreme Court justices made a bad decision. Again. This adds fuel to the fire that the US is heavily corrupted and heavily anti-(not rich white male) people. Thing is, I can't see any solution to the US's malaise. Can't rewrite the Constitution since some people see it as sacred and unchanging. Can't undo checks and balances - which this point IMO are a liability - because of the above. Can't ban lobbying, because somehow money is free speech. Can't tell any group which has bought influence - Big Pharma, Big Prisons, the NRA, Cuban exiles, and more - to eat dirt because their precious greenbacks and their feelings will get hurt Can't ditch the electoral college because the little states will feel disenfranchised. Can't fix the voting system because the parties are subsidiaries of corporations. The easiest solution to fix everything is a dictatorship, not necessarily Communist. But even with a corrupted government somehow the people won't be for that either. I can't think of any solutions to help the US that fit its current framework. How often does a powerful nation become obsolete and live for decades in painful decline? Because IMO we're seeing it right now.

t3_660u8j

CMV: Anyone wearing a mask or otherwise hiding their face at a protest/rally should be immediately arrested

By arrested, I don't mean they should necessarily have severe penalties brought upon them, but they should be taken into police custody and given a record/added to the police database for future investigations specific to rioting and property damage. The main reason for this is because one of the only reasons someone at such a demonstration would want to obscure their face is to escape the potential ramifications of inflicting property damage or personal harm on others. They don't want to be photographed (much like the 2011 stanley cup riots, where many of the anarchists were identified from footage and later arrested and charged). I believe that if someone is arrested for wearing a mask at a protest and added to the database, it could potentially aid in identifying suspects in future riots and also in determining whether their actions were pre-meditated or "spur of the moment". Many protests are known for turning into riots, and this is especially true when people at those protests obscure their faces. I would also like to suggest that wearing masks make people *more inclined* to break the law, as they have a decreased fear for ramifications. tl:dr there is no good reason to hide your face at a protest, and people who do should be arrested to aid in future investigations. _____ > *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: Anyone wearing a mask or otherwise hiding their face at a protest/rally should be immediately arrested. By arrested, I don't mean they should necessarily have severe penalties brought upon them, but they should be taken into police custody and given a record/added to the police database for future investigations specific to rioting and property damage. The main reason for this is because one of the only reasons someone at such a demonstration would want to obscure their face is to escape the potential ramifications of inflicting property damage or personal harm on others. They don't want to be photographed (much like the 2011 stanley cup riots, where many of the anarchists were identified from footage and later arrested and charged). I believe that if someone is arrested for wearing a mask at a protest and added to the database, it could potentially aid in identifying suspects in future riots and also in determining whether their actions were pre-meditated or "spur of the moment". Many protests are known for turning into riots, and this is especially true when people at those protests obscure their faces. I would also like to suggest that wearing masks make people *more inclined* to break the law, as they have a decreased fear for ramifications. tl:dr there is no good reason to hide your face at a protest, and people who do should be arrested to aid in future investigations.

t3_6co6mb

CMV: Dune by Frank Herbert is convoluted messiness that lacks soul

Have you read this book? I am 80 pages in and, Jesus, this guy has invented an entire fuckin universe of original terminology that is only rarely explained and most of the time has to be deduced from context clues. Don't get me wrong I am all for the whole convoluted universe and what not, I respect that, it is after all, difficult to create. but look at the fucking Wikipedia page for all of the Dune terminology. what's the point of it all? Books should be JUICY. Each line should pierce your soul like a dagger and draw you in under the books spell deeper and deeper with each passing page. Dune has no magic to it whatsoever. When I keep having to reread paragraphs and pages, referencing the appendix each time I wanna know what convoluted political system or obscure terminology thats utilized to understand each line... is it really worth it? Also, not to mention, Everytime there is a departure from the endless wave of dune terminology and soulless dialogue, you get hit with this cryptic poetry from the Orange Catholic Bible or something that really just doesn't hit me that's all folks

CMV: Dune by Frank Herbert is convoluted messiness that lacks soul. Have you read this book? I am 80 pages in and, Jesus, this guy has invented an entire fuckin universe of original terminology that is only rarely explained and most of the time has to be deduced from context clues. Don't get me wrong I am all for the whole convoluted universe and what not, I respect that, it is after all, difficult to create. but look at the fucking Wikipedia page for all of the Dune terminology. what's the point of it all? Books should be JUICY. Each line should pierce your soul like a dagger and draw you in under the books spell deeper and deeper with each passing page. Dune has no magic to it whatsoever. When I keep having to reread paragraphs and pages, referencing the appendix each time I wanna know what convoluted political system or obscure terminology thats utilized to understand each line... is it really worth it? Also, not to mention, Everytime there is a departure from the endless wave of dune terminology and soulless dialogue, you get hit with this cryptic poetry from the Orange Catholic Bible or something that really just doesn't hit me that's all folks

t3_2kc0li

CMV: I think The American system is either beyond redemption or close enough to be indistinguishable. Change my view

It seems we are in a crony capitalist oligarchy or some similar system (the number of ways to define this are innumerable). Between a massive defense budget, shrinking civil rights and individual freedoms, businesses being too big to fail, the CIA and NSA and other "intelligence organizations" (read: domestic and international spy agencies), and the rich and the poor having a clearly different set of laws to follow, with very little to no upward mobility seeming reasonably possible with honest work, I really wonder if America has not only lost its way, but the current system is irredeemable. Worker wages are incredibly low, especially considering the rates of inflation. Basic things that are considered rights elsewhere, such as medical care, vacation, paternity and maternity leave, etc are considered privileges, and on the rare occasion they are offered by an employer actually using them may get an employee fired. First, second, and fourth amendment rights are being trampled and ignored. Third amendment rights seem irrelevant with a military so large and well funded through taxes that though we don't house the military in our homes, but we pay for their housing and might as well house them. It seems to get worse every year, with rent going up faster than wages, along with food and medical care and other basic needs. Debt slavery seems like the only option for the majority of people without rich parents and the right connections. There seems to be so much wrong with this country that I could write endlessly about it, with more going wrong every day. Change my view, and with some facts and numbers if possible. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think The American system is either beyond redemption or close enough to be indistinguishable. Change my view. It seems we are in a crony capitalist oligarchy or some similar system (the number of ways to define this are innumerable). Between a massive defense budget, shrinking civil rights and individual freedoms, businesses being too big to fail, the CIA and NSA and other "intelligence organizations" (read: domestic and international spy agencies), and the rich and the poor having a clearly different set of laws to follow, with very little to no upward mobility seeming reasonably possible with honest work, I really wonder if America has not only lost its way, but the current system is irredeemable. Worker wages are incredibly low, especially considering the rates of inflation. Basic things that are considered rights elsewhere, such as medical care, vacation, paternity and maternity leave, etc are considered privileges, and on the rare occasion they are offered by an employer actually using them may get an employee fired. First, second, and fourth amendment rights are being trampled and ignored. Third amendment rights seem irrelevant with a military so large and well funded through taxes that though we don't house the military in our homes, but we pay for their housing and might as well house them. It seems to get worse every year, with rent going up faster than wages, along with food and medical care and other basic needs. Debt slavery seems like the only option for the majority of people without rich parents and the right connections. There seems to be so much wrong with this country that I could write endlessly about it, with more going wrong every day. Change my view, and with some facts and numbers if possible.

t3_3ehpfq

CMV: Styrofoam is the superior option when it comes to drinking cups.

Whether your beverage is hot or cold, styrofoam will always be better than glass, plastic, or paper cups. Let's start with the pros of styrofoam: - Great insulation. Keeps hot things hot and cold things cold for longer. Also protects your hand if you have a hot drink. You don't need one of those sleeves like they have on the paper cups. - Minimal condensation on the outside of the cup if it's a cold beverage - Durable and travel-friendly The only major con I can come up with for styrofomam is the lack of biodegradability. But we're talking about enjoying a beverage here. Cons of other materials: **Paper:** not as durable. Leave a cold drink in a paper cup too long, and the condensation will start to wear down the paper. Also doesn't insulate very well. **Glass:** Not travel-friendly. Horrible insulator. Potential for very dangerous breakage. condensation makes it slippery and even more dangerous. **Plastic:** Not as durable. Not a great insulator. Same biodegradability problem. Somehow makes drinks *taste* like plastic. It's entirely evident in my mind that styrofoam is the superior drinking cup option. Change my view.

CMV: Styrofoam is the superior option when it comes to drinking cups. Whether your beverage is hot or cold, styrofoam will always be better than glass, plastic, or paper cups. Let's start with the pros of styrofoam: - Great insulation. Keeps hot things hot and cold things cold for longer. Also protects your hand if you have a hot drink. You don't need one of those sleeves like they have on the paper cups. - Minimal condensation on the outside of the cup if it's a cold beverage - Durable and travel-friendly The only major con I can come up with for styrofomam is the lack of biodegradability. But we're talking about enjoying a beverage here. Cons of other materials: **Paper:** not as durable. Leave a cold drink in a paper cup too long, and the condensation will start to wear down the paper. Also doesn't insulate very well. **Glass:** Not travel-friendly. Horrible insulator. Potential for very dangerous breakage. condensation makes it slippery and even more dangerous. **Plastic:** Not as durable. Not a great insulator. Same biodegradability problem. Somehow makes drinks *taste* like plastic. It's entirely evident in my mind that styrofoam is the superior drinking cup option. Change my view.

t3_5non7x

It's Fresh Topic Friday! - 01/13/2017

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

It's Fresh Topic Friday! - 01/13/2017. A lot of subreddits face the problem of balancing a new user's desire to read fresh content with a regular user's desire to do the same. The problem being that fresh to newcomers is not fresh to long time readers. CMV has tried a variety of options to have interesting submissions without limiting even the most common of views. Fresh Topic Fridays is an approach to the problem that we're trying out. During this time, all posts must be manually approved by moderators. **Any post made on FTF may not be highly similar to a post made in the past month.** [A full explanation of Fresh Topic Friday.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/freshtopicfriday) Any other questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and leave us feedback.

t3_2bl4fu

CMV: The only people who are not supportive of crypto-currencies are those people who don't properly understand them.

After reading many of the comments on /r/buttcoin, and leaving political and economic viewpoints aside, I have come to the conclusion that basically everyone (maybe even everyone, period) who isn't supportive of crypto-currencies doesn't actually understand them on a technical level. Usually their miss-understanding includes concepts including but not limited to: cryptography, the problem of distributed trust, the blockchain and proof of work CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The only people who are not supportive of crypto-currencies are those people who don't properly understand them. After reading many of the comments on /r/buttcoin, and leaving political and economic viewpoints aside, I have come to the conclusion that basically everyone (maybe even everyone, period) who isn't supportive of crypto-currencies doesn't actually understand them on a technical level. Usually their miss-understanding includes concepts including but not limited to: cryptography, the problem of distributed trust, the blockchain and proof of work CMV.

t3_31wge9

CMV: I think punishment is pretty useless

I think punishment does absolutely nothing to address the root of the problem. It is based on fear, an emotion. When people commit heinous crimes, they arent thinking about the punishment. Its like the saying "locks keep honest theives away." In places where "criminal" behavior like drug use is treated as a disease and addressed with education instead of throwing people in jail, the environment and the results are all around better. This has been proven through the whole drug use thing. When addicts are helped and the root of the problem addressed, the situation improves, drug use and addiction goes down, ect. I dont see why this wouldnt work for violent behavior as well. Most people already argue that hitting children is a bad idea and when the children are away from the person that hits them they will return to the same type of behavior. The root of the problem needs to be addressed in order to fix the problem, not covering it up for a bit. Prison is needed for people that must be taken out of society for the safety of society in general, but overall on the vast majority of people do not need "punishment." The only reason people want people punished it some strange bloodlust and revenge fantasy, in my opinion. The type of people that come out of prison "changed" are usually the people that found reasons for good behavior in something other than "jail scares me." Yes, some do it because they dont want to go back to jail. But for most its seeing the irrationality of their old ways or finding some sort of purpose. Then you have the people that just see the punishment they are going to get as a business expense, a hit that they can ignore once they are away from the person hitting..

CMV: I think punishment is pretty useless. I think punishment does absolutely nothing to address the root of the problem. It is based on fear, an emotion. When people commit heinous crimes, they arent thinking about the punishment. Its like the saying "locks keep honest theives away." In places where "criminal" behavior like drug use is treated as a disease and addressed with education instead of throwing people in jail, the environment and the results are all around better. This has been proven through the whole drug use thing. When addicts are helped and the root of the problem addressed, the situation improves, drug use and addiction goes down, ect. I dont see why this wouldnt work for violent behavior as well. Most people already argue that hitting children is a bad idea and when the children are away from the person that hits them they will return to the same type of behavior. The root of the problem needs to be addressed in order to fix the problem, not covering it up for a bit. Prison is needed for people that must be taken out of society for the safety of society in general, but overall on the vast majority of people do not need "punishment." The only reason people want people punished it some strange bloodlust and revenge fantasy, in my opinion. The type of people that come out of prison "changed" are usually the people that found reasons for good behavior in something other than "jail scares me." Yes, some do it because they dont want to go back to jail. But for most its seeing the irrationality of their old ways or finding some sort of purpose. Then you have the people that just see the punishment they are going to get as a business expense, a hit that they can ignore once they are away from the person hitting..

t3_6d5mzq

CMV: Humanity is fundamentally cruel and we will never stop repeating the same horrors over and over.

The more I study history and politics the more sure I feel that humanity is at least in some ways fundamentally cruel and evil. There are some naturally good, kind, and gentle people but they're far and few in between and usually they world eats them alive. No matter how complex our technology, no matter how well educated, no matter how legalistic we become its all just a show we put on for each other. We like to pretend we're kind, thoughtful, loving animals but our behavior shows only a fundamentally vicious, selfish, and short sighted mistake of a species. No matter what we're going to keep raping, murdering, and harming each other until nature finally corrects its mistake and the human race goes extinct. In many ways I think this would be preferable to humans discovering space travel as more likely than not if we encounter another species of intelligent life and if they're weaker than us we'll just rape, murder, and exterminate them like we've been practicing on ourselves for the last 100,000 years. No matter how smart we think we are, we can never escape our nature and that nature is fundamentally cruel. _____ > *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: Humanity is fundamentally cruel and we will never stop repeating the same horrors over and over. The more I study history and politics the more sure I feel that humanity is at least in some ways fundamentally cruel and evil. There are some naturally good, kind, and gentle people but they're far and few in between and usually they world eats them alive. No matter how complex our technology, no matter how well educated, no matter how legalistic we become its all just a show we put on for each other. We like to pretend we're kind, thoughtful, loving animals but our behavior shows only a fundamentally vicious, selfish, and short sighted mistake of a species. No matter what we're going to keep raping, murdering, and harming each other until nature finally corrects its mistake and the human race goes extinct. In many ways I think this would be preferable to humans discovering space travel as more likely than not if we encounter another species of intelligent life and if they're weaker than us we'll just rape, murder, and exterminate them like we've been practicing on ourselves for the last 100,000 years. No matter how smart we think we are, we can never escape our nature and that nature is fundamentally cruel.

t3_1pids2

I believe Subaru is the best car manufacturer in North America, CMV

In short Subaru has the [highest safety ratings](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/forester), [highest resale values](http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/bmw-and-subaru-have-best-resale-value-says-kelley-blue-book/?_r=0), and have a huge following in the import scene as well as motorsports. They have a zero emissions, landfill based factory plant. They're utilization of AWD is a big advantage as well as well-made, reliable engines and transmissions. Honestly the only disadvantage as a manufacturer is a lack of any truck or large suv that has hauling and towing capabilities. In short, Subaru is the best car manufacturer in North America, CMV?

I believe Subaru is the best car manufacturer in North America, CMV. In short Subaru has the [highest safety ratings](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/forester), [highest resale values](http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/bmw-and-subaru-have-best-resale-value-says-kelley-blue-book/?_r=0), and have a huge following in the import scene as well as motorsports. They have a zero emissions, landfill based factory plant. They're utilization of AWD is a big advantage as well as well-made, reliable engines and transmissions. Honestly the only disadvantage as a manufacturer is a lack of any truck or large suv that has hauling and towing capabilities. In short, Subaru is the best car manufacturer in North America, CMV?

t3_1ktl8i

I believe the "Slippery Slope" argument is mis-characterized as a fallacy. CMV.

I'm not talking about slippery slopes like the [DirecTV commercial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udQSHWpL88) which posit a theoretically possible, yet incredibly unlikely chain of events wherein each successive event cannot come to pass without the one before it; those are better described under *Reductio ad Absurdum.* Rather, I take issue when one action can lead to multiple unintended consequences which tend to happen one at a time, it is still characterized as a slippery slope. For example: **Correctly judged as Fallacy, but Mislabeled:** 1 leads to 2, which leads to 3, which leads to 4, which leads to 5, ... , which leads to n, therefore, don't do 1. The chain of causality is long, and with each link, the probability of event n coming to pass decreases geometrically. [P(n) = P(1) * P(2) * P(3) * P(4) * P(5) * ... * P(n|1,2,3,4,5,...(n-1))] **Misjudged as Fallacy:** 1 leads to 2, 3, 4 and 5, where 5 is likely to occur after 4 and so on, but not because of it. Here, the chain of causality is only 2 hops; events 2-5 all happen in numerical order, but only because of event 1. I believe that this is a legitimate argument because without the absurd chain of events, it's just a pointing-out of the possible consequences of action 1. ___ **EDIT: Another case** Suppose a chain of events, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, where event 5 is horrible and 1-4 are desirable. Each event is dependent on the event before it, so we know that if 1 does not happen, then 5 definitely will not. But if 1 does happen, 5 will not necessarily happen. Is it a fallacy to say that 1 should not be allowed to happen, despite the potential benefits, because absolutely preventing 5 is more important?

I believe the "Slippery Slope" argument is mis-characterized as a fallacy. CMV. I'm not talking about slippery slopes like the [DirecTV commercial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udQSHWpL88) which posit a theoretically possible, yet incredibly unlikely chain of events wherein each successive event cannot come to pass without the one before it; those are better described under *Reductio ad Absurdum.* Rather, I take issue when one action can lead to multiple unintended consequences which tend to happen one at a time, it is still characterized as a slippery slope. For example: **Correctly judged as Fallacy, but Mislabeled:** 1 leads to 2, which leads to 3, which leads to 4, which leads to 5, ... , which leads to n, therefore, don't do 1. The chain of causality is long, and with each link, the probability of event n coming to pass decreases geometrically. [P(n) = P(1) * P(2) * P(3) * P(4) * P(5) * ... * P(n|1,2,3,4,5,...(n-1))] **Misjudged as Fallacy:** 1 leads to 2, 3, 4 and 5, where 5 is likely to occur after 4 and so on, but not because of it. Here, the chain of causality is only 2 hops; events 2-5 all happen in numerical order, but only because of event 1. I believe that this is a legitimate argument because without the absurd chain of events, it's just a pointing-out of the possible consequences of action 1. ___ **EDIT: Another case** Suppose a chain of events, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, where event 5 is horrible and 1-4 are desirable. Each event is dependent on the event before it, so we know that if 1 does not happen, then 5 definitely will not. But if 1 does happen, 5 will not necessarily happen. Is it a fallacy to say that 1 should not be allowed to happen, despite the potential benefits, because absolutely preventing 5 is more important?

t3_4uqni3

CMV: The two party system is not the problem.

If we had multiparty democracy in the United States, a lot of people would be happy because they could vote for Bernie (or his party) this November. But all that would happen is that he would form a coalition government with Clinton and compromise with her. Same result, different process. Our political parties are much less centralized than in those parliamentary democracies. They allow for deliberation in the primaries and elsewhere. There's always been different factions under the umbrellas of Democrats or Republicans in Congress. I think Bernie supporters have every right to be upset over the DNC favoring Hillary but I don't think it's the norm at all - just look at what happened in the GOP primary or in the last Democratic primary. Lots of stuff should be reformed, sure, DNC favoritism (this one time), money in politics, gerrymandering, yeah, but I don't think the two party system is the problem. Fix the other stuff and two parties would be fine. Also this system gives the added benefit of usually having an elected official that at least half the people directly voted for. If we had multiparty democracy, the same people would probably complain when we got a president elected who only 30% voted for. Change my view.

CMV: The two party system is not the problem. If we had multiparty democracy in the United States, a lot of people would be happy because they could vote for Bernie (or his party) this November. But all that would happen is that he would form a coalition government with Clinton and compromise with her. Same result, different process. Our political parties are much less centralized than in those parliamentary democracies. They allow for deliberation in the primaries and elsewhere. There's always been different factions under the umbrellas of Democrats or Republicans in Congress. I think Bernie supporters have every right to be upset over the DNC favoring Hillary but I don't think it's the norm at all - just look at what happened in the GOP primary or in the last Democratic primary. Lots of stuff should be reformed, sure, DNC favoritism (this one time), money in politics, gerrymandering, yeah, but I don't think the two party system is the problem. Fix the other stuff and two parties would be fine. Also this system gives the added benefit of usually having an elected official that at least half the people directly voted for. If we had multiparty democracy, the same people would probably complain when we got a president elected who only 30% voted for. Change my view.

t3_1v94ku

I do not believe the US government bears responsibility for the death of Aaron Swartz. CMV

Internet activists unfairly blame the US government for causing the death of Aaron Swartz. Ignoring issues of freedom of information and instead focusing on the details of the case, what Swartz did was illegal. He was aware that he was committing a crime, and presumably aware of the legal risk. The potential maximum sentence of 50 years in prison was not an arbitrary number invented by a vengeful judge; rather, it was the sum of the maximum penalties for his charges, determined in full accordance with the law. Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Swartz refused to take a plea bargain for 6 months in minimum security prison. Lacking the funds to defend himself at trial, he succumbed to the pressure and took his own life. The outrage surrounding Swartz's death focuses on his role as an activist, justification for greater freedom of information, and the "disproportionality" of the potential sentence. It ignores Swartz's obvious guilt and his rejection of the rather "proportionate" 6 month sentence. When determining whether or not the US government bears responsibility for Swartz's death, the latter two issues seem more relevant than the former three. The government was doing its job by enforcing its own laws. The activist community prefers to see Swartz as a victim and the US government as a bully because of their admiration of Swartz and because portraying the events in this manner creates greater sympathy and support for their causes. CMV

I do not believe the US government bears responsibility for the death of Aaron Swartz. CMV. Internet activists unfairly blame the US government for causing the death of Aaron Swartz. Ignoring issues of freedom of information and instead focusing on the details of the case, what Swartz did was illegal. He was aware that he was committing a crime, and presumably aware of the legal risk. The potential maximum sentence of 50 years in prison was not an arbitrary number invented by a vengeful judge; rather, it was the sum of the maximum penalties for his charges, determined in full accordance with the law. Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Swartz refused to take a plea bargain for 6 months in minimum security prison. Lacking the funds to defend himself at trial, he succumbed to the pressure and took his own life. The outrage surrounding Swartz's death focuses on his role as an activist, justification for greater freedom of information, and the "disproportionality" of the potential sentence. It ignores Swartz's obvious guilt and his rejection of the rather "proportionate" 6 month sentence. When determining whether or not the US government bears responsibility for Swartz's death, the latter two issues seem more relevant than the former three. The government was doing its job by enforcing its own laws. The activist community prefers to see Swartz as a victim and the US government as a bully because of their admiration of Swartz and because portraying the events in this manner creates greater sympathy and support for their causes. CMV

t3_1jc5xb

Feminism does not exist. CMV

The Christians have Christ. The Mahommedans have Mohammed. The Leninists have Lenin. But who are Feminists? Who is Femin? You will find Aroundhati Roy, one of the most vociferous defenders of the regime of Saddam Hussein, to be dubbed a "feminist" liberal academic. You will Laura Bush also getting called "feminist" while *supporting* the war Saddam Hussein. There are self-proclaimed "feminists" wanting more people like Thatcher in the commanding heights and there are self-proclaimed "feminists" demanding free love in place of the nuclear family. You will find "Feminists" on the service of the [moral crusade measures against dandyism](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027) and [suchlike debauchery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_club_ban_in_Iceland). You will find "feminists" in support of the US American porn industry. You will find folk hiring prostitutes to parade around naked with [racist signs](http://f.postimees.ee/f/2011/03/03/529718t40h2c61.jpg) to egg on a Ukrainian girl leaving the country to S.E.Asia getting touted as the vanguard of "feminism". You will discover Arabic suffragettes have no other option no other option but jumping their bandwagon to get their voices heard. So, what is the use of the feminist badge? For people who believe in a global "feminist" conspiracy, like /r/mensrights, a "feminist" is nothing but a common woman, any woman. They're exactly like /r/ZOG or /r/niggers except that they're picking out stories about *women* instead of any random ethnic group. Marc Lépine, in his effort to "fight feminism", murdered all the women he would find. This is what feminism means to the *"anti-feminists"*. To *me* it means nothing. What does it mean to you? CMV!

Feminism does not exist. CMV. The Christians have Christ. The Mahommedans have Mohammed. The Leninists have Lenin. But who are Feminists? Who is Femin? You will find Aroundhati Roy, one of the most vociferous defenders of the regime of Saddam Hussein, to be dubbed a "feminist" liberal academic. You will Laura Bush also getting called "feminist" while *supporting* the war Saddam Hussein. There are self-proclaimed "feminists" wanting more people like Thatcher in the commanding heights and there are self-proclaimed "feminists" demanding free love in place of the nuclear family. You will find "Feminists" on the service of the [moral crusade measures against dandyism](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027) and [suchlike debauchery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_club_ban_in_Iceland). You will find "feminists" in support of the US American porn industry. You will find folk hiring prostitutes to parade around naked with [racist signs](http://f.postimees.ee/f/2011/03/03/529718t40h2c61.jpg) to egg on a Ukrainian girl leaving the country to S.E.Asia getting touted as the vanguard of "feminism". You will discover Arabic suffragettes have no other option no other option but jumping their bandwagon to get their voices heard. So, what is the use of the feminist badge? For people who believe in a global "feminist" conspiracy, like /r/mensrights, a "feminist" is nothing but a common woman, any woman. They're exactly like /r/ZOG or /r/niggers except that they're picking out stories about *women* instead of any random ethnic group. Marc Lépine, in his effort to "fight feminism", murdered all the women he would find. This is what feminism means to the *"anti-feminists"*. To *me* it means nothing. What does it mean to you? CMV!

t3_6tn3ne

CMV: We (U.S.) should have a national online polling / survey system.

We need a reliable, large-scale method of gathering information about our citizen's views on important subjects. Although statistical science suggests that sample polling should be helpful, we all know from experience how badly off the mark many polls can be, especially with recent political campaigns. There could be a whole discussion and debate on the utility and accuracy of polls, but I can't imagine anyone would believe a 400 person sample poll is equal in accuracy to an actual survey of, say, 50 million people. Not only that, but a 50 million person survey is something people would likely trust more on a gut level more than a small sample. Also, the data gathered during traditional censuses is constantly outdated, and an online service would help ensure more current and dynamic information. I am aware that you can respond to the census bureau online, but it's still based on an outdated response model which requires physically mailed paperwork. What I think we should have is a single national service that is based online and uses your social security number (with a PIN perhaps) as ID, where we can fill out surveys / polls about ourselves and our views on a wide range of subjects. Surveys would include household information (sex, race, income, vehicle ownership, etc.) just like the old paper-based census, and polls could include a huge variety of questions concerning social, political, and religious issues -- all of the kinds of stuff that Gallup and Pew does, but with a much larger sample of a larger variety of people. The information gathered -- which would remain anonymous-- could be broken down in all kinds of ways, from gender, race, state, county, etc. We could see what millions of people actually think and how they live in every part of the country and have a much more complete view than we ever have before with small-sample polling. It could generate some of the most thorough and interesting infographics we have seen thus far outside of Pornhub's majestic yearly report. There could also be a tax credit system to incentivize people to participate. I think it might even be worthwhile if private companies could pay to use this service to send survey and questionaire requests to citizens, perhaps with their own incentives. So, that's the basic idea. That said, I do not want this to turn into a discussion about easy it would be to implement such a service, or that homeless people couldn't use it, etc. The condition for me giving you a delta is for you to change my mind that this idea would be beneficial. _____ > *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: We (U.S.) should have a national online polling / survey system. We need a reliable, large-scale method of gathering information about our citizen's views on important subjects. Although statistical science suggests that sample polling should be helpful, we all know from experience how badly off the mark many polls can be, especially with recent political campaigns. There could be a whole discussion and debate on the utility and accuracy of polls, but I can't imagine anyone would believe a 400 person sample poll is equal in accuracy to an actual survey of, say, 50 million people. Not only that, but a 50 million person survey is something people would likely trust more on a gut level more than a small sample. Also, the data gathered during traditional censuses is constantly outdated, and an online service would help ensure more current and dynamic information. I am aware that you can respond to the census bureau online, but it's still based on an outdated response model which requires physically mailed paperwork. What I think we should have is a single national service that is based online and uses your social security number (with a PIN perhaps) as ID, where we can fill out surveys / polls about ourselves and our views on a wide range of subjects. Surveys would include household information (sex, race, income, vehicle ownership, etc.) just like the old paper-based census, and polls could include a huge variety of questions concerning social, political, and religious issues -- all of the kinds of stuff that Gallup and Pew does, but with a much larger sample of a larger variety of people. The information gathered -- which would remain anonymous-- could be broken down in all kinds of ways, from gender, race, state, county, etc. We could see what millions of people actually think and how they live in every part of the country and have a much more complete view than we ever have before with small-sample polling. It could generate some of the most thorough and interesting infographics we have seen thus far outside of Pornhub's majestic yearly report. There could also be a tax credit system to incentivize people to participate. I think it might even be worthwhile if private companies could pay to use this service to send survey and questionaire requests to citizens, perhaps with their own incentives. So, that's the basic idea. That said, I do not want this to turn into a discussion about easy it would be to implement such a service, or that homeless people couldn't use it, etc. The condition for me giving you a delta is for you to change my mind that this idea would be beneficial.

t3_350mhk

CMV: I shouldn't compromise on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage when choosing a candidate to vote for in the primaries.

EDIT: My V's been C'd. EDIT 2: I'm still voting for a Democrat, though. This turned out to be more of an experiment into seeing it from a different perspective than actually changing my stance. I am staunchly pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage. I've heard every argument in the book against the both of them and will not change my position. I'm not interested in debating those topics. However, the view I want changed is my prioritization of these issues. Right now, it is an absolute deal breaker for me if a candidate doesn't share my view on these issues. I fear human and civil rights are at risk if the legal status of either is under threat. Yet, I find myself agreeing with some candidates on some issues despite knowing that they're staunchly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Am I narrow minded for dismissing them because of a couple disagreements? Are there larger issues that the United States faces that I should prioritize instead? Will the next president really have the power to seriously threaten the legal status of either abortion or same-sex marriage? If these questions could be satisfactorily answered, I could be persuaded to change my view.

CMV: I shouldn't compromise on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage when choosing a candidate to vote for in the primaries. EDIT: My V's been C'd. EDIT 2: I'm still voting for a Democrat, though. This turned out to be more of an experiment into seeing it from a different perspective than actually changing my stance. I am staunchly pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage. I've heard every argument in the book against the both of them and will not change my position. I'm not interested in debating those topics. However, the view I want changed is my prioritization of these issues. Right now, it is an absolute deal breaker for me if a candidate doesn't share my view on these issues. I fear human and civil rights are at risk if the legal status of either is under threat. Yet, I find myself agreeing with some candidates on some issues despite knowing that they're staunchly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Am I narrow minded for dismissing them because of a couple disagreements? Are there larger issues that the United States faces that I should prioritize instead? Will the next president really have the power to seriously threaten the legal status of either abortion or same-sex marriage? If these questions could be satisfactorily answered, I could be persuaded to change my view.

t3_20jjn8

The 'Away goals rule' in football (soccer) competition such as the UEFA Champions League and Europa League is useless and fixes a problem which doesn't exist. CMV.

So I love European football but I hate, with a vengeance, the [Away Goals Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_goals_rule), where goals scored on the away leg of the two-legged fixture are used as a tiebreaker in the event of a tie on the aggregate of both games. I think this is the stupidest rule because it's *already* evened out by having a two-legged fixture. No team is inherently advantaged so why does UEFA (or whatever governing body) feel the need to literally change the importance of a goal to try and even out something that is already even? This rule essentially says that a 1-1 draw is "better" than a 0-0...but only for the away team. Why is it that it's advantageous to concede a goal, as long as you've scored one yourself, than be able to keep a clean sheet? It makes no sense. If I'm the manager of a defensively-minded team, I'm pissed that my scheme is now at a disadvantage for no reason, if we aren't able to score. Furthermore, the nature of football means that goals can come in the blink of an eye with a large amount of luck involved (own goal, deflection, etc.). If an away team scores from a lucky deflection, it's just ridiculous the advantage it gives them. Lucky goals happen to everyone and are fine but the away goals rule just further enhances their effect on games. EDIT: Thanks for the responses, everyone. I will put it out right now that I was half-expecting there to be a simple "This is why" answer but it seems to me that there isn't and/or that the answers provided, while correct in stating why the rule is there, still doesn't convince me that it's a sound rule.

The 'Away goals rule' in football (soccer) competition such as the UEFA Champions League and Europa League is useless and fixes a problem which doesn't exist. CMV. So I love European football but I hate, with a vengeance, the [Away Goals Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_goals_rule), where goals scored on the away leg of the two-legged fixture are used as a tiebreaker in the event of a tie on the aggregate of both games. I think this is the stupidest rule because it's *already* evened out by having a two-legged fixture. No team is inherently advantaged so why does UEFA (or whatever governing body) feel the need to literally change the importance of a goal to try and even out something that is already even? This rule essentially says that a 1-1 draw is "better" than a 0-0...but only for the away team. Why is it that it's advantageous to concede a goal, as long as you've scored one yourself, than be able to keep a clean sheet? It makes no sense. If I'm the manager of a defensively-minded team, I'm pissed that my scheme is now at a disadvantage for no reason, if we aren't able to score. Furthermore, the nature of football means that goals can come in the blink of an eye with a large amount of luck involved (own goal, deflection, etc.). If an away team scores from a lucky deflection, it's just ridiculous the advantage it gives them. Lucky goals happen to everyone and are fine but the away goals rule just further enhances their effect on games. EDIT: Thanks for the responses, everyone. I will put it out right now that I was half-expecting there to be a simple "This is why" answer but it seems to me that there isn't and/or that the answers provided, while correct in stating why the rule is there, still doesn't convince me that it's a sound rule.

t3_2cotfm

CMV: There is no such thing as "evil"

I believe the word "evil" is a lazy description of any persons actions and that the concept of evil, especially in the metaphysical sense, is completely non-existent. Furthermore, I believe the use of the word "evil" when referring to one or one's actions is toxic to public perception of psychology and morals. The most heinous, terrible, selfish, disgusting acts that a person can commit can always (in my experience) be considered critically and be shown to have more practical roots than the over-arching, massive title of calling them or their actions "evil". If we are to have a conversation on the matter devoid of religious belief (which I would strongly prefer), I see, as of now, no practical reason to see "evil" as a realistic, viable description of anything ever. 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 is no such thing as "evil". I believe the word "evil" is a lazy description of any persons actions and that the concept of evil, especially in the metaphysical sense, is completely non-existent. Furthermore, I believe the use of the word "evil" when referring to one or one's actions is toxic to public perception of psychology and morals. The most heinous, terrible, selfish, disgusting acts that a person can commit can always (in my experience) be considered critically and be shown to have more practical roots than the over-arching, massive title of calling them or their actions "evil". If we are to have a conversation on the matter devoid of religious belief (which I would strongly prefer), I see, as of now, no practical reason to see "evil" as a realistic, viable description of anything ever. CMV?

t3_35gifv

CMV: I believe that characterizing being overweight and obese as extremely unhealthy is inaccurate and distracts from more pressing health issues

Reddit seems to really focus on the shame and guilt that overweight and obese people should feel because they have made themselves so unhealthy. There are numerous, highly upvoted posts about in r/changemyview alone about how terrible it is to be obese. It's easy to see that being overweight or obese seems inherently unhealthy, but looking at the research on the subject, I have a hard time seeing that it truly carries such a risk or that it is really that huge a burden on the US medical system as most people assume. This broad meta-analysis which analyzed data from almost 3 million subjects found that only grade 2 and 3 obesity (measured by BMI) were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality compared to average weight populations. In fact, being overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. [Study] (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137) While grade 2 and 3 had much higher mortality rates, only about 10% of the US population has a >35 BMI. [Chart](http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/overweight-americans.html) Moreover, increased obesity doesn't really cost the US that much more money. [Summary](http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-blame-du-jour/) I think that all of this rage against obesity does amount to a sort of "fat-shaming" and serves as a bit of a scapegoat for more pressing health issues like exercise and over-treatment. [Over-treatment Article](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande) I'm not overweight myself; I just find it a little strange that the research on this subject is so out of whack with not just the perception of the public, but the views of many very intelligent and well-educated people. If someone could point me to some good research on obesity and relevant health and cost consequences, I'm very open to having my view on the subject changed. _____ > *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 characterizing being overweight and obese as extremely unhealthy is inaccurate and distracts from more pressing health issues. Reddit seems to really focus on the shame and guilt that overweight and obese people should feel because they have made themselves so unhealthy. There are numerous, highly upvoted posts about in r/changemyview alone about how terrible it is to be obese. It's easy to see that being overweight or obese seems inherently unhealthy, but looking at the research on the subject, I have a hard time seeing that it truly carries such a risk or that it is really that huge a burden on the US medical system as most people assume. This broad meta-analysis which analyzed data from almost 3 million subjects found that only grade 2 and 3 obesity (measured by BMI) were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality compared to average weight populations. In fact, being overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. [Study] (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137) While grade 2 and 3 had much higher mortality rates, only about 10% of the US population has a >35 BMI. [Chart](http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/overweight-americans.html) Moreover, increased obesity doesn't really cost the US that much more money. [Summary](http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-blame-du-jour/) I think that all of this rage against obesity does amount to a sort of "fat-shaming" and serves as a bit of a scapegoat for more pressing health issues like exercise and over-treatment. [Over-treatment Article](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande) I'm not overweight myself; I just find it a little strange that the research on this subject is so out of whack with not just the perception of the public, but the views of many very intelligent and well-educated people. If someone could point me to some good research on obesity and relevant health and cost consequences, I'm very open to having my view on the subject changed.

t3_3nd4n4

CMV: Current race relations in the US would be better had the Civil Rights Movement been more militant.

When I read about the Civil Rights Movement, I see a narrative of blacks having to basically act "white" in order to be accepted by white people. They had to focus on their similarities, e.g. being christian, non-violent, properly dressed, etc. This allowed while people to "give" them their rights rather then black people "taking" rights that were theirs in the first place. They had a right to react violently to the suppression of their rights, and they should have exercised it. I realize that this course of action would have taken a lot more time, and been much harder on those going through it, but I think that race relations TODAY, would be much better had that been the case. edit 1: By "more militant" I mean that they should have responded to violence in kind. Not just use non-violent tactics. _____ > *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: Current race relations in the US would be better had the Civil Rights Movement been more militant. When I read about the Civil Rights Movement, I see a narrative of blacks having to basically act "white" in order to be accepted by white people. They had to focus on their similarities, e.g. being christian, non-violent, properly dressed, etc. This allowed while people to "give" them their rights rather then black people "taking" rights that were theirs in the first place. They had a right to react violently to the suppression of their rights, and they should have exercised it. I realize that this course of action would have taken a lot more time, and been much harder on those going through it, but I think that race relations TODAY, would be much better had that been the case. edit 1: By "more militant" I mean that they should have responded to violence in kind. Not just use non-violent tactics.

t3_6riori

CMV: Conditional threats should be legal in certain scenarios.

I believe that a conditional threat (If you do this, I'll do this) should be legal as long as the condition (If you do this) would be illegal in the first place. If you act on the threat, that should be legal too, as long as you can prove the conditions of the threat were met, and that you notified the party of the conditions beforehand. And example would be something like: Bill tells Dan that he is going to kick his ass. Dan facebook messages Bill, and tells him You are not welcome on my property. (If) you come to my property, I will shoot you. Bill comes to Dans house, and gets shot. The police show up and Dan has to sit in jail a day or two until he can be seen by a judge (No real way around that part) He then presents his facebook message, showing that he established the threat beforehand. (This could work other ways too im sure, but this is off the top of my head.) Judge lets him go because Bill indeed knew what he was heading into and chose to do it. There would always have to be proof to establish that the threat was recieved, and obviously you could only use these threats in specific scenarios. (So not for example, to say "If you come to this park again blah blah blah) It would need strict guidelines, such as you cannot threaten somebody to keep them from doing something they already have the right to do. Threats would have to be kept to things like "Dont come to my property" "Don't touch my property" "Don't fight me" etc. Im sure I am forgetting something, but this is my basic view. It would be changed if you can show why this couldn't work on most cases. 1 specific example of where it wouldn't work wont do. _____ > *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: Conditional threats should be legal in certain scenarios. I believe that a conditional threat (If you do this, I'll do this) should be legal as long as the condition (If you do this) would be illegal in the first place. If you act on the threat, that should be legal too, as long as you can prove the conditions of the threat were met, and that you notified the party of the conditions beforehand. And example would be something like: Bill tells Dan that he is going to kick his ass. Dan facebook messages Bill, and tells him You are not welcome on my property. (If) you come to my property, I will shoot you. Bill comes to Dans house, and gets shot. The police show up and Dan has to sit in jail a day or two until he can be seen by a judge (No real way around that part) He then presents his facebook message, showing that he established the threat beforehand. (This could work other ways too im sure, but this is off the top of my head.) Judge lets him go because Bill indeed knew what he was heading into and chose to do it. There would always have to be proof to establish that the threat was recieved, and obviously you could only use these threats in specific scenarios. (So not for example, to say "If you come to this park again blah blah blah) It would need strict guidelines, such as you cannot threaten somebody to keep them from doing something they already have the right to do. Threats would have to be kept to things like "Dont come to my property" "Don't touch my property" "Don't fight me" etc. Im sure I am forgetting something, but this is my basic view. It would be changed if you can show why this couldn't work on most cases. 1 specific example of where it wouldn't work wont do.

t3_5karml

CMV: Obese, gun owning Americans are well prepared for a global disaster.

I constantly hear Americans being ridiculed for their weight, and gun laws. Even within the US, the fat, gun owning Americans are considered "backwards" "stupid" "rednecks" etc. However, every single survival show that I've seen, the fat people do the best because they have calories stored. So, I believe that the obese, gun owning Americans are the best equipped to handle any global disaster, be it a nuclear winter, famine, plague, or anything of the sort. They'll have ample calories to burn, and weapons to defend themselves with. I think that all the anti-gun, healthy, fit people (All of western Europe and the "liberal" stated in the US) will be screwed. 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: Obese, gun owning Americans are well prepared for a global disaster. I constantly hear Americans being ridiculed for their weight, and gun laws. Even within the US, the fat, gun owning Americans are considered "backwards" "stupid" "rednecks" etc. However, every single survival show that I've seen, the fat people do the best because they have calories stored. So, I believe that the obese, gun owning Americans are the best equipped to handle any global disaster, be it a nuclear winter, famine, plague, or anything of the sort. They'll have ample calories to burn, and weapons to defend themselves with. I think that all the anti-gun, healthy, fit people (All of western Europe and the "liberal" stated in the US) will be screwed. CMV?

t3_1ljhbl

Hell is other people. CMV.

The older I get and the more experience I have with people, the more they disappoint me. I'll try to avoid individual examples and speak generally, so let me just highlight the three main points why I think people are generally best avoided: 1. They are selfish. Humans, like all living organisms, are self-interested, but humans are unique in that they can temper self interest with other considerations through a cognitive process. Humans fail to do this as much as I would like (yes, it's a subjective standard, but meaningful nonetheless), so they are best avoided. 2. They are argumentative. People are never so confident than when they know little, and people are eager to assert their own truth, ideology, or value system on others. Whether it's libertarians, feminists, nationalists, socialists, racists, the PC brigade, the Reddit hive-mind, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, atheists...it doesn't matter. Everyone has a point of view and everyone is sure they're right. It's exhausting engaging people in any conversation if you want to avoid an argument, so it's best just to avoid them. 3. They are demanding. Any interaction with another human being inevitably results in an attempt to gain something (see #1). So any human interaction is divisible to the level of quid pro quo. Since humans are selfish and argumentative, engaging in a quid pro quo exchange is difficult to do in good faith, because there will too often be an attempt to tip the scales. These principles apply to all human relationships: friendships, family relations, work relations, business, and casual interactions. Such interactions can avoid the trappings noted above if they remain superficial enough. But as time and engagement increase, the probability of encountering the above three problems at some point raises. The counterargument would be that there is a trade off. Yes, people are selfish, arrogant, etc., but in interacting with people we get stuff. Well, yeah, we do, but I'd suggest that the optimal approach to people is to try to get these things as quickly as possible whilst minimizing exposure to other humans. Sadly, this will yield an approach to people that is selfish and demanding (see above), but I think this is inevitable. Interacting with people is a zero-sum game. CMV.

Hell is other people. CMV. The older I get and the more experience I have with people, the more they disappoint me. I'll try to avoid individual examples and speak generally, so let me just highlight the three main points why I think people are generally best avoided: 1. They are selfish. Humans, like all living organisms, are self-interested, but humans are unique in that they can temper self interest with other considerations through a cognitive process. Humans fail to do this as much as I would like (yes, it's a subjective standard, but meaningful nonetheless), so they are best avoided. 2. They are argumentative. People are never so confident than when they know little, and people are eager to assert their own truth, ideology, or value system on others. Whether it's libertarians, feminists, nationalists, socialists, racists, the PC brigade, the Reddit hive-mind, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, atheists...it doesn't matter. Everyone has a point of view and everyone is sure they're right. It's exhausting engaging people in any conversation if you want to avoid an argument, so it's best just to avoid them. 3. They are demanding. Any interaction with another human being inevitably results in an attempt to gain something (see #1). So any human interaction is divisible to the level of quid pro quo. Since humans are selfish and argumentative, engaging in a quid pro quo exchange is difficult to do in good faith, because there will too often be an attempt to tip the scales. These principles apply to all human relationships: friendships, family relations, work relations, business, and casual interactions. Such interactions can avoid the trappings noted above if they remain superficial enough. But as time and engagement increase, the probability of encountering the above three problems at some point raises. The counterargument would be that there is a trade off. Yes, people are selfish, arrogant, etc., but in interacting with people we get stuff. Well, yeah, we do, but I'd suggest that the optimal approach to people is to try to get these things as quickly as possible whilst minimizing exposure to other humans. Sadly, this will yield an approach to people that is selfish and demanding (see above), but I think this is inevitable. Interacting with people is a zero-sum game. CMV.

t3_3ad1u2

CMV: Downvoting promotes negativity and shouldn't be an option

Something is downvoted for one of two reasons. Either someone thinks it doesn't contribute, or they disagree. Downvoting a post doesn't do much except make the OP lose link karma sometimes, but comments being downvoted has a bigger effect. It seems like whenever a comment is downvoted past a certain threshold, it becomes hidden, but still available to be seen if clicked. I don't know about you guys, but those comments hidden at the bottom of the thread are always intriguing. Even though they're hidden to hide the comment from everyone else, it actually brings more attention to the comment, and results in more downvotes. Why not just give these comments no attention at all by not downvoting them? This way, they won't be hidden and attractive, but rather they'll blend in with the other comments that will presumably stay at 1 point. You're a lot less likely to look at a comment with 1 point rather than someone who's hidden because they have 30 downvotes, no? Downvotes promote negativity and I don't think downvoting should be an option.

CMV: Downvoting promotes negativity and shouldn't be an option. Something is downvoted for one of two reasons. Either someone thinks it doesn't contribute, or they disagree. Downvoting a post doesn't do much except make the OP lose link karma sometimes, but comments being downvoted has a bigger effect. It seems like whenever a comment is downvoted past a certain threshold, it becomes hidden, but still available to be seen if clicked. I don't know about you guys, but those comments hidden at the bottom of the thread are always intriguing. Even though they're hidden to hide the comment from everyone else, it actually brings more attention to the comment, and results in more downvotes. Why not just give these comments no attention at all by not downvoting them? This way, they won't be hidden and attractive, but rather they'll blend in with the other comments that will presumably stay at 1 point. You're a lot less likely to look at a comment with 1 point rather than someone who's hidden because they have 30 downvotes, no? Downvotes promote negativity and I don't think downvoting should be an option.

t3_1k7klg

I don't believe that sex sells, it's aesthetics that sells. CMV.

Advertisement companies or other media may be using sex as an attraction but I think that it is not necessarily sex that sells but rather **aesthetics** with or without sex can sell. Even when we are looking through books (even if we try not to judge a book by its cover) we are more attracted to the ones with a hard cover and a good cover art (this includes cds dvds etc.). Or say if we are looking to buy a house and hopefully got enough money, the looks are the first thing we consider and then we add location, transportation etc on. I'm not saying it's the only important thing but it's the first thing that we are physically able to judge by. So, it's preferred because it's easy. If we consider all that, the idea that sex sells seems like a big misconception on what we like/buy. All we seek is mainly aesthetics, and a woman's body is well a lot aesthetically pleasant without sex itself. The ad companies may see it as "sex sells" but all the viewer is looking for something aesthetically pleasant to look at and sex is only one of the possibilities. For example, that is also why there is /r/earthporn. Beauty is a people magnet regardless of sex and women are attractive without the need of thought of sex. You may change my view because I don't know much about the philosophy of advertisement. I well may be wronged by the stats if there is any comparison present out there.

I don't believe that sex sells, it's aesthetics that sells. CMV. Advertisement companies or other media may be using sex as an attraction but I think that it is not necessarily sex that sells but rather **aesthetics** with or without sex can sell. Even when we are looking through books (even if we try not to judge a book by its cover) we are more attracted to the ones with a hard cover and a good cover art (this includes cds dvds etc.). Or say if we are looking to buy a house and hopefully got enough money, the looks are the first thing we consider and then we add location, transportation etc on. I'm not saying it's the only important thing but it's the first thing that we are physically able to judge by. So, it's preferred because it's easy. If we consider all that, the idea that sex sells seems like a big misconception on what we like/buy. All we seek is mainly aesthetics, and a woman's body is well a lot aesthetically pleasant without sex itself. The ad companies may see it as "sex sells" but all the viewer is looking for something aesthetically pleasant to look at and sex is only one of the possibilities. For example, that is also why there is /r/earthporn. Beauty is a people magnet regardless of sex and women are attractive without the need of thought of sex. You may change my view because I don't know much about the philosophy of advertisement. I well may be wronged by the stats if there is any comparison present out there.

t3_2tdrw7

CMV: I think PETA is doing the right thing euthanizing strays.

I was attempting to come up with a better situation for the stray animal population of America and eventually the world. Even if there was an organization with millions of dollars behind it therefore the means to collect all the strays - where do they put them? Build countless more no-kill shelters all over the country? Keep these poor animals caged up for what could be their entire live? If you somehow found foster homes for all these animals you will begin to see the same problem, (due to the large number of animals and the large number foster homes needed) people abandoning or abusing the animals. The only way to begin to tackle this problem is to nip in the bud, and reduce the population immensely. Please convince me to change my view.

CMV: I think PETA is doing the right thing euthanizing strays. I was attempting to come up with a better situation for the stray animal population of America and eventually the world. Even if there was an organization with millions of dollars behind it therefore the means to collect all the strays - where do they put them? Build countless more no-kill shelters all over the country? Keep these poor animals caged up for what could be their entire live? If you somehow found foster homes for all these animals you will begin to see the same problem, (due to the large number of animals and the large number foster homes needed) people abandoning or abusing the animals. The only way to begin to tackle this problem is to nip in the bud, and reduce the population immensely. Please convince me to change my view.

t3_3b4wuv

CMV: I think a human life is worth more than the life of an animal.

Humans are unique in their ability to act as moral agents, plan in advance, form complex relationships, communicate ideas, and invent technologies. A human can change the lives of other humans for the better, making them valuable in their ability to positively affect change. Animals have simpler lives, are not able to change the world as much as humans, and do not have as much complex thoughts or feelings. Most people here would choose to save the life of a human or an infant over the life of a dog. I think this isn't just a matter of psychology or biases, but it's because that is the morally right choice. Because humans lives are worth more than animal lives. However, I realize this view is speciesist, which is why I am looking to have it challenged. 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: I think a human life is worth more than the life of an animal. Humans are unique in their ability to act as moral agents, plan in advance, form complex relationships, communicate ideas, and invent technologies. A human can change the lives of other humans for the better, making them valuable in their ability to positively affect change. Animals have simpler lives, are not able to change the world as much as humans, and do not have as much complex thoughts or feelings. Most people here would choose to save the life of a human or an infant over the life of a dog. I think this isn't just a matter of psychology or biases, but it's because that is the morally right choice. Because humans lives are worth more than animal lives. However, I realize this view is speciesist, which is why I am looking to have it challenged. Thanks

t3_309hbr

CMV: Gay people should be allowed to give blood.

Today I was asked by a friend if I gave blood, I said no but I'd like to. I returned the question and he replied no, that he wanted to but he's not allowed, because of his sexuality. This is absolutely appalling. How can they discriminate and be homophobic? Apparently gay males are at high risk of STIs, oh sure because all gay men sleep around and are infectious, but no heterosexuals are all perfect. There are such things as sluts and man-whores, why are they allowed? Blood is screened anyway so they'd see if the blood had anything in it, so what's the issue? This law will have turned down so many good, willing blood donors, but they can't help because they're gay. I just do not understand. The only difference between a gay man and a straight man is who they are attracted to, not their bodies, not their brain, not their species and certainly not their blood. Gays and straights are exactly the same biologically and have equal health potential. Everyone is at equal risk of getting an STI and if you aren't careful it's YOUR fault, not because you're gay, not because you're straight, because you weren't cautious. What if your child was dying, they have a rare blood type and there is no blood to give. A person comes along, wants to donate their blood and has the correct type for your child, great your child will live! But no. They die because blood was not allowed to be given, that donor was a gay. Discriminating because someone homosexual is absolutely disgusting. Change my view, gays should be allowed to give blood. **Edit**: Okay thank you guys for all your responses, I do see now the risks that are put forward and I understand the safety of the patient is priority. Maybe if they just said people who engage in anal? Instead of gays, the way it's put across doesn't seem right to be but ah well!

CMV: Gay people should be allowed to give blood. Today I was asked by a friend if I gave blood, I said no but I'd like to. I returned the question and he replied no, that he wanted to but he's not allowed, because of his sexuality. This is absolutely appalling. How can they discriminate and be homophobic? Apparently gay males are at high risk of STIs, oh sure because all gay men sleep around and are infectious, but no heterosexuals are all perfect. There are such things as sluts and man-whores, why are they allowed? Blood is screened anyway so they'd see if the blood had anything in it, so what's the issue? This law will have turned down so many good, willing blood donors, but they can't help because they're gay. I just do not understand. The only difference between a gay man and a straight man is who they are attracted to, not their bodies, not their brain, not their species and certainly not their blood. Gays and straights are exactly the same biologically and have equal health potential. Everyone is at equal risk of getting an STI and if you aren't careful it's YOUR fault, not because you're gay, not because you're straight, because you weren't cautious. What if your child was dying, they have a rare blood type and there is no blood to give. A person comes along, wants to donate their blood and has the correct type for your child, great your child will live! But no. They die because blood was not allowed to be given, that donor was a gay. Discriminating because someone homosexual is absolutely disgusting. Change my view, gays should be allowed to give blood. **Edit**: Okay thank you guys for all your responses, I do see now the risks that are put forward and I understand the safety of the patient is priority. Maybe if they just said people who engage in anal? Instead of gays, the way it's put across doesn't seem right to be but ah well!

t3_5q2p7o

CMV: The criteria for participation at the Paralympics is so arbitrary that it ensures no fairness

Note: I'm struggling to put this thought into words. Please forgive my rambling. --- [I just saw this post on /r/TIL, about a scandal where Spanish athletes who were able-bodied competed at the 2000 Paralympics, pretending to be disabled](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/5pznhh/til_spains_basketball_team_was_stripped_of_their/), and it once again brought something to my mind which I have thought about several times before. That is, how can the Paralympics even be considered an interesting competition, when someone's arbitrarily deciding who is disabled enough to enter and who is not. Consider a swimming race. Someone who was born without legs (that is, practically nothing below the torso) is clearly disabled in a way that affects their ability to swim, and therefore their ability to compete in the Olympics. What about someone who was born with fully-formed legs that don't work at all. Also a disability, but not equivalent. What about someone who was born with legs that are 20% the length of 'normal' legs? 30%? 50%? 75%? And this is just considering legs. Then we have people who have no arms, or just one arm, or just one leg, or some non-limb physical disability. Then we have people who are considered mentally disabled, and they are allowed to race, too. What is considered disabled enough to compete at the Paralympics? If we consider mental illnesses as a spectrum from 'severely crippling' to 'minimally inconvenient', it's obvious that individuals with the most crippling illnesses will not be able to compete with nearly-healthy people. If I have a 'serious' mental illness, I may be allowed to compete. If I have depression, that's probably not serious enough to be allowed to compete. At some point in between, someone is deciding "yes, this person's mental illness is enough to include them" or "no, this person's mental illness isn't enough of a hindrance". And the position of that arbitrary boundary along the illness spectrum will be very determinant in the outcome of the competitions. As a parallel, consider having an 'open' competition, and a 'youth' competition. If we consider 'youth' to be under-13s, then the majority of winners will be 11-12 years old. Whereas if we consider 'youth' to be under-18s, then the majority of winners will be 16-17 years old. Thus, the world's best 12-year-old is given no chance to win, simply because of where we decided to draw the arbitrary line. Similarly, the world's best amputee might have no shot at winning the medal, simply because someone along the way decided that a lung condition is enough of a physical disability, or that autism is enough of a mental disability to be allowed to swim in the Paralympics. --- To try to summarize the view I would like changed in a short idea, it is this: Wherever the arbitrary line is drawn when determining which conditions/illnesses/afflictions are permitted to join the Paralympics, that will determine the result. Because of this, fairness is a meaningless concept at the Paralympics. _____ > *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 criteria for participation at the Paralympics is so arbitrary that it ensures no fairness. Note: I'm struggling to put this thought into words. Please forgive my rambling. --- [I just saw this post on /r/TIL, about a scandal where Spanish athletes who were able-bodied competed at the 2000 Paralympics, pretending to be disabled](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/5pznhh/til_spains_basketball_team_was_stripped_of_their/), and it once again brought something to my mind which I have thought about several times before. That is, how can the Paralympics even be considered an interesting competition, when someone's arbitrarily deciding who is disabled enough to enter and who is not. Consider a swimming race. Someone who was born without legs (that is, practically nothing below the torso) is clearly disabled in a way that affects their ability to swim, and therefore their ability to compete in the Olympics. What about someone who was born with fully-formed legs that don't work at all. Also a disability, but not equivalent. What about someone who was born with legs that are 20% the length of 'normal' legs? 30%? 50%? 75%? And this is just considering legs. Then we have people who have no arms, or just one arm, or just one leg, or some non-limb physical disability. Then we have people who are considered mentally disabled, and they are allowed to race, too. What is considered disabled enough to compete at the Paralympics? If we consider mental illnesses as a spectrum from 'severely crippling' to 'minimally inconvenient', it's obvious that individuals with the most crippling illnesses will not be able to compete with nearly-healthy people. If I have a 'serious' mental illness, I may be allowed to compete. If I have depression, that's probably not serious enough to be allowed to compete. At some point in between, someone is deciding "yes, this person's mental illness is enough to include them" or "no, this person's mental illness isn't enough of a hindrance". And the position of that arbitrary boundary along the illness spectrum will be very determinant in the outcome of the competitions. As a parallel, consider having an 'open' competition, and a 'youth' competition. If we consider 'youth' to be under-13s, then the majority of winners will be 11-12 years old. Whereas if we consider 'youth' to be under-18s, then the majority of winners will be 16-17 years old. Thus, the world's best 12-year-old is given no chance to win, simply because of where we decided to draw the arbitrary line. Similarly, the world's best amputee might have no shot at winning the medal, simply because someone along the way decided that a lung condition is enough of a physical disability, or that autism is enough of a mental disability to be allowed to swim in the Paralympics. --- To try to summarize the view I would like changed in a short idea, it is this: Wherever the arbitrary line is drawn when determining which conditions/illnesses/afflictions are permitted to join the Paralympics, that will determine the result. Because of this, fairness is a meaningless concept at the Paralympics.

t3_3o2lef

CMV: Edward Snowden should be pardoned by the United States government

Due to Edward Snowden's leak of thousands of classified documents, millions of American citizens now have knowledge that their government had been spying on their phone calls and emails, intellectual property which is arguably protected by the 4th amendment. Due to the United States' vow to protect "citizens rights" in the Constitution, along with our rich history of civil activists who stand up for the common man, and our nations' historical fear of any "Big Brother"-type system, I believe Edward Snowden released the documents rightfully...And to indict him on return to his homeland seems like the opposite of what should ensue.

CMV: Edward Snowden should be pardoned by the United States government. Due to Edward Snowden's leak of thousands of classified documents, millions of American citizens now have knowledge that their government had been spying on their phone calls and emails, intellectual property which is arguably protected by the 4th amendment. Due to the United States' vow to protect "citizens rights" in the Constitution, along with our rich history of civil activists who stand up for the common man, and our nations' historical fear of any "Big Brother"-type system, I believe Edward Snowden released the documents rightfully...And to indict him on return to his homeland seems like the opposite of what should ensue.

t3_4hd9dh

CMV: Social Media has absolutely no constructive purpose in a modern world. It perpetuates laziness and creates a cesspool of self indulgence and narcissism as well as destroying all sense of comedy in younger generations.

advertising, pointless games, quizzes and genero-posts removes the charm from social media sites and dehumanises the content which tends to whittle away the actually interesting people, leaving only those stupid enough to put up with them, lonely enough to need the attention or vain enough to want the attention. The only place i have seen that remains funny and witty and interesting is twitter. I think limiting the personal information and limiting the ability to go on vanity sprees is the only way to possible save social media. It just creates ways for people to not be productive, i see so many comments saying 'everyone in the office thinks i'm an idiot cos i just burst out laughing, lol im so random.' Like seriously? when did it become okay to not do your fucking job? like wow. just look at imgur atm - used to be a small image based community now it is all: hey look a dog, reposts of the same dog and fucking dumps of generic "funny" images. teenagers and younger generations will grow up thinking that the shit that is spewed on social media is actually witty and funny. that scares me. They will think that the height of comedy is putting words over a stock photo. And even worse is the how it gives people a way to be humble about their bigoted opinions and horrible demeaning actions through confession bear and shit like that. NO. it is not okay for you to be racist even if you are trying for sympathy with that fucking bear. The only social medias that aren't driven by narcissism and corporate advertisement are the ones that remain small. with a small community. And those arguably are pointless as they are not particularly social. I want to be able to say to my friends, yes i will get facebook or sure ill get on twitter, yeah sure ill add you on snapchat. But that's another reason why i hate social media. you're seen as stupid if you don't have 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: Social Media has absolutely no constructive purpose in a modern world. It perpetuates laziness and creates a cesspool of self indulgence and narcissism as well as destroying all sense of comedy in younger generations. advertising, pointless games, quizzes and genero-posts removes the charm from social media sites and dehumanises the content which tends to whittle away the actually interesting people, leaving only those stupid enough to put up with them, lonely enough to need the attention or vain enough to want the attention. The only place i have seen that remains funny and witty and interesting is twitter. I think limiting the personal information and limiting the ability to go on vanity sprees is the only way to possible save social media. It just creates ways for people to not be productive, i see so many comments saying 'everyone in the office thinks i'm an idiot cos i just burst out laughing, lol im so random.' Like seriously? when did it become okay to not do your fucking job? like wow. just look at imgur atm - used to be a small image based community now it is all: hey look a dog, reposts of the same dog and fucking dumps of generic "funny" images. teenagers and younger generations will grow up thinking that the shit that is spewed on social media is actually witty and funny. that scares me. They will think that the height of comedy is putting words over a stock photo. And even worse is the how it gives people a way to be humble about their bigoted opinions and horrible demeaning actions through confession bear and shit like that. NO. it is not okay for you to be racist even if you are trying for sympathy with that fucking bear. The only social medias that aren't driven by narcissism and corporate advertisement are the ones that remain small. with a small community. And those arguably are pointless as they are not particularly social. I want to be able to say to my friends, yes i will get facebook or sure ill get on twitter, yeah sure ill add you on snapchat. But that's another reason why i hate social media. you're seen as stupid if you don't have it.

t3_2hevmr

CMV: Equality of outcome is malign; equality of opportunity is nonsense

Equality is one of a number of concepts referenced regularly in Western political discourse (others being freedom, fairness and so on), but I'm increasingly troubled by the pursuit of it in politics. Usually people dismiss this objection as a confusion between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The former is something I rarely hear supported, but is at least unambiguous in its meaning (everyone has the same life quality in terms of health, wealth, education etc). Only people with a view of the world heavily slanted towards nurture believe this is possible, and most accept it is beyond the remit of government to achieve it, so far as I can tell. But equality of opportunity, despite appearing to be meaningful at first glance, is actually nonsense, or at least as ambiguous as "equality". Does this mean starting everyone from a same footing (which would involve compensating for background and genetic discrepancies), or simply applying the same provision to everyone? I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school, and even if it was possible I think the destruction of freedom and family life it would entail would be deeply wounding. On the other hand spending the same resources on every child seems equally callous: squandering talent at the top while potentially not allocating enough to the disadvantaged at the bottom. As for the legal system, equality could seemingly apply to equal rules applied universally regardless of background factors (class, character etc) or attempting to compensate for those factors in the name of fairness. I think there's probably elements of both approaches in our legal system, which limits equality to a principle of not being spuriously discriminatory on grounds of race, sex and so on. I suppose I'm more of a "basic standards" kind of guy, believing there should be a minimum amount of education, health and housing that the state should endeavour to provide, but otherwise citizens should be left to it. That seems to me to be justifiable for reasons of decency rather than equality. 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: Equality of outcome is malign; equality of opportunity is nonsense. Equality is one of a number of concepts referenced regularly in Western political discourse (others being freedom, fairness and so on), but I'm increasingly troubled by the pursuit of it in politics. Usually people dismiss this objection as a confusion between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The former is something I rarely hear supported, but is at least unambiguous in its meaning (everyone has the same life quality in terms of health, wealth, education etc). Only people with a view of the world heavily slanted towards nurture believe this is possible, and most accept it is beyond the remit of government to achieve it, so far as I can tell. But equality of opportunity, despite appearing to be meaningful at first glance, is actually nonsense, or at least as ambiguous as "equality". Does this mean starting everyone from a same footing (which would involve compensating for background and genetic discrepancies), or simply applying the same provision to everyone? I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school, and even if it was possible I think the destruction of freedom and family life it would entail would be deeply wounding. On the other hand spending the same resources on every child seems equally callous: squandering talent at the top while potentially not allocating enough to the disadvantaged at the bottom. As for the legal system, equality could seemingly apply to equal rules applied universally regardless of background factors (class, character etc) or attempting to compensate for those factors in the name of fairness. I think there's probably elements of both approaches in our legal system, which limits equality to a principle of not being spuriously discriminatory on grounds of race, sex and so on. I suppose I'm more of a "basic standards" kind of guy, believing there should be a minimum amount of education, health and housing that the state should endeavour to provide, but otherwise citizens should be left to it. That seems to me to be justifiable for reasons of decency rather than equality. CMV.

t3_3rzh0b

CMV: Door-to-door sales are pointless and should be outlawed.

I just graduated college and have been applying to jobs. I sent one to a "marketing" company but I looked it up and it was just door to door sales. I looked up this style of "marketing" on Reddit and other places and it seems like everyone is against it. Not only are they annoying, no one wants to do that shit and the recruitment process is based on deception. I know a lot of jobs often don't turn out as great as expected, but the way these companies market themselves, they don't even mention anything related to direct selling. This is what I'm talking about: http://signalsunitedinc.com/ EDIT: Ok, if done for the right reasons and the right company, then door to door sales may work. But what about the deceptive job recruiting methods? Edit 2: Maybe "outlawed" was too harsh. I should have said "discontinued" then. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Door-to-door sales are pointless and should be outlawed. I just graduated college and have been applying to jobs. I sent one to a "marketing" company but I looked it up and it was just door to door sales. I looked up this style of "marketing" on Reddit and other places and it seems like everyone is against it. Not only are they annoying, no one wants to do that shit and the recruitment process is based on deception. I know a lot of jobs often don't turn out as great as expected, but the way these companies market themselves, they don't even mention anything related to direct selling. This is what I'm talking about: http://signalsunitedinc.com/ EDIT: Ok, if done for the right reasons and the right company, then door to door sales may work. But what about the deceptive job recruiting methods? Edit 2: Maybe "outlawed" was too harsh. I should have said "discontinued" then.

t3_59tei4

CMV: I don't think that white Men have significantly more rights or privileges than any other group.

Inspired by [this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/59rrdm/cmv_the_term_mansplaining_is_hypocritical_and/d9b1h90/) I feel like a sticking point in my understanding of feminism as it is is the idea that one group is significantly marginalized or that one is particularly elevated. Obviously the heated debate stemming from this topic exists for a reason but, as I cannot experience it myself, I don't know much about it. I feel that in some cases other groups use it as an excuse to not work hard; to give an anecdotal example my youngest sister is very, very outspoken about feminism, and blames a lot of the things in her daily life that are very far removed from sexism on sexism to remove blame from her, or conversely when I did well, she would blame it on me being a man. This polarized me on feminism as a whole, and makes me see it more as an excuse to not be doing as well as male coworkers or friends, as she personally undermined most of my hard work with the idea that since I was a man it didn't count. Do note - I realize that this is anecdotal, and I don't intend for it to be a big part of this CMV, but that's the explanation for my current view. What I am mainly looking for in this CMV is examples of *significant* privilege or marginalization that do not have counterparts and aren't just stemming from biological factors (such as periods). _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think that white Men have significantly more rights or privileges than any other group. Inspired by [this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/59rrdm/cmv_the_term_mansplaining_is_hypocritical_and/d9b1h90/) I feel like a sticking point in my understanding of feminism as it is is the idea that one group is significantly marginalized or that one is particularly elevated. Obviously the heated debate stemming from this topic exists for a reason but, as I cannot experience it myself, I don't know much about it. I feel that in some cases other groups use it as an excuse to not work hard; to give an anecdotal example my youngest sister is very, very outspoken about feminism, and blames a lot of the things in her daily life that are very far removed from sexism on sexism to remove blame from her, or conversely when I did well, she would blame it on me being a man. This polarized me on feminism as a whole, and makes me see it more as an excuse to not be doing as well as male coworkers or friends, as she personally undermined most of my hard work with the idea that since I was a man it didn't count. Do note - I realize that this is anecdotal, and I don't intend for it to be a big part of this CMV, but that's the explanation for my current view. What I am mainly looking for in this CMV is examples of *significant* privilege or marginalization that do not have counterparts and aren't just stemming from biological factors (such as periods).

t3_21z0au

Jesus of Nazareth does not deserve to die. CMV

Sure, you could consider his teachings heracy, but from what I understand, he seems to just teach about love and forgiveness. Besides, killing him will likely create tension and perhaps spawn even more problems for the area. I mean, like it or not, he does have a large following, so killing him would anger them and validate their persecution complex. In short, killing Jesus of Nazareth will just open a basket of fish. CMV!

Jesus of Nazareth does not deserve to die. CMV. Sure, you could consider his teachings heracy, but from what I understand, he seems to just teach about love and forgiveness. Besides, killing him will likely create tension and perhaps spawn even more problems for the area. I mean, like it or not, he does have a large following, so killing him would anger them and validate their persecution complex. In short, killing Jesus of Nazareth will just open a basket of fish. CMV!

t3_2f15d2

CMV: Humans have natural urges for sexual diversity as well as companionship. Monogamy is not a sufficient lifestyle for fulfilling ones needs. Non-monogamy can be done ethically, and takes more communication and maturity to practice successfully.

Monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship. Everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership. Giving that up is not an unselfish act, it's an act of self degradation. The ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act. Additionally, this should be especially true for young people. Teenagers and young adults have priorities (school, work, volunteering…) and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought. They should be honest and forthright about their desires. Any young person requiring a "serious commitment" for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early. EDIT: Our own cultural shift from lifelong monogamy to serial monogamy is a sign that we are shifting the direction I state. Final EDIT: This conversation helped me shift from degradation to oppression to restrictions. There is still a distinction between complete sexual possession/prohibition and permissive behavior. There is certainly a spectrum of sexual behavior in relationships and almost all have restrictions. This conversation reminded me that as sexually permissive my SO and I are, we still have boundaries that aren't very different from monogamous relationships…just further out. This is my first CMV submission. I anticipate some poor communication. I anticipated some great conversation. I also chose a subject matter that most of the American culture just doesn't have any experience with or tolerance for. With those things said, I should not have been surprised that it felt more like "defend your view" than "change my view." I apologize if my initial reaction to this was less than friendly. Thank you for the conversation everybody. _____ > *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: Humans have natural urges for sexual diversity as well as companionship. Monogamy is not a sufficient lifestyle for fulfilling ones needs. Non-monogamy can be done ethically, and takes more communication and maturity to practice successfully. Monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship. Everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership. Giving that up is not an unselfish act, it's an act of self degradation. The ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act. Additionally, this should be especially true for young people. Teenagers and young adults have priorities (school, work, volunteering…) and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought. They should be honest and forthright about their desires. Any young person requiring a "serious commitment" for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early. EDIT: Our own cultural shift from lifelong monogamy to serial monogamy is a sign that we are shifting the direction I state. Final EDIT: This conversation helped me shift from degradation to oppression to restrictions. There is still a distinction between complete sexual possession/prohibition and permissive behavior. There is certainly a spectrum of sexual behavior in relationships and almost all have restrictions. This conversation reminded me that as sexually permissive my SO and I are, we still have boundaries that aren't very different from monogamous relationships…just further out. This is my first CMV submission. I anticipate some poor communication. I anticipated some great conversation. I also chose a subject matter that most of the American culture just doesn't have any experience with or tolerance for. With those things said, I should not have been surprised that it felt more like "defend your view" than "change my view." I apologize if my initial reaction to this was less than friendly. Thank you for the conversation everybody.

t3_1i3q7o

I believe that Reddit will eventually be compromised and its mechanics will be used as a propaganda machine, CMV

A lot of people I know get their news from Reddit. I have also seen these people's views change dramatically from their time spent on Reddit. Reddit is a powerful tool. Whether anyone likes it or not, there is a very large portion of the general population whose views are easily swayed by what they see. A growing number of people are using Reddit (even the President of the United States has used Reddit). Eventually Reddit, or sites like Reddit, will be utilized by a majority of the population. Reddit is run by a corporation. This corporation can do whatever they like with Reddit. There are no rules. I believe that one day Reddit will be compromised and its mechanics used as a propaganda machine. CMV.

I believe that Reddit will eventually be compromised and its mechanics will be used as a propaganda machine, CMV. A lot of people I know get their news from Reddit. I have also seen these people's views change dramatically from their time spent on Reddit. Reddit is a powerful tool. Whether anyone likes it or not, there is a very large portion of the general population whose views are easily swayed by what they see. A growing number of people are using Reddit (even the President of the United States has used Reddit). Eventually Reddit, or sites like Reddit, will be utilized by a majority of the population. Reddit is run by a corporation. This corporation can do whatever they like with Reddit. There are no rules. I believe that one day Reddit will be compromised and its mechanics used as a propaganda machine. CMV.

t3_1h2pne

I believe one of government’s primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV

I believe one of government’s primary functions should be to provide healthcare. If governments exist, at least in part, to protect its citizens then how can government not be involved in protecting citizens from illness? Historically illnesses, such as the bubonic plague, are linked to ghastly death tolls that have shaken societies to their core. Realistically, I would expect that dying because of an illness, be it cancer, the flu, or some unknown disease, is far more likely than dying because of war or terrorism. I think most would agree that governments ought to respond to dire medical situations such as plagues and/or outbreaks of a dangerous illness. I see no reason why governments should not be involved in preventive medicine as well as the more extreme examples listed above. TLDR: Fighting against common illness and trying to maintain a healthy populace seems like the most logical and effective way for a government to keep its populace alive.

I believe one of government’s primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV. I believe one of government’s primary functions should be to provide healthcare. If governments exist, at least in part, to protect its citizens then how can government not be involved in protecting citizens from illness? Historically illnesses, such as the bubonic plague, are linked to ghastly death tolls that have shaken societies to their core. Realistically, I would expect that dying because of an illness, be it cancer, the flu, or some unknown disease, is far more likely than dying because of war or terrorism. I think most would agree that governments ought to respond to dire medical situations such as plagues and/or outbreaks of a dangerous illness. I see no reason why governments should not be involved in preventive medicine as well as the more extreme examples listed above. TLDR: Fighting against common illness and trying to maintain a healthy populace seems like the most logical and effective way for a government to keep its populace alive.

t3_5lys8p

CMV: With hard work and a lot of practice, anyone can learn to draw well

Really there is no thing such as "talent". Nobody was born with the knowledge of how to draw well and it can be acquired if you work hard. In those subreddits which teach people how to draw such as r/artfundamentals and r/learntodraw, the people who post there tend to say that anyone can learn to draw well if they practice for years and years. A lot of users who post there have also shown great improvement over the years and some can draw really well now. A few people on these art subreddits will talk about wanting yo give up as they didn't improveuch in months/years. The posters on those boards will say something such as anyone can draw well if they work hard and they will call these OPs "lazy" and that "they need to draw for many more years to improve". I wonder if there is any truth to 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: With hard work and a lot of practice, anyone can learn to draw well. Really there is no thing such as "talent". Nobody was born with the knowledge of how to draw well and it can be acquired if you work hard. In those subreddits which teach people how to draw such as r/artfundamentals and r/learntodraw, the people who post there tend to say that anyone can learn to draw well if they practice for years and years. A lot of users who post there have also shown great improvement over the years and some can draw really well now. A few people on these art subreddits will talk about wanting yo give up as they didn't improveuch in months/years. The posters on those boards will say something such as anyone can draw well if they work hard and they will call these OPs "lazy" and that "they need to draw for many more years to improve". I wonder if there is any truth to this.

t3_1yrvaw

CMV, I believe that the government needs to be more strict on who it gives disability money to

I believe that certain people use their mental disorders as an excuse not to work, live and function just as the rest of society. There are people that choose not to be on their medications, talk to their therapists and quit their job, choosing to live off of disability handouts that the government gives them. There are people that are constantly favoring a sedentary life that lets other people pay for their lack of willingness to fix their condition, just so they don't have to do any work and everything is done for them. I understand that there are irreversible conditions where no medicine, psychological therapy or physical therapy can help, and I support them getting disability so they can have a standard of life that doesn't hurt them further. But, I believe that the government should assign case workers, just as they do for Child Protective Services, consistently checking up on the people for both surprise and scheduled visits. Why should my money, that I work hard for, go towards someone that can work hard and earn their own money, but chooses not to and blames their incapacities? Why is it my responsibility to pay for the government giving people money, but not checking what they are using that money for? I don't think it is. CMV. Editing to add another point: By creating a system that checks up on people with disabilities and assuring that they need the money, and that the money is going towards a standard of living that aids their disabilities, aren't jobs being created? By creating jobs we are helping the economy, thus killing two birds with one stone. By not giving out money to people that don't need it, we can tax people less or put their money towards other things that require attention, like homelessness. By creating that system that checks up on people we are saving people money, or putting them towards better causes, and creating jobs. Second edit to [this link that says what the qualifications for disability are in the USA](http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dqualify5.htm)

CMV, I believe that the government needs to be more strict on who it gives disability money to. I believe that certain people use their mental disorders as an excuse not to work, live and function just as the rest of society. There are people that choose not to be on their medications, talk to their therapists and quit their job, choosing to live off of disability handouts that the government gives them. There are people that are constantly favoring a sedentary life that lets other people pay for their lack of willingness to fix their condition, just so they don't have to do any work and everything is done for them. I understand that there are irreversible conditions where no medicine, psychological therapy or physical therapy can help, and I support them getting disability so they can have a standard of life that doesn't hurt them further. But, I believe that the government should assign case workers, just as they do for Child Protective Services, consistently checking up on the people for both surprise and scheduled visits. Why should my money, that I work hard for, go towards someone that can work hard and earn their own money, but chooses not to and blames their incapacities? Why is it my responsibility to pay for the government giving people money, but not checking what they are using that money for? I don't think it is. CMV. Editing to add another point: By creating a system that checks up on people with disabilities and assuring that they need the money, and that the money is going towards a standard of living that aids their disabilities, aren't jobs being created? By creating jobs we are helping the economy, thus killing two birds with one stone. By not giving out money to people that don't need it, we can tax people less or put their money towards other things that require attention, like homelessness. By creating that system that checks up on people we are saving people money, or putting them towards better causes, and creating jobs. Second edit to [this link that says what the qualifications for disability are in the USA](http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dqualify5.htm)

t3_5ycoxj

CMV: "School Choice" is a sham

A recent talking point around public education has been the idea of school choice. The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, uses the talking point often that parents deserve to choose the best school for their children. I believe that "school choice" is at best a sham talking point, and at worst a cover to push school privatization. I'm sure that everyone will cede that parents want what is best for their children. The extension to this is that parents should be allowed to choose the best education for their children. In terms of public policy, this involves charter schools, magnet schools, and vouchers that allow students to enroll in private schools. However, school choice is not a panacea for the education system. Let's take NYC for example. Given the "choice", most parents would send their children to fancy prep schools like Xavier, Horace Mann, etc., which essentially serve as pipelines to the best colleges and lucrative careers. Likewise, they might choose a magnet school that focuses on the arts or math, or simply an all-around high performing charter school. However, there are simply not enough of these high performing schools to go around. What happens to PS118 and the like? Do they go empty? Does money get funneled away from public schools and given to charter schools (many of which are run by for-profit companies)? I don't believe that letting parents choose their children's school will fix the fundamental problems of the system. It simply removes some percentage of the kids from the broken system. School choice seems like an amazing way for a select few to win the lottery and gain entrance to an amazing school. I think of scenes in ["Waiting For Superman"](https://vimeo.com/89497465) where they hold a public lottery for admission. What happens to the kids whose parents don't bother to sign them up for this lottery? Or go through the hoops for a school voucher or try to get them into a magnet school? Also, what about all the kids that tried to go to a charter school but didn't get selected? Even if vouchers, charter schools are expanded, it cannot account for every student in America who wants to go to a better school. The best way to fix the school system is to address the inequality built into the system. While school choice may seem like a laudable way to achieve this goal, it doesn't offer the solutions necessary, and may have actually been hijacked by those looking to profit off the privatization of the public education system. _____ > *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: "School Choice" is a sham. A recent talking point around public education has been the idea of school choice. The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, uses the talking point often that parents deserve to choose the best school for their children. I believe that "school choice" is at best a sham talking point, and at worst a cover to push school privatization. I'm sure that everyone will cede that parents want what is best for their children. The extension to this is that parents should be allowed to choose the best education for their children. In terms of public policy, this involves charter schools, magnet schools, and vouchers that allow students to enroll in private schools. However, school choice is not a panacea for the education system. Let's take NYC for example. Given the "choice", most parents would send their children to fancy prep schools like Xavier, Horace Mann, etc., which essentially serve as pipelines to the best colleges and lucrative careers. Likewise, they might choose a magnet school that focuses on the arts or math, or simply an all-around high performing charter school. However, there are simply not enough of these high performing schools to go around. What happens to PS118 and the like? Do they go empty? Does money get funneled away from public schools and given to charter schools (many of which are run by for-profit companies)? I don't believe that letting parents choose their children's school will fix the fundamental problems of the system. It simply removes some percentage of the kids from the broken system. School choice seems like an amazing way for a select few to win the lottery and gain entrance to an amazing school. I think of scenes in ["Waiting For Superman"](https://vimeo.com/89497465) where they hold a public lottery for admission. What happens to the kids whose parents don't bother to sign them up for this lottery? Or go through the hoops for a school voucher or try to get them into a magnet school? Also, what about all the kids that tried to go to a charter school but didn't get selected? Even if vouchers, charter schools are expanded, it cannot account for every student in America who wants to go to a better school. The best way to fix the school system is to address the inequality built into the system. While school choice may seem like a laudable way to achieve this goal, it doesn't offer the solutions necessary, and may have actually been hijacked by those looking to profit off the privatization of the public education system.

t3_1ev7fz

The pope is unworthy of praise. CMV.

*Ok, I'm going to take another stab at this. I tried it [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1eh2el/it_is_absolutely_unreasonable_for_people_to/), but people couldn't seem to get past the idea that I had a related idea that I wasn't willing to change at the moment. In an attempt to draw debaters, not haters (HA! I make myself laugh!), I'm reformulating my argument to look more like [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bkdxe/i_think_that_feminism_is_1_sexist_and_2_harmful/), in which I also had a view (several views) that I wasn't willing to change at the time, but also spurred healthy and interesting debate. So here goes:* If you are an atheist that supports the current pope, I am especially interested in hearing from you on this matter. * Preamble The following is what I hold to be true, and while all my views are up for debate, the opinion in this preamble is not up for debate right here, right now; if you disagree with this and you cannot argue under the temporary assumption that it is true, you might as well save yourself the effort: [The Catholic church is not a force for good.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUR4OH7_0PE) It is clearly harmful in a general sense. Any argument that depends on the merit of the Catholic church will not be effective in changing my view. If you disagree with any of this and you want to address it, feel free to PM me. If I find you engaging and your argument novel and/or compelling, I will discuss it with you. * Statement in question People are accepting of Pope Francis in general simply because he pays lip service to the poor. The best way to change my view is to change my view about both the following two points (verifiable data is appreciated where applicable): 1) As far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything with his power to effectively alleviate the plight of the poor or change the way the Vatican operates financially (fiscally?). All he is actually doing is saying that he cares and carrying out small, symbolic actions to back that up. 2) He still gets two of the easiest moral questions dead wrong: women's sovereignty over their own bodies, and gay marriage. He aggressively and unapologetically opposes both, and deserves to be criticized mercilessly, even if he significantly alleviates the burden of the poor worldwide. Basically, even if you assume Francis will ultimately make great strides in reducing poverty (which, again, as far as I can tell, you have absolutely no reason to assume), he still can't be considered a "good pope" because he's only correcting one single flaw of one of the most ethically bankrupt organizations in human history.

The pope is unworthy of praise. CMV. *Ok, I'm going to take another stab at this. I tried it [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1eh2el/it_is_absolutely_unreasonable_for_people_to/), but people couldn't seem to get past the idea that I had a related idea that I wasn't willing to change at the moment. In an attempt to draw debaters, not haters (HA! I make myself laugh!), I'm reformulating my argument to look more like [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bkdxe/i_think_that_feminism_is_1_sexist_and_2_harmful/), in which I also had a view (several views) that I wasn't willing to change at the time, but also spurred healthy and interesting debate. So here goes:* If you are an atheist that supports the current pope, I am especially interested in hearing from you on this matter. * Preamble The following is what I hold to be true, and while all my views are up for debate, the opinion in this preamble is not up for debate right here, right now; if you disagree with this and you cannot argue under the temporary assumption that it is true, you might as well save yourself the effort: [The Catholic church is not a force for good.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUR4OH7_0PE) It is clearly harmful in a general sense. Any argument that depends on the merit of the Catholic church will not be effective in changing my view. If you disagree with any of this and you want to address it, feel free to PM me. If I find you engaging and your argument novel and/or compelling, I will discuss it with you. * Statement in question People are accepting of Pope Francis in general simply because he pays lip service to the poor. The best way to change my view is to change my view about both the following two points (verifiable data is appreciated where applicable): 1) As far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything with his power to effectively alleviate the plight of the poor or change the way the Vatican operates financially (fiscally?). All he is actually doing is saying that he cares and carrying out small, symbolic actions to back that up. 2) He still gets two of the easiest moral questions dead wrong: women's sovereignty over their own bodies, and gay marriage. He aggressively and unapologetically opposes both, and deserves to be criticized mercilessly, even if he significantly alleviates the burden of the poor worldwide. Basically, even if you assume Francis will ultimately make great strides in reducing poverty (which, again, as far as I can tell, you have absolutely no reason to assume), he still can't be considered a "good pope" because he's only correcting one single flaw of one of the most ethically bankrupt organizations in human history.

t3_4nhb5o

CMV: Brutalist Architecture is ugly.

Obviously tastes are subjective, but I've never been able to wrap my head around the appeal of brutalist architecture. Even famous brutalist buildings [like these](http://www.dwell.com/design-101/article/6-famous-brutalist-buildings#1) tend to look really ugly to me. A couple of reasons I think this is the case: * Concrete, the primary medium of most brutalist architecture I've seen, seems to discolor quickly and buildings with this as an external facade tend to look "dirty" and run down. * The excessive number of protrusions and overhangs look gaudy and attention seeking. Really the whole thing seems designed to make a building stand out dramatically from other buildings and its environment, which I don't particularly care for. What are the redeeming qualities (aesthetic or otherwise) of brutalism that I'm missing? I'm not an architect or anything, so maybe there's some really important stuff I'm missing. _____ > *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: Brutalist Architecture is ugly. Obviously tastes are subjective, but I've never been able to wrap my head around the appeal of brutalist architecture. Even famous brutalist buildings [like these](http://www.dwell.com/design-101/article/6-famous-brutalist-buildings#1) tend to look really ugly to me. A couple of reasons I think this is the case: * Concrete, the primary medium of most brutalist architecture I've seen, seems to discolor quickly and buildings with this as an external facade tend to look "dirty" and run down. * The excessive number of protrusions and overhangs look gaudy and attention seeking. Really the whole thing seems designed to make a building stand out dramatically from other buildings and its environment, which I don't particularly care for. What are the redeeming qualities (aesthetic or otherwise) of brutalism that I'm missing? I'm not an architect or anything, so maybe there's some really important stuff I'm missing.

t3_2irszf

CMV: National elections don't matter.

Unless you live in a swing state/riding, your vote isn't going to make a difference. But outside of statistics, let's say that you do live in a swing state; policy decisions regarding taxation, spending, the military, legalization of substances, etc. will remain unchanged whether you vote Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Conservative or Labour, etc. If Romney had been elected, the country would more or less be in the same place it is today. If Harper is re-elected over Trudeau, the country would more or less be the same place it is today. Politics are a form of entertainment and has no real bearing on the direction of a country. CMV. Edit: Partially changed by eye_patch_willy and forloversperhaps - I suppose national elections could spur change if your special interest group has enough sway or if a Supreme Court Justice is about to die. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: National elections don't matter. Unless you live in a swing state/riding, your vote isn't going to make a difference. But outside of statistics, let's say that you do live in a swing state; policy decisions regarding taxation, spending, the military, legalization of substances, etc. will remain unchanged whether you vote Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Conservative or Labour, etc. If Romney had been elected, the country would more or less be in the same place it is today. If Harper is re-elected over Trudeau, the country would more or less be the same place it is today. Politics are a form of entertainment and has no real bearing on the direction of a country. CMV. Edit: Partially changed by eye_patch_willy and forloversperhaps - I suppose national elections could spur change if your special interest group has enough sway or if a Supreme Court Justice is about to die.

t3_6o4ipg

CMV:"(Don't Fear) The Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult Needs More Cowbell

August 1976: Sunshine Records' Blue Oyster Cult, an American Rock Band, were on the verge of laying a new track down, called "(Don't Feat) The Reaper". Music Producer Bruce Dickinson (yes, THE Bruce Dickinson baby, cock of the walk) has clearly stated that the song has the potential to be a dynamite track. Dickinson is obviously an important figure in the music industry with valid opinions. Although he puts his pants on just like the rest of the band - one leg at a time - once his pants are on, he makes gold records. With Dickinson's's guidance, Blue Oyster Cult may have the potential to become certified gold, or even platinum. During the track's recording, Dickinson became disappointed with the lack of cowbell. Gene Frenkle, a professional cowbell instrumentalist for Blue Oyster Cult, has also professed that he'd "be doing a disservice for [himself] and every member of the band if he didn't play the HELL out of [the cowbell]", despite band members Eric Bloom and Buck Dharma's complaints that the cowbell was "too distracting" and "pretty rough". Without more cowbell in the track, Frenkle may blow it for the entire band. Because if Bruce Dickinson wants more cowbell, they should probably give him more cowbell in order to succeed, even when Blue Oyster Cult didn't have a whole lot of songs that feature the cowbell. Dickinson had also expressed vocal concerns over his health regarding this issue. If Dickinson (and we NEVER question Bruce Dickinson) has a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell, the only solution should be more cowbell. _____ > *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:"(Don't Fear) The Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult Needs More Cowbell. August 1976: Sunshine Records' Blue Oyster Cult, an American Rock Band, were on the verge of laying a new track down, called "(Don't Feat) The Reaper". Music Producer Bruce Dickinson (yes, THE Bruce Dickinson baby, cock of the walk) has clearly stated that the song has the potential to be a dynamite track. Dickinson is obviously an important figure in the music industry with valid opinions. Although he puts his pants on just like the rest of the band - one leg at a time - once his pants are on, he makes gold records. With Dickinson's's guidance, Blue Oyster Cult may have the potential to become certified gold, or even platinum. During the track's recording, Dickinson became disappointed with the lack of cowbell. Gene Frenkle, a professional cowbell instrumentalist for Blue Oyster Cult, has also professed that he'd "be doing a disservice for [himself] and every member of the band if he didn't play the HELL out of [the cowbell]", despite band members Eric Bloom and Buck Dharma's complaints that the cowbell was "too distracting" and "pretty rough". Without more cowbell in the track, Frenkle may blow it for the entire band. Because if Bruce Dickinson wants more cowbell, they should probably give him more cowbell in order to succeed, even when Blue Oyster Cult didn't have a whole lot of songs that feature the cowbell. Dickinson had also expressed vocal concerns over his health regarding this issue. If Dickinson (and we NEVER question Bruce Dickinson) has a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell, the only solution should be more cowbell.

t3_3lvgyr

CMV: Technology progress is slowing down and stagnating

Basically i think that our progress in technology is basically slowing down. When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was ton of progress. This went on throughout the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. Compare the year 1900 to the year 1950: there were tons of differences because of technology. Cars, airplanes, submarines, tanks, radar, telephones, radio, television, x-rays, antibiotics, nuclear energy, and tons more. It was a completely different world. Then compare 1950 to 2000, and the differences are much less impressive. The only big changes were in computers and communication technology. Those were huge deals that changed the world, but not as much as all the changes that happened in the 1900-1950 interval. You can also break the 1950-2000 interval up into smaller intervals, and see that even less has changed as time went on. The 60s, 70s, and 80s saw the most change as computers got smaller, but things seemed to slow down in the 90s and 00s. The 2000s are basically the 90s but with internet and cellphones. Now we're halfway through the 2010s and it feels like nothing has changed in a decade. Since 2005 we got iPhones and that's literally about it. No big medical breakthroughs, no big breakthroughs in energy or physics, nothing that actually has a tangible effect on people's lives. I would be very interested to hear any counterarguments. _____ > *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: Technology progress is slowing down and stagnating. Basically i think that our progress in technology is basically slowing down. When the Industrial Revolution happened, there was ton of progress. This went on throughout the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. Compare the year 1900 to the year 1950: there were tons of differences because of technology. Cars, airplanes, submarines, tanks, radar, telephones, radio, television, x-rays, antibiotics, nuclear energy, and tons more. It was a completely different world. Then compare 1950 to 2000, and the differences are much less impressive. The only big changes were in computers and communication technology. Those were huge deals that changed the world, but not as much as all the changes that happened in the 1900-1950 interval. You can also break the 1950-2000 interval up into smaller intervals, and see that even less has changed as time went on. The 60s, 70s, and 80s saw the most change as computers got smaller, but things seemed to slow down in the 90s and 00s. The 2000s are basically the 90s but with internet and cellphones. Now we're halfway through the 2010s and it feels like nothing has changed in a decade. Since 2005 we got iPhones and that's literally about it. No big medical breakthroughs, no big breakthroughs in energy or physics, nothing that actually has a tangible effect on people's lives. I would be very interested to hear any counterarguments.

t3_1kbzmn

I don't believe in God. Please CMV.

I have several reasons for believing this: 1. Scientific evidence largely discredits creationism and the majority of the miracles (water to wine, etc.) performed. 2. If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, how come I personally have never had any evidence of his existence? 3. The burden of proof should lie on the people arguing for the existence of God, not on athiests. 4. God's "role" in the universe seems non-existent, considering the laws of physics and our understanding of science explains a large part of the universe. Parts that are unexplained, are in the process of being explained. To clarify, I am talking about the Christian God, however arguments regarding other religions will gladly be considered. Please CMV!

I don't believe in God. Please CMV. I have several reasons for believing this: 1. Scientific evidence largely discredits creationism and the majority of the miracles (water to wine, etc.) performed. 2. If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, how come I personally have never had any evidence of his existence? 3. The burden of proof should lie on the people arguing for the existence of God, not on athiests. 4. God's "role" in the universe seems non-existent, considering the laws of physics and our understanding of science explains a large part of the universe. Parts that are unexplained, are in the process of being explained. To clarify, I am talking about the Christian God, however arguments regarding other religions will gladly be considered. Please CMV!

t3_3gq5f7

CMV: Rape on college campuses is not as big of a problem as it's made out to be.

So that's a pretty bold title, and I expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why I made a throwaway. I'm just asking that you remain civil. As much as I try I just can't understand the other side of this argument. Basically, I believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore. What sparked this was the recent news story: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23709/ In this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped. It is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker (a college administrator) said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped. I think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women. Then there is the mattress girl story and the Duke lacrosse story and the Rolling Stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations. Why does this keep happening? I believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape. If a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault. If a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault. If a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault. None of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations. In short, I believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape. Other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon. These cases inflate the college rape statistics. It is impossible for a man to have a one-night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined. EDIT: I don't appreciate the mass downvotes on all of my comments. It goes against the nature of this subreddit. If I am saying something that you disagree with, challenge me on it. I want to be able to see the other side of this debate, but so far there haven't been any compelling answers. If you feel that I am not being fair in my responses, say something. Stop being cowards and downvoting something you don't agree with just because you aren't able to refute 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: Rape on college campuses is not as big of a problem as it's made out to be. So that's a pretty bold title, and I expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why I made a throwaway. I'm just asking that you remain civil. As much as I try I just can't understand the other side of this argument. Basically, I believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore. What sparked this was the recent news story: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23709/ In this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped. It is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker (a college administrator) said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped. I think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women. Then there is the mattress girl story and the Duke lacrosse story and the Rolling Stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations. Why does this keep happening? I believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape. If a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault. If a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault. If a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault. None of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations. In short, I believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape. Other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon. These cases inflate the college rape statistics. It is impossible for a man to have a one-night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined. EDIT: I don't appreciate the mass downvotes on all of my comments. It goes against the nature of this subreddit. If I am saying something that you disagree with, challenge me on it. I want to be able to see the other side of this debate, but so far there haven't been any compelling answers. If you feel that I am not being fair in my responses, say something. Stop being cowards and downvoting something you don't agree with just because you aren't able to refute it.

t3_1gfy25

I think that government is running exactly as we are telling it to run CMV

I have heard from almost everywhere about how government is "broken", "corrupt", or "dysfunctional" but we are to blame, there is over 90% reelection rates for congressmen, but less than 15% approval rates. We tell them that it is ok for them to make sketchy trades and bribe each other by keeping them reelected. I think that people who say that it is broken should have at least voted for someone other than the incumbent. CMV

I think that government is running exactly as we are telling it to run CMV. I have heard from almost everywhere about how government is "broken", "corrupt", or "dysfunctional" but we are to blame, there is over 90% reelection rates for congressmen, but less than 15% approval rates. We tell them that it is ok for them to make sketchy trades and bribe each other by keeping them reelected. I think that people who say that it is broken should have at least voted for someone other than the incumbent. CMV

t3_1ei94r

I think public service should be mandatory prior to full citizenship (USA) - CMV

EDIT: I apologize for any confusion. It's my fault for not fleshing out the belief I'm trying to change. In my original post I listed several services but didn't really list too many. Someone suggested a "domestic peace corp" which I am totally for. I would include volunteering in this list. As for the people unqualified for a particular service, I'm 100% for having the government train you, just as they would if you were pursuing a career in said field. For example, if you were interested in working in infrastructure, the federal government would send you to essentially a "bootcamp" to get trained in your career field. I'm fairly ignorant regarding the cost at to do this. And I understand the concerns over two levels of citizenship. Most of you have given some great arguments against this idea, and I am open up to all of them. Again, apologies for any confusion from the lack of explanation on my part. A little backstory for me. I consider myself progressive/liberal and I believe in a strong Federal government. I have a parent who served in the military for 20+ years. I have an older brother who's on his path to becoming a lawyer. I believe people need to serve their country in any capacity available to them. This goes for any immigrant wishing to become a U.S. citizen or those who are already citizens in the U.S. It is my belief that a mandatory 2 year service to your country will not only benefit those who serve but will also make the country a better place. For serving your country, I also believe that with each succeeding 2 year term of service you should receive a point system used for tax time. 2 years mandatory. For every 2+ years you receive some percentage of your income back. The types of service I would count as public service are: 1. Fire Department 2. Police Department 3. Education 4. Military 5. Homeland Security 6. Medicine 7. FBI 8. CIA There are others I'm sure. Just can't think of any. Thanks for any and all feedback.

I think public service should be mandatory prior to full citizenship (USA) - CMV. EDIT: I apologize for any confusion. It's my fault for not fleshing out the belief I'm trying to change. In my original post I listed several services but didn't really list too many. Someone suggested a "domestic peace corp" which I am totally for. I would include volunteering in this list. As for the people unqualified for a particular service, I'm 100% for having the government train you, just as they would if you were pursuing a career in said field. For example, if you were interested in working in infrastructure, the federal government would send you to essentially a "bootcamp" to get trained in your career field. I'm fairly ignorant regarding the cost at to do this. And I understand the concerns over two levels of citizenship. Most of you have given some great arguments against this idea, and I am open up to all of them. Again, apologies for any confusion from the lack of explanation on my part. A little backstory for me. I consider myself progressive/liberal and I believe in a strong Federal government. I have a parent who served in the military for 20+ years. I have an older brother who's on his path to becoming a lawyer. I believe people need to serve their country in any capacity available to them. This goes for any immigrant wishing to become a U.S. citizen or those who are already citizens in the U.S. It is my belief that a mandatory 2 year service to your country will not only benefit those who serve but will also make the country a better place. For serving your country, I also believe that with each succeeding 2 year term of service you should receive a point system used for tax time. 2 years mandatory. For every 2+ years you receive some percentage of your income back. The types of service I would count as public service are: 1. Fire Department 2. Police Department 3. Education 4. Military 5. Homeland Security 6. Medicine 7. FBI 8. CIA There are others I'm sure. Just can't think of any. Thanks for any and all feedback.

t3_1vg5no

Veterinarians who consume animal products are hypocrites. CMV.

As someone who devotes their career to helping to alleviate animal suffering, I don't see how you could call a veterinarian who eats meat (or dairy or mass-produced eggs) anything but a hypocrite. *Let me clarify a bit*--I'm speaking **particularly** about those who treat "farmed animals." Vets who treat pets yet still eat other animals, I would still call hypocrites, but they may just under the silly impression that "a cat's life matters, a pig's does not." Farm vets go to work to help an animal who will be slaughtered in a matter of months in most cases. I've heard vets say that "the animals are treated well," or that "it's not as bad as the propaganda videos make it seem." But the fact of the matter is that, in the end, we have someone who goes to work every day to either help animals feel better or releases them from the pain they're feeling with euthanasia. Then they go home and eat meat, milk, and eggs that contribute to over 100 billion deaths per year... *To me, the closest analogy would be to [the syphilis study](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), wherein doctors didn't see any issue with infecting black people with syphilis (and not telling them) so as to study the effects of the disease.* I find it hard to even talk to a vet who still eats animals. CMV.

Veterinarians who consume animal products are hypocrites. CMV. As someone who devotes their career to helping to alleviate animal suffering, I don't see how you could call a veterinarian who eats meat (or dairy or mass-produced eggs) anything but a hypocrite. *Let me clarify a bit*--I'm speaking **particularly** about those who treat "farmed animals." Vets who treat pets yet still eat other animals, I would still call hypocrites, but they may just under the silly impression that "a cat's life matters, a pig's does not." Farm vets go to work to help an animal who will be slaughtered in a matter of months in most cases. I've heard vets say that "the animals are treated well," or that "it's not as bad as the propaganda videos make it seem." But the fact of the matter is that, in the end, we have someone who goes to work every day to either help animals feel better or releases them from the pain they're feeling with euthanasia. Then they go home and eat meat, milk, and eggs that contribute to over 100 billion deaths per year... *To me, the closest analogy would be to [the syphilis study](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment), wherein doctors didn't see any issue with infecting black people with syphilis (and not telling them) so as to study the effects of the disease.* I find it hard to even talk to a vet who still eats animals. CMV.

t3_3deyea

CMV: Parents should be lenient on the eldest, more strict as the children get younger.

I feel that parents should be more lenient on the first child, and get more strict as the children increase in number, or decrease in age. The reason that I feel this way are for a variety of different reasons. 1. The parents and child are both learning this game of life as they go along, and while the parents have advice from the grandparents/community, the advice doesn't always move over to their child correctly. 2. The child is learning all of this stuff, basically on a whim. The mistakes they made? They don't have anyone that they look 'up to' as a sibling/friend usually making the same mistakes. To punish them for something that they shouldn't have known for certain is a little disingenuous as you are basically telling them that 'even though you don't know this, you'll be punished for it'. It seems kind of ex post facto to use a legal term. 3. As the siblings get younger, they have more experiences to draw from. Watching the eldest sibling get in trouble for sneaking out late at night tells them that they aren't supposed to do that. In the current widely-used system, the way it works (with parents being strict on eldest, lenient on youngest) tells the youngest that they won't get in trouble the same as their sibling does (generally). 4. Since the youngest siblings are more aware of what they aren't allowed to do, and that the parents' decisions and punishments have already set precedent with the older siblings, the younger ones already know what to expect. To not enforce the rules the same, and to ignore precedent that was setup with the eldest sibling, is showing that the youngest are special and don't have to follow the rules. Reddit: Let's have a discussion and CMV! :)

CMV: Parents should be lenient on the eldest, more strict as the children get younger. I feel that parents should be more lenient on the first child, and get more strict as the children increase in number, or decrease in age. The reason that I feel this way are for a variety of different reasons. 1. The parents and child are both learning this game of life as they go along, and while the parents have advice from the grandparents/community, the advice doesn't always move over to their child correctly. 2. The child is learning all of this stuff, basically on a whim. The mistakes they made? They don't have anyone that they look 'up to' as a sibling/friend usually making the same mistakes. To punish them for something that they shouldn't have known for certain is a little disingenuous as you are basically telling them that 'even though you don't know this, you'll be punished for it'. It seems kind of ex post facto to use a legal term. 3. As the siblings get younger, they have more experiences to draw from. Watching the eldest sibling get in trouble for sneaking out late at night tells them that they aren't supposed to do that. In the current widely-used system, the way it works (with parents being strict on eldest, lenient on youngest) tells the youngest that they won't get in trouble the same as their sibling does (generally). 4. Since the youngest siblings are more aware of what they aren't allowed to do, and that the parents' decisions and punishments have already set precedent with the older siblings, the younger ones already know what to expect. To not enforce the rules the same, and to ignore precedent that was setup with the eldest sibling, is showing that the youngest are special and don't have to follow the rules. Reddit: Let's have a discussion and CMV! :)

t3_270yyg

CMV: In Baseball, a 5-4-3 triple play is more impressive than an unassisted triple play.

Let me clarify that 5-4-3 refers to the situation where a ground ball is fielded at third and then thrown around the bases. NOT a line drive caught at third and thrown around to catch players who misread the play. [5-4-3 triple play](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2033411-yankees-yangervis-solarte-starts-picture-perfect-5-4-3-triple-play-vs-rays) [Unassisted triple play (really impressive one)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjN-W64xwg8) So anyways, the unassisted triple play is clearly one of the rarest and most impressive feats one can accomplish in sports. However, I think that it happens as a result of pure luck. It is a difficult play to turn, but in almost every case, ( the sample size is small ) there are men on 1st and 2nd, and then there is sharp line drive directly to the shortstop or 2nd baseman. This requires some awareness, and perhaps an awesome catch, but if the catch is made, the triple play is usually immediately available without much effort. Now, the 5-4-3 triple play requires men on first and second, plus a hard ground ball directly to third. This again, is all luck and circumstance, but after that, the third baseman has to field the ground ball and tag third base, and execute a flawless throw to second. The second basemen must then make the catch, tag, exchange the ball from glove to hand and throw flawlessly and immediately to first, where the first baseman must make the catch and tag. So, I think while both of these plays essentially have to be served to the defense on a silver platter, the 5-4-3 triple play has many more degrees of freedom, thus making it a much more difficult play to execute when available. People occasionally scoff at me when I suggest this, so I want to see if you can 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: In Baseball, a 5-4-3 triple play is more impressive than an unassisted triple play. Let me clarify that 5-4-3 refers to the situation where a ground ball is fielded at third and then thrown around the bases. NOT a line drive caught at third and thrown around to catch players who misread the play. [5-4-3 triple play](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2033411-yankees-yangervis-solarte-starts-picture-perfect-5-4-3-triple-play-vs-rays) [Unassisted triple play (really impressive one)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjN-W64xwg8) So anyways, the unassisted triple play is clearly one of the rarest and most impressive feats one can accomplish in sports. However, I think that it happens as a result of pure luck. It is a difficult play to turn, but in almost every case, ( the sample size is small ) there are men on 1st and 2nd, and then there is sharp line drive directly to the shortstop or 2nd baseman. This requires some awareness, and perhaps an awesome catch, but if the catch is made, the triple play is usually immediately available without much effort. Now, the 5-4-3 triple play requires men on first and second, plus a hard ground ball directly to third. This again, is all luck and circumstance, but after that, the third baseman has to field the ground ball and tag third base, and execute a flawless throw to second. The second basemen must then make the catch, tag, exchange the ball from glove to hand and throw flawlessly and immediately to first, where the first baseman must make the catch and tag. So, I think while both of these plays essentially have to be served to the defense on a silver platter, the 5-4-3 triple play has many more degrees of freedom, thus making it a much more difficult play to execute when available. People occasionally scoff at me when I suggest this, so I want to see if you can change my view.

t3_4qc6l1

CMV: Buying tickets to a political event for the sole purpose of leaving them empty is immature and harms the political process.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump is coming to my state, to my home area, tomorrow. Several of my friends are buying tickets-which are free and are limited to two (2) per purchase-and then, they planto protest the event by not showing up. That's right. Fill the arena with empty seats. To me, this seems extremely immature. Sure, it may seem funny if you don't like Trump but I know they wouldn't have liked conservatives or Hillary Clinton supporters doing it for a potential Bernie Sanders rally. I don't like Donald Trump and have no interest in voting for him in the general election, but shouldn't as many people as possible be able to see him if they want to? What if there are undecided voters who want to listen to all possible options? Doesn't reserving tickets take away from people who actually want to see what he has to say? What harm does Donald Trump pose by visiting our city? I get that people hate Donald Trump and want to protest the event. But to do so this way seems wrong. Is there something I'm missing here? _____ > *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: Buying tickets to a political event for the sole purpose of leaving them empty is immature and harms the political process. Republican front-runner Donald Trump is coming to my state, to my home area, tomorrow. Several of my friends are buying tickets-which are free and are limited to two (2) per purchase-and then, they planto protest the event by not showing up. That's right. Fill the arena with empty seats. To me, this seems extremely immature. Sure, it may seem funny if you don't like Trump but I know they wouldn't have liked conservatives or Hillary Clinton supporters doing it for a potential Bernie Sanders rally. I don't like Donald Trump and have no interest in voting for him in the general election, but shouldn't as many people as possible be able to see him if they want to? What if there are undecided voters who want to listen to all possible options? Doesn't reserving tickets take away from people who actually want to see what he has to say? What harm does Donald Trump pose by visiting our city? I get that people hate Donald Trump and want to protest the event. But to do so this way seems wrong. Is there something I'm missing here?

t3_1chu4q

CMV: This is the worst tv theme song of all time...

I am convinced that this theme song is the worst theme song to any show ever on the air. I can't imagine one that sounds like it took less effort to make or that fits the feel of the show less than this does. I really love this show, and I'd like to believe that they didn't create the single worst theme song of all time. Somebody, please CMV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa0jvoAefp8

CMV: This is the worst tv theme song of all time... I am convinced that this theme song is the worst theme song to any show ever on the air. I can't imagine one that sounds like it took less effort to make or that fits the feel of the show less than this does. I really love this show, and I'd like to believe that they didn't create the single worst theme song of all time. Somebody, please CMV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa0jvoAefp8

t3_6fhg8m

CMV: Shrooms should not be a schedule 1 drug

These are the three criteria that are reguired (all three are reguired to be met) according to wikipedia for a substance to be a schedule 1 >The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. >The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. >There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. So, the first one is that there is a high potential for abuse. This isnt true since first of all shrooms are not addictive and second the tolerance from a single dose of shrooms takes days to get back to normal so you can't just keep taking it day after day, you would not get any effects. Also as a bonus its not physically dangerous to the body unlike stuff like alcohol. This single point should be enough to take it out of being a schedule 1. The second point was that it has NO currently accepted medical use in the USA. It has been succesfully used to treat depression as well as other stuff like addictions to other substances, some of which are actually legal like alcohol or cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/01/magic-mushroom-ingredient-psilocybin-can-lift-depression-studies-show https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/health/hallucinogenic-mushrooms-psilocybin-cancer-anxiety-depression.html http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/psychedelics-entering-a-new-age-of-addiction-therapy/20066899.article The third point is that there is not enough safety to be used under medical supervision. As I earlier said the substance is not harmful to the body, its not poisonous like alcohol for example and there has not been a single known overdose of shrooms. Since it has already been used succesfully and safely under medical test conditions its quite clear that it is actually safe to use when there is a proper supervision happening.

CMV: Shrooms should not be a schedule 1 drug. These are the three criteria that are reguired (all three are reguired to be met) according to wikipedia for a substance to be a schedule 1 >The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. >The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. >There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. So, the first one is that there is a high potential for abuse. This isnt true since first of all shrooms are not addictive and second the tolerance from a single dose of shrooms takes days to get back to normal so you can't just keep taking it day after day, you would not get any effects. Also as a bonus its not physically dangerous to the body unlike stuff like alcohol. This single point should be enough to take it out of being a schedule 1. The second point was that it has NO currently accepted medical use in the USA. It has been succesfully used to treat depression as well as other stuff like addictions to other substances, some of which are actually legal like alcohol or cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/01/magic-mushroom-ingredient-psilocybin-can-lift-depression-studies-show https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/health/hallucinogenic-mushrooms-psilocybin-cancer-anxiety-depression.html http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/psychedelics-entering-a-new-age-of-addiction-therapy/20066899.article The third point is that there is not enough safety to be used under medical supervision. As I earlier said the substance is not harmful to the body, its not poisonous like alcohol for example and there has not been a single known overdose of shrooms. Since it has already been used succesfully and safely under medical test conditions its quite clear that it is actually safe to use when there is a proper supervision happening.

t3_2dlheo

CMV: Listening to a book is the same as reading it.

I've often heard that there is a difference between listening to an audiobook and reading the physical copy of the book. In my own personal terms, I don't have a lot of free time. When I'm doing something that doesn't require a lot of concentration (cleaning, traveling) I'll often listen to an audiobook. My mind is focused on the story, but I am able to perform chores etc. Essentially, what is the difference between a book you read and a book narrated to you? It's the same content by the same author. The main counterarguments I can imagine are: 1) The main difference between listening to an audiobook and reading it off the page is the narrator/images in your head as audiobooks are influenced by whomever is reading it. 2) Audiobooks don't require the same level of concentration as reading a physical copy of the book does. This might lead people to miss details. _____ > *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: Listening to a book is the same as reading it. I've often heard that there is a difference between listening to an audiobook and reading the physical copy of the book. In my own personal terms, I don't have a lot of free time. When I'm doing something that doesn't require a lot of concentration (cleaning, traveling) I'll often listen to an audiobook. My mind is focused on the story, but I am able to perform chores etc. Essentially, what is the difference between a book you read and a book narrated to you? It's the same content by the same author. The main counterarguments I can imagine are: 1) The main difference between listening to an audiobook and reading it off the page is the narrator/images in your head as audiobooks are influenced by whomever is reading it. 2) Audiobooks don't require the same level of concentration as reading a physical copy of the book does. This might lead people to miss details.

t3_2tj7qf

CMV: China & Russia should govern neighboring conflict zones.

##The Benefits of Regionally Expansive Super-Powers Change my view: I think the world would be better and safer if Russia and China took over their rogue state neighbors. I started thinking about this because of North Korea. It's clear that a regime change there would result in a collective sigh of relief from the rest of the world. Understanding that North Korea doesn't have much in terms of natural resources that China wants, but perhaps China doesn't like having a crazy neighbor with dangerous weapons. If the US bordered NK, it would be a desolate parking lot by now, so why should we expect China to be more restrained? I know China has given mixed support to the NK state over the years, but placating an unruly neighbor and containing western influence on the peninsula is different from China supporting NK. Looking to other examples, the Soviet Union already tried to conquer Afghanistan. I think they would have done a better job controlling Islamic terror than the US is doing now. It's likely that Afghanistan would be more modern if they had Soviet influence since the 80's. Russia is looking for a national purpose right now and the loss of so much territory following the collapse of the USSR has been devastating. Maybe looking outward again is what they need. It's preferable they don't look to Europe when they looked outward. I'd rather Russia sweep down the the Arabian peninsula than push into the Baltics or Ukraine. I'm not saying it would be possible for Russia or China to conquer or maintain governance of these nations, but just that attempting to do so could add some needed stability after the tumultuous regime change. Whenever news media and pundits talk about Russia and China, they stoke fears about expansion. But those nations only appear to want to expand around their territory. China doesn't seem to have any interest in conquering Oregon or Venice. ##Countries I'd be fine with China occupying: - Burma (Myanmar) - North Korea - Afghanistan ##Acceptable Russian expansion: - Belarus (if Poland erects a huge wall) - Syria - Iraq - Iran - Arabian Peninsula And anyone who wants to govern Somalia can have it. For a country occupying them, the US or the UN should not intervene. My background: I'm an American (as if it wasn't obvious by now). Ex-Army, currently a specialist in international law (JD/LLM) but mostly I just draft contracts. _____ > *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: China & Russia should govern neighboring conflict zones. ##The Benefits of Regionally Expansive Super-Powers Change my view: I think the world would be better and safer if Russia and China took over their rogue state neighbors. I started thinking about this because of North Korea. It's clear that a regime change there would result in a collective sigh of relief from the rest of the world. Understanding that North Korea doesn't have much in terms of natural resources that China wants, but perhaps China doesn't like having a crazy neighbor with dangerous weapons. If the US bordered NK, it would be a desolate parking lot by now, so why should we expect China to be more restrained? I know China has given mixed support to the NK state over the years, but placating an unruly neighbor and containing western influence on the peninsula is different from China supporting NK. Looking to other examples, the Soviet Union already tried to conquer Afghanistan. I think they would have done a better job controlling Islamic terror than the US is doing now. It's likely that Afghanistan would be more modern if they had Soviet influence since the 80's. Russia is looking for a national purpose right now and the loss of so much territory following the collapse of the USSR has been devastating. Maybe looking outward again is what they need. It's preferable they don't look to Europe when they looked outward. I'd rather Russia sweep down the the Arabian peninsula than push into the Baltics or Ukraine. I'm not saying it would be possible for Russia or China to conquer or maintain governance of these nations, but just that attempting to do so could add some needed stability after the tumultuous regime change. Whenever news media and pundits talk about Russia and China, they stoke fears about expansion. But those nations only appear to want to expand around their territory. China doesn't seem to have any interest in conquering Oregon or Venice. ##Countries I'd be fine with China occupying: - Burma (Myanmar) - North Korea - Afghanistan ##Acceptable Russian expansion: - Belarus (if Poland erects a huge wall) - Syria - Iraq - Iran - Arabian Peninsula And anyone who wants to govern Somalia can have it. For a country occupying them, the US or the UN should not intervene. My background: I'm an American (as if it wasn't obvious by now). Ex-Army, currently a specialist in international law (JD/LLM) but mostly I just draft contracts.

t3_3cdu9c

CMV: Recycling paper is pants-on-head retarded expect for the people profiting from it.

I have only one simple argument you'll find hard to beat. Why is recycled paper more expensive than virgin paper? Let's say I own a paper recycling plant and, since it's so much more energy efficient, I can blow the doors out traditional paper producers on cost. Why isn't everyone doing this?! I understand diminishing returns but why isn't the market glutted with recycled paper products? A quick trip to Walmart shows this isn't the case. See what you can get paid for waste paper and you'll get my drift. "But, but, but... It takes more trees!" IDGAF. Apparently it takes more energy, in some form, to make recycled paper products than to grow new trees. Otherwise recycled paper products would sweep the market, blow it out. It's simple math. It's cheaper to grow trees and chop them down for paper than to recycle it. Look, we're not using ancient hardwoods from Alaska to make toilet paper. I've taken forestry and horticulture classes. I've visited lumber sites and paper mills. These people aren't dumb fucks. They're using the land very carefully, with an eye to the future. They're rotating land and growth with 20-year cycles. We're not raping the land for wood like we used to. Please keep in mind I'm only arguing for paper goods. Not sure where we're at regarding hardwoods, lumber and such. Looking forward to your responses! Not sure you can CMV but I've learned amazing things here. _____ > *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: Recycling paper is pants-on-head retarded expect for the people profiting from it. I have only one simple argument you'll find hard to beat. Why is recycled paper more expensive than virgin paper? Let's say I own a paper recycling plant and, since it's so much more energy efficient, I can blow the doors out traditional paper producers on cost. Why isn't everyone doing this?! I understand diminishing returns but why isn't the market glutted with recycled paper products? A quick trip to Walmart shows this isn't the case. See what you can get paid for waste paper and you'll get my drift. "But, but, but... It takes more trees!" IDGAF. Apparently it takes more energy, in some form, to make recycled paper products than to grow new trees. Otherwise recycled paper products would sweep the market, blow it out. It's simple math. It's cheaper to grow trees and chop them down for paper than to recycle it. Look, we're not using ancient hardwoods from Alaska to make toilet paper. I've taken forestry and horticulture classes. I've visited lumber sites and paper mills. These people aren't dumb fucks. They're using the land very carefully, with an eye to the future. They're rotating land and growth with 20-year cycles. We're not raping the land for wood like we used to. Please keep in mind I'm only arguing for paper goods. Not sure where we're at regarding hardwoods, lumber and such. Looking forward to your responses! Not sure you can CMV but I've learned amazing things here.

t3_4nb7u9

CMV: It's unfair to say that a woman cannot consent to sex if she is drunk

It seems to me that people say a person cannot give consent while drunk in order to protect potential rape victims. That is a noble intention, and I do not think it's a good idea to have sex with someone while they're drunk and you're sober. But, it seems to me that the claim "a drunk person can't give consent" is dependent on the claim "a drunk person is not responsible for their actions." That is not a view I want to endorse, because it would get drunk people off the hook for everything - for drunk driving, and even for raping. Or am I misunderstanding what "drunk" means in this context? I would agree that someone so drunk they can't communicate can't consent, but I would not say that someone who can communicate can't. I sympathize with the goal of this claim, but it doesn't seem careful enough to me. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's unfair to say that a woman cannot consent to sex if she is drunk. It seems to me that people say a person cannot give consent while drunk in order to protect potential rape victims. That is a noble intention, and I do not think it's a good idea to have sex with someone while they're drunk and you're sober. But, it seems to me that the claim "a drunk person can't give consent" is dependent on the claim "a drunk person is not responsible for their actions." That is not a view I want to endorse, because it would get drunk people off the hook for everything - for drunk driving, and even for raping. Or am I misunderstanding what "drunk" means in this context? I would agree that someone so drunk they can't communicate can't consent, but I would not say that someone who can communicate can't. I sympathize with the goal of this claim, but it doesn't seem careful enough to me.

t3_1gavig

I think it's a great idea for people who are sick to choose to wear masks, CMV

In some cultures, when you're sick with an upper respiratory infection, you wear a cheap surgical mask. This allows you to go about your business while massively decreasing the risk of transmission of your illness. I think it should be part of our culture that sick people choose to wear these kinds of masks. Failing to wear a mask while sick should be seen as disgusting or crude, similarly to how sneezing or coughing without covering your mouth is. As far as cost goes, these things cost like $5 for a box of 50, which should last a family multiple years. Anyone who can afford cold medicine can afford these.

I think it's a great idea for people who are sick to choose to wear masks, CMV. In some cultures, when you're sick with an upper respiratory infection, you wear a cheap surgical mask. This allows you to go about your business while massively decreasing the risk of transmission of your illness. I think it should be part of our culture that sick people choose to wear these kinds of masks. Failing to wear a mask while sick should be seen as disgusting or crude, similarly to how sneezing or coughing without covering your mouth is. As far as cost goes, these things cost like $5 for a box of 50, which should last a family multiple years. Anyone who can afford cold medicine can afford these.

t3_2gyxlg

CMV: Current birth certificates are not a form of identification

Currently birth certificates are needed to get other forms of identification such as drivers licenses and passports. They contain the facts of your birth such as date, location and name. But they do not identify you as a person because they do not currently have biometric data. They are relied on by just possession. If you possess a birth certificate it is presumed to be your birth certificate. This is why they are not given out to anyone who requests a copy. If you lose your birth certificate and all other forms of identification it is hard to get new copies. To avoid these problems a blood sample could be taken at birth and a DNA signature determined. Later when you need to get a photo identification then all that is needed is a new blood sample and your photo. Asking your name would not even be necessary but could just be used to speed up a match. _____ > *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: Current birth certificates are not a form of identification. Currently birth certificates are needed to get other forms of identification such as drivers licenses and passports. They contain the facts of your birth such as date, location and name. But they do not identify you as a person because they do not currently have biometric data. They are relied on by just possession. If you possess a birth certificate it is presumed to be your birth certificate. This is why they are not given out to anyone who requests a copy. If you lose your birth certificate and all other forms of identification it is hard to get new copies. To avoid these problems a blood sample could be taken at birth and a DNA signature determined. Later when you need to get a photo identification then all that is needed is a new blood sample and your photo. Asking your name would not even be necessary but could just be used to speed up a match.

t3_23nt9e

CMV: I don't believe The Pentagon was hit by a Commercial Airliner.

I'm not much for conspiracies, but this one really seems to take minimal convincing: First off, [here's a video](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Pentagon_Security_Camera_1.ogv)(a frame, really) caught by a security camera of the "plane". It doesn't prove anything, and it could just be proportion, but whatever that white blur about halfway through the video was, it does look a little too small to be a Boeing. Secondly, the aftermath starts getting a bit unbelievable. [Where is the plane?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG) Really think about it. Wouldn't the tail at least be visible? [This picture](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YVDdjLQkUV8/0.jpg) shows just how huge this plane really is, people(including myself, at first) seem to forget that this ins't a missile( according to official reports, anyway), it has huge wings. [What happened to the wings?](http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagonxox30.jpg) How could they have disappeared unless it was into the building itself? But the building doesn't show any sign of impalement except where the hull would have hit. And finally, I leave you with the [hole created by the alleged plane](http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fuselagefragment.jpg)... How can it be that insignificant? It's only [12 feet high.](http://911review.org/_webimages/noplane/hole4_3.JPG). Not to mention the sign that's miraculously [on the wall](https://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pentagon_hole2.jpg). I welcome opposition, I'm sure there will be plenty. I'd also like to discourage short, effortless answers. I gave you my evidence, please be a gentleman and provide some of your own to rebut, thank you! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe The Pentagon was hit by a Commercial Airliner. I'm not much for conspiracies, but this one really seems to take minimal convincing: First off, [here's a video](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Pentagon_Security_Camera_1.ogv)(a frame, really) caught by a security camera of the "plane". It doesn't prove anything, and it could just be proportion, but whatever that white blur about halfway through the video was, it does look a little too small to be a Boeing. Secondly, the aftermath starts getting a bit unbelievable. [Where is the plane?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG) Really think about it. Wouldn't the tail at least be visible? [This picture](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YVDdjLQkUV8/0.jpg) shows just how huge this plane really is, people(including myself, at first) seem to forget that this ins't a missile( according to official reports, anyway), it has huge wings. [What happened to the wings?](http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagonxox30.jpg) How could they have disappeared unless it was into the building itself? But the building doesn't show any sign of impalement except where the hull would have hit. And finally, I leave you with the [hole created by the alleged plane](http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fuselagefragment.jpg)... How can it be that insignificant? It's only [12 feet high.](http://911review.org/_webimages/noplane/hole4_3.JPG). Not to mention the sign that's miraculously [on the wall](https://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pentagon_hole2.jpg). I welcome opposition, I'm sure there will be plenty. I'd also like to discourage short, effortless answers. I gave you my evidence, please be a gentleman and provide some of your own to rebut, thank you!

t3_20sc0v

I think swear words shouldn't be bleeped out in TV or on the radio. CMV

I know it's because of children that may be watching/listening to the program. "Adult" themes, like murder, rape, torture, etc, shouldn't be in shows catered to children, but I don't see why the actual words should be removed. Swear words are becoming more common and less taboo. Because of the context the bleep, the viewers know [or can figure out] what the word was. It's not like it's protecting their innocence; an increasing number of children are swearing. I feel like they've started swearing since their kindergarten playground days [or maybe only the children I have contact with do]. Change my view!

I think swear words shouldn't be bleeped out in TV or on the radio. CMV. I know it's because of children that may be watching/listening to the program. "Adult" themes, like murder, rape, torture, etc, shouldn't be in shows catered to children, but I don't see why the actual words should be removed. Swear words are becoming more common and less taboo. Because of the context the bleep, the viewers know [or can figure out] what the word was. It's not like it's protecting their innocence; an increasing number of children are swearing. I feel like they've started swearing since their kindergarten playground days [or maybe only the children I have contact with do]. Change my view!

t3_2z18mj

CMV: Aspartame (the artificial sweetener most commonly found in diet sodas) does not negatively effect human health.

I have heard many people say that they as suspicious of the health effects of aspartame, a calorie-free sweetener that is the most common sweetener in diet sodas, but I have not seen any evidence that consuming aspartame regularly in feasible amounts has a negative effect on human health. My understanding is that much of the research which reaches negative conclusions about aspartame is funded by the sugar industry, which of course is in direct competition with aspartame. Some of the experiments that have attempted to gauge the effects of aspartame have also used methodologies that cast serious doubts on their applicability to real life. For example, I remember reading about one early trial which established a statistically significant link between aspartame consumption and cancer rates, but the methodology had essentially no applicability to humans, because the link was only established by feeding lab rats (who lack an enzyme in their bodies which humans possess that helps them break down the chemicals in aspartame which humans) the equivalent of 300 bathtubs full of aspartame per day. Needless to say, even someone who drinks five or six diet cokes per day doesn't consume anywhere near this amount of aspartame. So far as I can tell, for the average person, the worst aspartame can do is cause headaches. However, I am sure that there is a lot of evidence that I am not familiar with. Change my view, Reddit, and convince me that my nasty diet soda habit is the only think keeping me from getting that elusive six-pack! > *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: Aspartame (the artificial sweetener most commonly found in diet sodas) does not negatively effect human health. I have heard many people say that they as suspicious of the health effects of aspartame, a calorie-free sweetener that is the most common sweetener in diet sodas, but I have not seen any evidence that consuming aspartame regularly in feasible amounts has a negative effect on human health. My understanding is that much of the research which reaches negative conclusions about aspartame is funded by the sugar industry, which of course is in direct competition with aspartame. Some of the experiments that have attempted to gauge the effects of aspartame have also used methodologies that cast serious doubts on their applicability to real life. For example, I remember reading about one early trial which established a statistically significant link between aspartame consumption and cancer rates, but the methodology had essentially no applicability to humans, because the link was only established by feeding lab rats (who lack an enzyme in their bodies which humans possess that helps them break down the chemicals in aspartame which humans) the equivalent of 300 bathtubs full of aspartame per day. Needless to say, even someone who drinks five or six diet cokes per day doesn't consume anywhere near this amount of aspartame. So far as I can tell, for the average person, the worst aspartame can do is cause headaches. However, I am sure that there is a lot of evidence that I am not familiar with. Change my view, Reddit, and convince me that my nasty diet soda habit is the only think keeping me from getting that elusive six-pack! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_5fm4ht

CMV: There's No Sound Argument Against Electors Choosing Hillary Over Trump

There's been much discussion (read: shouting) around people claiming that we must simply accept the results of the election and not challenge it by petitioning the electors to switch to Hillary. My position is that there is no logical position against electors voting Hillary over Trump (only those electors that can of course, read: [Faithless Elector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)).   The premise of my view is, Only moral reasoning, submitting to the "will of the people," or ethical reasoning, deferring to "retroactive change is wrong - change it going forward," are valid in defining the validity of an election.   The logical transform is, In speaking to the "will of the people," as Hillary has clearly won the popular vote by a significant margin - it is the moral obligation of electors to elect according to the will of the people. In speaking to the "rules as written," although Trump has won the electoral votes according to each states rules, some electors are still free to choose a president how they see fit.   The conclusion is, Electors are either morally obliged to elect Hillary or are free to choose how they see fit, assuming they're legally privileged to do so.   In both conclusions I see people petitioning electors to switch to Hillary as being the most appropriate recourse. Note, a logical reason against electors voting for Hillary is different from a position for electors voting Trump. edit: to clarify, this is a view on electors changing their vote, not on the specifics of either Hillary or Trump _____ > *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 Sound Argument Against Electors Choosing Hillary Over Trump. There's been much discussion (read: shouting) around people claiming that we must simply accept the results of the election and not challenge it by petitioning the electors to switch to Hillary. My position is that there is no logical position against electors voting Hillary over Trump (only those electors that can of course, read: [Faithless Elector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)).   The premise of my view is, Only moral reasoning, submitting to the "will of the people," or ethical reasoning, deferring to "retroactive change is wrong - change it going forward," are valid in defining the validity of an election.   The logical transform is, In speaking to the "will of the people," as Hillary has clearly won the popular vote by a significant margin - it is the moral obligation of electors to elect according to the will of the people. In speaking to the "rules as written," although Trump has won the electoral votes according to each states rules, some electors are still free to choose a president how they see fit.   The conclusion is, Electors are either morally obliged to elect Hillary or are free to choose how they see fit, assuming they're legally privileged to do so.   In both conclusions I see people petitioning electors to switch to Hillary as being the most appropriate recourse. Note, a logical reason against electors voting for Hillary is different from a position for electors voting Trump. edit: to clarify, this is a view on electors changing their vote, not on the specifics of either Hillary or Trump

t3_731zjn

CMV: Kneeling during the National Anthem is not inherently Bad or Disrespectful

By bad or disrespectful, I mean that even if people are disobeying or disrespecting the president, that does not mean they are disrespecting our flag, nation, or troops. Now this does not include people who straight up SAY they are kneeling because they don't support the U.S.A. or don't respect the American flag. Kneeling down during the National Anthem is a form of peaceful protest and is perfectly legal. So many people are saying that this is a disrespectful act and that NFL players should be fired for doing it. It seems like all of these people have no evidence as to WHY kneeling during the National Anthem is so bad. Posts like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/7231n7/flag_respect/?ref=share&ref_source=link Show that the American flag is being "disrespected" in many other ways, while giving specific evidence as to WHY these acts are considered disrespectful and HOW they disobey the US Flag Code. If I were to see a post saying that kneeling during the National Anthem was seen as disrespecting the flag and WHY, with evidence provided like this^ then maybe I could see their point. For a lot of people and cultures, kneeling is seen as submissive and respectful. Many people getting mad are American and/or Christian. Well we, as Christians, are generally expected to get on our knees to pray. We kneel when we pray to show that we are submissive, obedient, and respectful to our Lord or whoever one might be praying to. No one seems to care about these^ points or see these acts as disrespectful, everyone thinks it's fine. But when the President of the United States says that kneeling is disrespectful and wrong, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and agrees with him. This can be a problem with media, because people will believe something they hear on the Radio, see on TV, or read on the Internet, without seeing any evidence. A lot of people, myself included, were raised to stand up during the Anthem. From what I have been taught and from the opinions I have formed, I always stand up to show respect to my flag and those fighting for it. But I do not have any evidence to say that kneeling down means I am no longer respecting the flag or nation. I love & respect my country and my flag. If, during the National Anthem, I were to take off my hat, put my hand on my heart, and kneel down, this means I no longer respect my flag or my nation? What if a US veteran were to kneel down? Like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/725v7a/97_year_old_wwii_veteran_who_wanted_to_join_with/?ref=share&ref_source=link Is he disrespecting veterans or those fighting for our country? I understand that football games are fun and maybe not the best place for large protests, but the players are not slowing down the game or causing any problems in my opinion. Edit: Title Clarification _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Kneeling during the National Anthem is not inherently Bad or Disrespectful. By bad or disrespectful, I mean that even if people are disobeying or disrespecting the president, that does not mean they are disrespecting our flag, nation, or troops. Now this does not include people who straight up SAY they are kneeling because they don't support the U.S.A. or don't respect the American flag. Kneeling down during the National Anthem is a form of peaceful protest and is perfectly legal. So many people are saying that this is a disrespectful act and that NFL players should be fired for doing it. It seems like all of these people have no evidence as to WHY kneeling during the National Anthem is so bad. Posts like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/7231n7/flag_respect/?ref=share&ref_source=link Show that the American flag is being "disrespected" in many other ways, while giving specific evidence as to WHY these acts are considered disrespectful and HOW they disobey the US Flag Code. If I were to see a post saying that kneeling during the National Anthem was seen as disrespecting the flag and WHY, with evidence provided like this^ then maybe I could see their point. For a lot of people and cultures, kneeling is seen as submissive and respectful. Many people getting mad are American and/or Christian. Well we, as Christians, are generally expected to get on our knees to pray. We kneel when we pray to show that we are submissive, obedient, and respectful to our Lord or whoever one might be praying to. No one seems to care about these^ points or see these acts as disrespectful, everyone thinks it's fine. But when the President of the United States says that kneeling is disrespectful and wrong, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and agrees with him. This can be a problem with media, because people will believe something they hear on the Radio, see on TV, or read on the Internet, without seeing any evidence. A lot of people, myself included, were raised to stand up during the Anthem. From what I have been taught and from the opinions I have formed, I always stand up to show respect to my flag and those fighting for it. But I do not have any evidence to say that kneeling down means I am no longer respecting the flag or nation. I love & respect my country and my flag. If, during the National Anthem, I were to take off my hat, put my hand on my heart, and kneel down, this means I no longer respect my flag or my nation? What if a US veteran were to kneel down? Like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/725v7a/97_year_old_wwii_veteran_who_wanted_to_join_with/?ref=share&ref_source=link Is he disrespecting veterans or those fighting for our country? I understand that football games are fun and maybe not the best place for large protests, but the players are not slowing down the game or causing any problems in my opinion. Edit: Title Clarification

t3_1kmq03

I believe that using up Earth's natural resources is not a bad thing CMV

I think that it is completely natural for a dominate species to use the resources they are provided and we do not need to "give back" to the planet. I believe dominant species are designed to simply use up available resources and then find new sources. Basically, I don't think being environmentally friendly should be as big of an issue as it is. Theoretically, by the time Earth is nearing the end of it's usefulness, humans will simply spread to another planet or planets. Establishing a self-sustaining civilization here on Earth does not, to me, seem a necessity. Either way, I'm not solidified on this subject but it's how I feel; it wouldn't/won't take much to alter my view.

I believe that using up Earth's natural resources is not a bad thing CMV. I think that it is completely natural for a dominate species to use the resources they are provided and we do not need to "give back" to the planet. I believe dominant species are designed to simply use up available resources and then find new sources. Basically, I don't think being environmentally friendly should be as big of an issue as it is. Theoretically, by the time Earth is nearing the end of it's usefulness, humans will simply spread to another planet or planets. Establishing a self-sustaining civilization here on Earth does not, to me, seem a necessity. Either way, I'm not solidified on this subject but it's how I feel; it wouldn't/won't take much to alter my view.

t3_20ri7h

I feel my relationship of a year is more important than her going to china for a year, CMV.

My girlfriend and I have been together for over a year. We're headed off to college together where she'll be going to china for about a month per year, until she ends up going for an entire year. I'm not okay with a long distance relationship, at all. I feel she is putting an opportunity to learn a language, which she could also learn by actually going to class here, over our relationship when she knows how I feel about this. So, I just want somebody to tell me how much of a jerk I'm being by attempting to hold her back, something I already know. Please, help me change my view. This girl has all the potential in the world, and I'm just a regular guy who wants to go to a regular college and stay in my regular country.

I feel my relationship of a year is more important than her going to china for a year, CMV. My girlfriend and I have been together for over a year. We're headed off to college together where she'll be going to china for about a month per year, until she ends up going for an entire year. I'm not okay with a long distance relationship, at all. I feel she is putting an opportunity to learn a language, which she could also learn by actually going to class here, over our relationship when she knows how I feel about this. So, I just want somebody to tell me how much of a jerk I'm being by attempting to hold her back, something I already know. Please, help me change my view. This girl has all the potential in the world, and I'm just a regular guy who wants to go to a regular college and stay in my regular country.

t3_4icu22

CMV: Bernie Sanders supporters who are voting for Trump over Hillary are either behaving irrationally or should not have supported Sanders in the first place.

There is no legitimate reason for a Sanders voter to vote for Trump over Hillary. Hillary and Sanders are far more ideologically similar than Trump and Sanders. Hillary and Sanders voted on the same side in the Senate on bills 93% of the time. To put that in perspective, Hillary voted the same as Republicans less than 40% of the time. On virtually every single issue Hillary is closer to Sanders than Trump. Hillary is untrustworthy and has a record of unprincipled flip-flopping, granted. But, you would have to be delusional to believe that Donald Trump is any more honest. He lies compulsively. He said the unemployment rate is somewhere between 28-40%, that blacks kill 81% of white homicide victims, which is wildly inaccurate, that John Oliver begged him to be on his show when John Oliver has never talked to him, that he (Trump) was virulently opposed to the Iraq war before the war started, that Ted Cruz's dad associated with Lee Harvey Oswald, along with a million other lies. Not to mention Trump himself is either lying about his actual positions, or, he is one of the stupidest people to ever become the nominee for a major party. Possibly the most important issue we face in the near future is global warming. Trump said that: ""The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." In my mind that is the single dumbest, most worrying, and all around buffoonish statement I've ever seen of someone running for President. And for those who call Hillary a hawk, Trump wants to send 20-30k troops into Syria to fight ISIS and start capturing and torturing the wives and children of suspected terrorists. The only legitimate reason for a Sanders supporter to vote for Trump is they never really shared Sanders' ideals in the first place _____ > *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: Bernie Sanders supporters who are voting for Trump over Hillary are either behaving irrationally or should not have supported Sanders in the first place. There is no legitimate reason for a Sanders voter to vote for Trump over Hillary. Hillary and Sanders are far more ideologically similar than Trump and Sanders. Hillary and Sanders voted on the same side in the Senate on bills 93% of the time. To put that in perspective, Hillary voted the same as Republicans less than 40% of the time. On virtually every single issue Hillary is closer to Sanders than Trump. Hillary is untrustworthy and has a record of unprincipled flip-flopping, granted. But, you would have to be delusional to believe that Donald Trump is any more honest. He lies compulsively. He said the unemployment rate is somewhere between 28-40%, that blacks kill 81% of white homicide victims, which is wildly inaccurate, that John Oliver begged him to be on his show when John Oliver has never talked to him, that he (Trump) was virulently opposed to the Iraq war before the war started, that Ted Cruz's dad associated with Lee Harvey Oswald, along with a million other lies. Not to mention Trump himself is either lying about his actual positions, or, he is one of the stupidest people to ever become the nominee for a major party. Possibly the most important issue we face in the near future is global warming. Trump said that: ""The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." In my mind that is the single dumbest, most worrying, and all around buffoonish statement I've ever seen of someone running for President. And for those who call Hillary a hawk, Trump wants to send 20-30k troops into Syria to fight ISIS and start capturing and torturing the wives and children of suspected terrorists. The only legitimate reason for a Sanders supporter to vote for Trump is they never really shared Sanders' ideals in the first place

t3_1za2rh

The feeling of post marijuana consumption is horrible and not at all enjoyable. CMV

Looking across the people around me as well as those on the internet, I feel left out when I see everyone enjoying the feeling of smoking weed. Having tried it personally, I don't think the feeling is as euphoric as people claim it to be. I feel my heart pumping loud and seem to lose conscious of what is happening around me and generally end up lying on my bed, and if that is what that happens with all the people, I personally don't think marijuana consumption is a good idea at all. Change My View.

The feeling of post marijuana consumption is horrible and not at all enjoyable. CMV. Looking across the people around me as well as those on the internet, I feel left out when I see everyone enjoying the feeling of smoking weed. Having tried it personally, I don't think the feeling is as euphoric as people claim it to be. I feel my heart pumping loud and seem to lose conscious of what is happening around me and generally end up lying on my bed, and if that is what that happens with all the people, I personally don't think marijuana consumption is a good idea at all. Change My View.

t3_377t3z

CMV: I think FIFA should keep the 2022 World Cup in Qatar

I don't see that much wrong with it. It is promoting tourism to the middle east and raises awareness for the developing country of Qatar, much like South Africa did. As well, it gives the Qatar National Team a chance to compete in the World Cup. I feel economically it is beneficial for both Fifa and Qatar. 2022 is a long way from now, and Qatar has promised that it would be able to fix the problem with heat using a stadium wide cooling system. I'm also excited to see all the modern technology that will be implemented into this World Cup. Also, I feel it would be a waste of money and time if the World Cup was moved somewhere else. Construction has already started and countries have already moved on to preparing bids for another World Cup. A sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries. Finally, in the end, we go to and watch the World Cup because football is football. There should be more time spent focusing on the emergence of stars in the World Cup, how teams can adapt to weather, how today's young stars will play in their prime. With all this said, change my view!

CMV: I think FIFA should keep the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. I don't see that much wrong with it. It is promoting tourism to the middle east and raises awareness for the developing country of Qatar, much like South Africa did. As well, it gives the Qatar National Team a chance to compete in the World Cup. I feel economically it is beneficial for both Fifa and Qatar. 2022 is a long way from now, and Qatar has promised that it would be able to fix the problem with heat using a stadium wide cooling system. I'm also excited to see all the modern technology that will be implemented into this World Cup. Also, I feel it would be a waste of money and time if the World Cup was moved somewhere else. Construction has already started and countries have already moved on to preparing bids for another World Cup. A sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries. Finally, in the end, we go to and watch the World Cup because football is football. There should be more time spent focusing on the emergence of stars in the World Cup, how teams can adapt to weather, how today's young stars will play in their prime. With all this said, change my view!

t3_26izkz

CMV: I believe there are fundamental similarities between conspiracy theorists and certain religious groups, such as Young Earth Creationists.

I hold this view because I have read that conspiracy theorists have a common trait: they are trapped in a belief system, and that any opposing view, no matter how much evidence it is supported by, is seen by them as more than an attack on their opinion, instead as an attack against them personally. I haven't studied religion in any great depth, I am not a religious person, and I was brought up in a tolerant family who weren't particularly religious either. From what I *have* seen and read on the news and in books, (including the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham) certain groups of people choose to believe a literal account of what the Bible says, and they put this forward as a counter-argument to any evidence put to them. To me, there are strong parallels between this lack of critical thinking in Creationism, and the conspiracy theorists' refusal to believe evidence put forward to them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe there are fundamental similarities between conspiracy theorists and certain religious groups, such as Young Earth Creationists. I hold this view because I have read that conspiracy theorists have a common trait: they are trapped in a belief system, and that any opposing view, no matter how much evidence it is supported by, is seen by them as more than an attack on their opinion, instead as an attack against them personally. I haven't studied religion in any great depth, I am not a religious person, and I was brought up in a tolerant family who weren't particularly religious either. From what I *have* seen and read on the news and in books, (including the recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham) certain groups of people choose to believe a literal account of what the Bible says, and they put this forward as a counter-argument to any evidence put to them. To me, there are strong parallels between this lack of critical thinking in Creationism, and the conspiracy theorists' refusal to believe evidence put forward to them.

t3_2myd8c

CMV: I generally support Obama's executive action on Immigration.

So I am fairly supportive of the program that Obama proposed in his speech tonight. Specifically, I see three big reasons its good: * It concretely helps a lot of people, by giving them the ability to lawfully work, and to live without fear, they can better participate in society and have better lives. * I do not feel a strong moral reason to heavily punish violators of US immigration law, because US immigration law is deeply amoral. Most people have no lawful route by which they could ever move to the US or any other wealthy country. People who have the ambition to move and work hard to improve their lives and their families lives are doing something that is noble and good. Even though a law is broken in the process, I do not believe they have done something morally wrong by breaking that law, and would not punish them harshly, if at all, for the violation. * It does appear to be within the bounds of current law. [8 CFR 274a.12(11)](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=a659f78094f57c0e61513ed4d8978c79&n=pt8.1.274a&r=PART&ty=HTML#se8.1.274a_112) allows for work permits for "An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive." My hesitations are 1: that I would like to see something done through legislature instead, though frankly that seems highly unlikely at this juncture, and 2: that it puts the immigrants who use the program in a precarious position at the discretion of the President who succeeds Obama. Last thing, I'd really like to keep this focused on policy, not politicians. I'm not a partisan of either party, and attacks on specific politicians or political parties are extremely unlikely to persuade me. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I generally support Obama's executive action on Immigration. So I am fairly supportive of the program that Obama proposed in his speech tonight. Specifically, I see three big reasons its good: * It concretely helps a lot of people, by giving them the ability to lawfully work, and to live without fear, they can better participate in society and have better lives. * I do not feel a strong moral reason to heavily punish violators of US immigration law, because US immigration law is deeply amoral. Most people have no lawful route by which they could ever move to the US or any other wealthy country. People who have the ambition to move and work hard to improve their lives and their families lives are doing something that is noble and good. Even though a law is broken in the process, I do not believe they have done something morally wrong by breaking that law, and would not punish them harshly, if at all, for the violation. * It does appear to be within the bounds of current law. [8 CFR 274a.12(11)](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=a659f78094f57c0e61513ed4d8978c79&n=pt8.1.274a&r=PART&ty=HTML#se8.1.274a_112) allows for work permits for "An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive." My hesitations are 1: that I would like to see something done through legislature instead, though frankly that seems highly unlikely at this juncture, and 2: that it puts the immigrants who use the program in a precarious position at the discretion of the President who succeeds Obama. Last thing, I'd really like to keep this focused on policy, not politicians. I'm not a partisan of either party, and attacks on specific politicians or political parties are extremely unlikely to persuade me.

t3_18vjt3

I think global warming is mostly alarmism. CMV

I'm not denying that the greenhouse effect exists. What I'm questioning is whether it's something we should be particularly concerned about. First, when you manage to pin an ecologist down on what global warming will actually do, you usually get an answer along the lines of, "These effects will start to be seen in 50 to 100 years." Judging by how much society has changed in the last 50 years, this doesn't strike me as a particularly pressing issue. Second, volcanic eruptions put out far more CO2 than any human activity, and aren't associated with large spikes in temperature, even after the ash has settled. Clearly, the climate is harder to push around than certain former vice-presidents would lead us to believe. With that said, I think there are other solid reasons to stop relying on fossil fuel, and I think constantly focusing on global warming is harmful to the debate as a whole.

I think global warming is mostly alarmism. CMV. I'm not denying that the greenhouse effect exists. What I'm questioning is whether it's something we should be particularly concerned about. First, when you manage to pin an ecologist down on what global warming will actually do, you usually get an answer along the lines of, "These effects will start to be seen in 50 to 100 years." Judging by how much society has changed in the last 50 years, this doesn't strike me as a particularly pressing issue. Second, volcanic eruptions put out far more CO2 than any human activity, and aren't associated with large spikes in temperature, even after the ash has settled. Clearly, the climate is harder to push around than certain former vice-presidents would lead us to believe. With that said, I think there are other solid reasons to stop relying on fossil fuel, and I think constantly focusing on global warming is harmful to the debate as a whole.

t3_1kos83

I believe that watching professional sports is a huge waste of time CMV

Nearly all of my close friends are extremely into sports, specifically the upcoming NFL season and their fantasy league. But, I just can't seem to get myself into the whole sports thing. I'm athletic and have played sports my entire life, but just never watched (my family just watched their first superbowl last year). The rest of my friends are hugely into watching professional sports, but I don't understand the hype or why I should be idolizing a single person for how many yards they can run in a game. There are a million other things I find more appealing than watching a football game on a Sunday, but then I end up being left out of the loop during the season. I feel like I'm missing the big picture.

I believe that watching professional sports is a huge waste of time CMV. Nearly all of my close friends are extremely into sports, specifically the upcoming NFL season and their fantasy league. But, I just can't seem to get myself into the whole sports thing. I'm athletic and have played sports my entire life, but just never watched (my family just watched their first superbowl last year). The rest of my friends are hugely into watching professional sports, but I don't understand the hype or why I should be idolizing a single person for how many yards they can run in a game. There are a million other things I find more appealing than watching a football game on a Sunday, but then I end up being left out of the loop during the season. I feel like I'm missing the big picture.

t3_32m3ah

CMV: Two-party political systems are restrictive and toxic

Admittedly I don't have any deep knowledge of politics, but I believe that two-party systems are restrictive of free thought. They box people in and chain them to that specific set of beliefs, making them more closed minded to differing ideas, which in turn encourages disdain of the opposing party. It causes discord and discourages empathy and compromise. I understand the purpose of labels, but wouldn't it be more beneficial if there were more than two boxes to check? It's like people are given a multiple choice question, when the question would be better answered in an open-ended format. ~~This may be a long shot of an assumption, but it feels like a manipulation tactic to oversimplify complex issues in the eyes of the masses, in turn discouraging people to think for themselves. It's so much easier to control public thought when all you have to do is control two puppets who are seemingly in opposition, but have the same dirty end goal. It completely defeats the point of democracy. It's archaic and toxic to the populace.~~ Feel free to educate me and change my view. Edit: This video that /u/cp5184 shared accurately expresses my concerns with this system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

CMV: Two-party political systems are restrictive and toxic. Admittedly I don't have any deep knowledge of politics, but I believe that two-party systems are restrictive of free thought. They box people in and chain them to that specific set of beliefs, making them more closed minded to differing ideas, which in turn encourages disdain of the opposing party. It causes discord and discourages empathy and compromise. I understand the purpose of labels, but wouldn't it be more beneficial if there were more than two boxes to check? It's like people are given a multiple choice question, when the question would be better answered in an open-ended format. ~~This may be a long shot of an assumption, but it feels like a manipulation tactic to oversimplify complex issues in the eyes of the masses, in turn discouraging people to think for themselves. It's so much easier to control public thought when all you have to do is control two puppets who are seemingly in opposition, but have the same dirty end goal. It completely defeats the point of democracy. It's archaic and toxic to the populace.~~ Feel free to educate me and change my view. Edit: This video that /u/cp5184 shared accurately expresses my concerns with this system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

t3_1jzxid

I believe that waiters/waitresses should be not be tipped a percentage of the meal. CMV

I believe that waiters and waitresses should be tipped solely on the quality of their service. If you order a $60 lobster with a $40 bottle of wine, you're looking at a $15 tip for less than satisfactory service. If you get a $20 pasta dish and a soda, you're looking at a $6-7 tip for *exceptional* service. And the waiter/waitress brings out the same amount of plates for both meals. Instead, I think the tip should be based on 2 things: The quality of the restaurant The quality of the service The quality of restaurant is saying different brackets should be made for different classes of restaurants. For a diner, somewhere in the 3-6 dollar range per person, a bistro about $6-9, and a fine restaurant anywhere $10 and up. Let me know what you think.

I believe that waiters/waitresses should be not be tipped a percentage of the meal. CMV. I believe that waiters and waitresses should be tipped solely on the quality of their service. If you order a $60 lobster with a $40 bottle of wine, you're looking at a $15 tip for less than satisfactory service. If you get a $20 pasta dish and a soda, you're looking at a $6-7 tip for *exceptional* service. And the waiter/waitress brings out the same amount of plates for both meals. Instead, I think the tip should be based on 2 things: The quality of the restaurant The quality of the service The quality of restaurant is saying different brackets should be made for different classes of restaurants. For a diner, somewhere in the 3-6 dollar range per person, a bistro about $6-9, and a fine restaurant anywhere $10 and up. Let me know what you think.

t3_66cpho

CMV: NBA Players should be making more free throws.

[So according to this](https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/player-stat/free-throw-percentage), the best free throw is at 90% and the 100th is 70%. [If you look at Penalty kicks in soccer](http://www.penaltyshootouts.co.uk/research.html) it's 71 for world cup, 82 for copa, and 84 for Euros. In soccer there is someone in your way, so their is a mindgame aspect, as well as the pressure of the situation. In basketball all their is pressure of the situation. How are these players not averaging higher, when this is their job. I understand that Penalty kicks hardly happen in soccer, but free throws happen all the time in basketball, so they should be practicing for it. My cousin tried to convince me that Shaq is too big to make a free throw like a normal person because his launch point is over the hoop while a normal person is below. Meaning that his arc has to be really high or he has to have no power on the ball making him airball. I'm not convinced this is a valid reason, because he could just granny it if he really wanted to allowing him to have that arch. Ways to CMV: 1. Some physical reason why making a free throw in one stadium is different to another stadium/gymnasium. 2. Explain why they don't practice it enough to warrant an increase in percentage. 3. Explain why these percentages are fine and shouldn't be higher. _____ > *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: NBA Players should be making more free throws. [So according to this](https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/player-stat/free-throw-percentage), the best free throw is at 90% and the 100th is 70%. [If you look at Penalty kicks in soccer](http://www.penaltyshootouts.co.uk/research.html) it's 71 for world cup, 82 for copa, and 84 for Euros. In soccer there is someone in your way, so their is a mindgame aspect, as well as the pressure of the situation. In basketball all their is pressure of the situation. How are these players not averaging higher, when this is their job. I understand that Penalty kicks hardly happen in soccer, but free throws happen all the time in basketball, so they should be practicing for it. My cousin tried to convince me that Shaq is too big to make a free throw like a normal person because his launch point is over the hoop while a normal person is below. Meaning that his arc has to be really high or he has to have no power on the ball making him airball. I'm not convinced this is a valid reason, because he could just granny it if he really wanted to allowing him to have that arch. Ways to CMV: 1. Some physical reason why making a free throw in one stadium is different to another stadium/gymnasium. 2. Explain why they don't practice it enough to warrant an increase in percentage. 3. Explain why these percentages are fine and shouldn't be higher.

t3_3571a2

CMV: Many white American girls do not "like" or generally respect Asian girls in the US.

I've sort of had this thought for a while, mostly after sort of noticing interactions between Asian girls and white girls in grad school. Now I'm in a LTR with an Asian girl for the first time, and something just kind of seems off with my/our interactions with my white female friends. I guess I have a few random theories that might be just complete crap. First, I sort of theorize that a lot of white girls just don't see Asian girls as attractive for whatever reason. My theory is that they essentially decide that white guys that prefer Asian girls must have some strange fetish for them - its the only thing that could explain them being with "unattractive" girls. Or alternatively, they stereotype that he only wants to date an Asian girl because they're submissive and will do what they want (which is hilarious, I've never once seen a white guy with a submissive Asian gf... beyond the creepy old dudes, if I have any stereotypes of Asian girls in the U.S. its that they're a little feistier than most)? I guess I'd argue that the hierarchy in girls social groups is largely going to be aligned based on who is the best looking.... Asian girls tend to not "know their place" from their perspective? Another idea is that white girls subconsciously don't like the sexual competition from another ethnicity possibly considered objectively more attractive than them? Another issue might be that im in the Midwest. My girlfriend is quite attractive, literally 90 pounds at 5" 2'. Midwest girls to have a little bit of a corn fed look to em - most average girls my gf's height would weigh about 30 pounds more. Maybe this is just the classic case of overweight girls being hostile towards skinny girls? I really don't know what it is, but after dating an Asian girl for the first time there seems to be some kind of real hostility there. Maybe its just stemming from seeing an attractive/successful white guy long term dating an Asian girl (also to be clear, though my family is wealthy, my gf's is in the insanely wealthy category and she's investment banking... far better off than me)? Not really too invested in these opinions, I'm mostly just trying to figure out whether I'm imagining this underlying hostility or not. _____ > *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: Many white American girls do not "like" or generally respect Asian girls in the US. I've sort of had this thought for a while, mostly after sort of noticing interactions between Asian girls and white girls in grad school. Now I'm in a LTR with an Asian girl for the first time, and something just kind of seems off with my/our interactions with my white female friends. I guess I have a few random theories that might be just complete crap. First, I sort of theorize that a lot of white girls just don't see Asian girls as attractive for whatever reason. My theory is that they essentially decide that white guys that prefer Asian girls must have some strange fetish for them - its the only thing that could explain them being with "unattractive" girls. Or alternatively, they stereotype that he only wants to date an Asian girl because they're submissive and will do what they want (which is hilarious, I've never once seen a white guy with a submissive Asian gf... beyond the creepy old dudes, if I have any stereotypes of Asian girls in the U.S. its that they're a little feistier than most)? I guess I'd argue that the hierarchy in girls social groups is largely going to be aligned based on who is the best looking.... Asian girls tend to not "know their place" from their perspective? Another idea is that white girls subconsciously don't like the sexual competition from another ethnicity possibly considered objectively more attractive than them? Another issue might be that im in the Midwest. My girlfriend is quite attractive, literally 90 pounds at 5" 2'. Midwest girls to have a little bit of a corn fed look to em - most average girls my gf's height would weigh about 30 pounds more. Maybe this is just the classic case of overweight girls being hostile towards skinny girls? I really don't know what it is, but after dating an Asian girl for the first time there seems to be some kind of real hostility there. Maybe its just stemming from seeing an attractive/successful white guy long term dating an Asian girl (also to be clear, though my family is wealthy, my gf's is in the insanely wealthy category and she's investment banking... far better off than me)? Not really too invested in these opinions, I'm mostly just trying to figure out whether I'm imagining this underlying hostility or not.

t3_1dqdit

I belive a definitive answer to "who am I?" that anyone can use is "I am what I do"

Makes perfect sense to me if someone thinks themselves something or likes something that isn't them. But a person can be described by an adverb...ie if someone is responsible, or a good person..the claim means nothing without the action. We are what we do. If there are holes in my logic, I would like them to be pointed out so I can make this theory invalid/sharper/or prooved if right.

I belive a definitive answer to "who am I?" that anyone can use is "I am what I do". Makes perfect sense to me if someone thinks themselves something or likes something that isn't them. But a person can be described by an adverb...ie if someone is responsible, or a good person..the claim means nothing without the action. We are what we do. If there are holes in my logic, I would like them to be pointed out so I can make this theory invalid/sharper/or prooved if right.

t3_6gli2o

CMV: In our current society and culture a celebration of motherhood seems weird.

A friend/ex-roommate of my adult daughter if about to hatch her second child. She is close enough that she is already complaining on Facebook about nights of timeable but fruitless contractions. She invited a group of female friends over and they had a party centered around henna tattooing her bulbous belly and posted the results on Facebook. That this is narcissistic and attention seeking is self evident. No one who knows her is even mildly surprised. But after considering it, I came to the conclusion that in a culture that does not celebrate motherhood that such a celebration would be reactionary and seem a bit over the top. _____ > *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: In our current society and culture a celebration of motherhood seems weird. A friend/ex-roommate of my adult daughter if about to hatch her second child. She is close enough that she is already complaining on Facebook about nights of timeable but fruitless contractions. She invited a group of female friends over and they had a party centered around henna tattooing her bulbous belly and posted the results on Facebook. That this is narcissistic and attention seeking is self evident. No one who knows her is even mildly surprised. But after considering it, I came to the conclusion that in a culture that does not celebrate motherhood that such a celebration would be reactionary and seem a bit over the top.

t3_24lxpm

CMV: I feel like it's stupid and irrational for fans of professional sports teams to say "we won" when in fact the team won and the fans watched it on TV.

I've heard that sports fans defend saying "we won" because 'the players' salaries are from the fans.' Well my friends and I like Jay-Z, and would cheer at a concert or buy a new album, but we don't go "WOW OUR ALBUM WON A GRAMMY!" or "WOW OUR CONCERT TOUR SOLD OUT!" because we've bought tickets or merchandise from an artist. Also, I've heard some people argue that it's like being happy for a friend, but 1. you actually know the friend 2. if your buddy gets married or something, you and the rest of his friends don't go "YEAH WE GOT MARRIED!" So overall I feel like it's just a way for people to live through other people's accomplishments instead of their own. But a feeling doesn't mean knowing. I don't actually know why people get so into "their" teams. I just feel like it's probably dumb. But maybe it isn't. I really don't have much of an understanding beyond casually observing from the outside in, and I've noticed that there are lots of sports fans who are also very smart. When a bunch of smart people are doing something that I don't understand, and it "seems dumb" to me, I try really hard to be skeptical of my conclusion / understand where they're coming from, because oftentimes it turns out I'm wrong, which is cool because then I get to see the world in a new way that's more correct, plus it helps me relate to people more. So could someone please explain 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: I feel like it's stupid and irrational for fans of professional sports teams to say "we won" when in fact the team won and the fans watched it on TV. I've heard that sports fans defend saying "we won" because 'the players' salaries are from the fans.' Well my friends and I like Jay-Z, and would cheer at a concert or buy a new album, but we don't go "WOW OUR ALBUM WON A GRAMMY!" or "WOW OUR CONCERT TOUR SOLD OUT!" because we've bought tickets or merchandise from an artist. Also, I've heard some people argue that it's like being happy for a friend, but 1. you actually know the friend 2. if your buddy gets married or something, you and the rest of his friends don't go "YEAH WE GOT MARRIED!" So overall I feel like it's just a way for people to live through other people's accomplishments instead of their own. But a feeling doesn't mean knowing. I don't actually know why people get so into "their" teams. I just feel like it's probably dumb. But maybe it isn't. I really don't have much of an understanding beyond casually observing from the outside in, and I've noticed that there are lots of sports fans who are also very smart. When a bunch of smart people are doing something that I don't understand, and it "seems dumb" to me, I try really hard to be skeptical of my conclusion / understand where they're coming from, because oftentimes it turns out I'm wrong, which is cool because then I get to see the world in a new way that's more correct, plus it helps me relate to people more. So could someone please explain this?

t3_2210wl

CMV: I think all high schools should not require uniforms

I believe all high schools should not require uniforms because it forcing students to suppress their creativity and doesn't allow them to express themselves openly. I also think that clothing does not interfere with the learning environment at all and are ultimately more costly than not having uniforms. In addition, I think that uniforms don't allow students to stay open minded, and does not teach children have to deal with people other than themselves. Uniforms teach children that in order to get along, everyone must conform to the same standards.

CMV: I think all high schools should not require uniforms. I believe all high schools should not require uniforms because it forcing students to suppress their creativity and doesn't allow them to express themselves openly. I also think that clothing does not interfere with the learning environment at all and are ultimately more costly than not having uniforms. In addition, I think that uniforms don't allow students to stay open minded, and does not teach children have to deal with people other than themselves. Uniforms teach children that in order to get along, everyone must conform to the same standards.

t3_1cp3r5

I believe that rather than spending money on programs for the severly mentally disabled, schools should put money into programs that can help develop those who will eventually contribute to society. Please CMV

I go to a high school in the U.S that has an extensive program for those with severe mental disabilities. I'd say there are at least three seperate classrooms and about 20 people who are employed to take care of them. I think that this is a waste of money that could be used on extracurricular programs to help develop students who will eventually contribute somthing to society. Also, when I saw mentally disabled I mean students with disabilities that cause them to lack any conceivable form of communication or intelligence that allows them to contribute anything. I'm not really sure how to phrase that, but I'm thinking of anyone who falls into the very low IQ range (70-) or is completely unable to express intelligent thoughts that they may or or may not have. I do, however, understand that people with minor learning disabilities (ASD, aspergers, etc.) are not only able to contribute to society, but are sometimes incredibly intelligent.

I believe that rather than spending money on programs for the severly mentally disabled, schools should put money into programs that can help develop those who will eventually contribute to society. Please CMV. I go to a high school in the U.S that has an extensive program for those with severe mental disabilities. I'd say there are at least three seperate classrooms and about 20 people who are employed to take care of them. I think that this is a waste of money that could be used on extracurricular programs to help develop students who will eventually contribute somthing to society. Also, when I saw mentally disabled I mean students with disabilities that cause them to lack any conceivable form of communication or intelligence that allows them to contribute anything. I'm not really sure how to phrase that, but I'm thinking of anyone who falls into the very low IQ range (70-) or is completely unable to express intelligent thoughts that they may or or may not have. I do, however, understand that people with minor learning disabilities (ASD, aspergers, etc.) are not only able to contribute to society, but are sometimes incredibly intelligent.

t3_21y0x3

CMV: I should sell my ticket for the RMS Titanic.

I've got family waiting for me in New York City, but I believe the Titanic has become an 'event' to the point where selling my ticket and taking a different ship that would attract less attention - and be considerably cheaper - at a later date would be to my advantage. My ticket is second class and at this point I could sell it and buy a second class ticket for half the price on another ship. I just don't think the spectacle is worth the price and I can send a letter to my family in the meantime explaining. CMV.

CMV: I should sell my ticket for the RMS Titanic. I've got family waiting for me in New York City, but I believe the Titanic has become an 'event' to the point where selling my ticket and taking a different ship that would attract less attention - and be considerably cheaper - at a later date would be to my advantage. My ticket is second class and at this point I could sell it and buy a second class ticket for half the price on another ship. I just don't think the spectacle is worth the price and I can send a letter to my family in the meantime explaining. CMV.

t3_4qsp9l

CMV: I believe people can change and that we should reserve judgement on them until they show signs of change or stagnation.

I feel as if the attitude toward truly heinous crimes and reprehensible behavior has gone past it's respectable limits and negatively affects society as a whole. From bullying, to murder and rape there are many people who feel these things are not redeemable, and the pertrators should be perpetually punished for what they did. The punishment isn't entirely through a legal system and may be an offhand remark or an entire video dragging a person through the mud. I find this troubling for the following reasons: 1) we shouldn't assume wether a person has changed or not. We should let thier actions/words (as appropriate to the intial infraction) dictate alone wether they have changed. In the case of celebrities, such as Micheal Vick who was guilty of multiple instances of animal abuse, it is exetremely hard to tell if they are genuinely changed. This is because of our view as the public and their position of being in the public eye. So it makes sense to reserve public judgment of the person in question. The question we should ask is 'is it likely they would do the same thing again?' I am not saying that we shouldn't have contempt for their actions, I am saying that unless you have proof for one side or the other you should not come out publicly against them. 2) if the person has truly changed there is no reason to continue to punish them for thier past transgressions. This is a lesser eye for an eye mentality that serves no one in a positive way. I am not condoning any terrible transgression. I just see no value in continuing to punish people that have changed. If we do this then the only recourse is to remove them entirely from society (death, indefinite prison, deportation). In which case a whole slew of other problems arise, that are not beneficial to society.

CMV: I believe people can change and that we should reserve judgement on them until they show signs of change or stagnation. I feel as if the attitude toward truly heinous crimes and reprehensible behavior has gone past it's respectable limits and negatively affects society as a whole. From bullying, to murder and rape there are many people who feel these things are not redeemable, and the pertrators should be perpetually punished for what they did. The punishment isn't entirely through a legal system and may be an offhand remark or an entire video dragging a person through the mud. I find this troubling for the following reasons: 1) we shouldn't assume wether a person has changed or not. We should let thier actions/words (as appropriate to the intial infraction) dictate alone wether they have changed. In the case of celebrities, such as Micheal Vick who was guilty of multiple instances of animal abuse, it is exetremely hard to tell if they are genuinely changed. This is because of our view as the public and their position of being in the public eye. So it makes sense to reserve public judgment of the person in question. The question we should ask is 'is it likely they would do the same thing again?' I am not saying that we shouldn't have contempt for their actions, I am saying that unless you have proof for one side or the other you should not come out publicly against them. 2) if the person has truly changed there is no reason to continue to punish them for thier past transgressions. This is a lesser eye for an eye mentality that serves no one in a positive way. I am not condoning any terrible transgression. I just see no value in continuing to punish people that have changed. If we do this then the only recourse is to remove them entirely from society (death, indefinite prison, deportation). In which case a whole slew of other problems arise, that are not beneficial to society.

t3_3qmnoj

CMV: I do not believe in the idea of gender fludity

I believe in transgender people 100%. Transgender people exist and are real. It is a real thing. However, I do not believe that gender is on a spectrum and is fluid. I do not believe in people who call themselves gender fluid and say they are both man and woman. I believe you are either born a man or a woman. Transgender men are born as men with the wrong body. I get that. There are people that are born intersex. However I don't believe a person could be both a man and a woman. The brain is either a male brain or a female brain. Its one or the other. You can't be both...and if you could it would be a learned choice. Not real. I believe the reason why there are people who label themselves as gender fluid is because just trans people. I mean, yeah some people do it to be hip and call themselves gender queer, like Miley Cyrus. However a vast majority of these gender fluid people in my opinion, are just simply transgender. Being transgender is extremely difficult. NOBODY wants to be trans. So if a transgender person doesn't want to be trans, they would take drastic measures, and take up the label of gender fluid or gender queer. That way they don't have to have that horrible label of being transgender. Its a way of coping, dealing with issues. It is easier to label yourself as gender fluid or gender queer, than it is to be transgender, and that is why so many people do 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: I do not believe in the idea of gender fludity. I believe in transgender people 100%. Transgender people exist and are real. It is a real thing. However, I do not believe that gender is on a spectrum and is fluid. I do not believe in people who call themselves gender fluid and say they are both man and woman. I believe you are either born a man or a woman. Transgender men are born as men with the wrong body. I get that. There are people that are born intersex. However I don't believe a person could be both a man and a woman. The brain is either a male brain or a female brain. Its one or the other. You can't be both...and if you could it would be a learned choice. Not real. I believe the reason why there are people who label themselves as gender fluid is because just trans people. I mean, yeah some people do it to be hip and call themselves gender queer, like Miley Cyrus. However a vast majority of these gender fluid people in my opinion, are just simply transgender. Being transgender is extremely difficult. NOBODY wants to be trans. So if a transgender person doesn't want to be trans, they would take drastic measures, and take up the label of gender fluid or gender queer. That way they don't have to have that horrible label of being transgender. Its a way of coping, dealing with issues. It is easier to label yourself as gender fluid or gender queer, than it is to be transgender, and that is why so many people do it.

t3_1drz5v

I think that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are idiotic and irresponsible. CMV

I have found no real data that supports their claims such as that vaccines cause autism (it was based off of a study that altered data, which the researcher admitted). The stupidity of the parents endangers the child. **To clarify:** I understand that people can be brought up with different beliefs and whatnot. What I'm actually arguing is that all parents should be forced to vaccinate their children, regardless of their beliefs. I realize this was a misleading title.

I think that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are idiotic and irresponsible. CMV. I have found no real data that supports their claims such as that vaccines cause autism (it was based off of a study that altered data, which the researcher admitted). The stupidity of the parents endangers the child. **To clarify:** I understand that people can be brought up with different beliefs and whatnot. What I'm actually arguing is that all parents should be forced to vaccinate their children, regardless of their beliefs. I realize this was a misleading title.

t3_1rovkl

People would be happier and more genuine if we were "drunk" all the time. CMV

This is from my experience as a 23 year old. We grow up with a lot of bull shit that is fed to us. * What our parents tell us * What the media tells us * What school tells us * What society tells us Things like * What we should eat * What we should be * Who we should be like * What we should have * What we should think Now a lot of these things are not blatant "you should be a lawyer and make it rain with ca$h" (although some people may have that). Over time, the conditioning runs it's course and we are on our merry way to how we should be. However. When we drink alcohol, that voice in the back of our minds finds the strength to creep out and speak up because the [big bad lizard brain](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/01/quieting-the-lizard-brain.html)/scumbag brain has been put to sleep with alcohol. The voice that says * "bro. if she says no then so what. you're life isn't over" * "hommie. the dude sold rocks to people. why don't you believe that you can start a business" * "brosef. stop acting so helpless. you control your fate. you can do what you want." Our dreams are endless. Our potential limitless. We feel god like and other people's perceptions don't affect us anymore, allowing us to be a "true" version of ourselves. Now I'm not saying all of the qualities that come with being drunk (anger, being stupid). Just specifically the part where our inhibitions to: * ask that girl out * start that business you've wanted to start * create the art you've always wanted to create are released. people are unhappy because they are not doing the things they want to do. they do what is expected of them. I find that alcohol has the ability to put my ego to sleep and not worry about what others think. Resulting in me being me. not a conditioned version of myself. i'm becoming less inhibited each day and I love it. (not because of drinking. but because I'm becoming aware) life is full of unnecessary bull shit. alcohol sweeps it away. yes. I am drinking right now. **EDIT: my statement is phrased incorrectly. I didn't mean literally drunk with alcohol. but the effects of being drunk (through awareness of the states between drunk vs sober). I don't drink often. this is just a realization.**

People would be happier and more genuine if we were "drunk" all the time. CMV. This is from my experience as a 23 year old. We grow up with a lot of bull shit that is fed to us. * What our parents tell us * What the media tells us * What school tells us * What society tells us Things like * What we should eat * What we should be * Who we should be like * What we should have * What we should think Now a lot of these things are not blatant "you should be a lawyer and make it rain with ca$h" (although some people may have that). Over time, the conditioning runs it's course and we are on our merry way to how we should be. However. When we drink alcohol, that voice in the back of our minds finds the strength to creep out and speak up because the [big bad lizard brain](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/01/quieting-the-lizard-brain.html)/scumbag brain has been put to sleep with alcohol. The voice that says * "bro. if she says no then so what. you're life isn't over" * "hommie. the dude sold rocks to people. why don't you believe that you can start a business" * "brosef. stop acting so helpless. you control your fate. you can do what you want." Our dreams are endless. Our potential limitless. We feel god like and other people's perceptions don't affect us anymore, allowing us to be a "true" version of ourselves. Now I'm not saying all of the qualities that come with being drunk (anger, being stupid). Just specifically the part where our inhibitions to: * ask that girl out * start that business you've wanted to start * create the art you've always wanted to create are released. people are unhappy because they are not doing the things they want to do. they do what is expected of them. I find that alcohol has the ability to put my ego to sleep and not worry about what others think. Resulting in me being me. not a conditioned version of myself. i'm becoming less inhibited each day and I love it. (not because of drinking. but because I'm becoming aware) life is full of unnecessary bull shit. alcohol sweeps it away. yes. I am drinking right now. **EDIT: my statement is phrased incorrectly. I didn't mean literally drunk with alcohol. but the effects of being drunk (through awareness of the states between drunk vs sober). I don't drink often. this is just a realization.**

t3_3m4dy0

CMV: I think diversity is actually a weakness.

When in history has multi racial, no, multi ethnic even societies ever worked together successfully? In the middle east today, you have ethnic groups fighting each other that were only held together in the first place through the utter force of a tyrant prior. Now there's a power vacuum and mass fighting. In america, we still see people say things are not equal despite multiple services that prefer people of "minority" status to extra privileges. Despite decades of this, there's been little improvement and people still think it's some how an issue they can solve. Areas largely segregate themselves by population alone, going decades back even. The creations of "Little Italy", "china town" etc. are evidence of migrants typically collecting together. As the media presents it, there's constant friction between races alone. Even some modern day speeches of saying "color blindness is racist" meaning, unless you give some one special treatment due to their ethnicity or race, you're scum of the earth. How does that make any sense what so ever? That's ignoring how it implies they're inherently inferior some how because they NEED the help to be equal. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think diversity is actually a weakness. When in history has multi racial, no, multi ethnic even societies ever worked together successfully? In the middle east today, you have ethnic groups fighting each other that were only held together in the first place through the utter force of a tyrant prior. Now there's a power vacuum and mass fighting. In america, we still see people say things are not equal despite multiple services that prefer people of "minority" status to extra privileges. Despite decades of this, there's been little improvement and people still think it's some how an issue they can solve. Areas largely segregate themselves by population alone, going decades back even. The creations of "Little Italy", "china town" etc. are evidence of migrants typically collecting together. As the media presents it, there's constant friction between races alone. Even some modern day speeches of saying "color blindness is racist" meaning, unless you give some one special treatment due to their ethnicity or race, you're scum of the earth. How does that make any sense what so ever? That's ignoring how it implies they're inherently inferior some how because they NEED the help to be equal.

t3_5coekl

CMV: The mobile, transient culture of today is incredibly bad for society and negatively affects mental health.

Basically, in a nutshell, it constantly changes or removes your social support system, erodes community faith because you don’t really know who your neighbors are, and encourages people to run away from issues instead of working through them. I used to think traveling was so cool and now it honest-to-god just seems like a way to avoid reality. People are ultimately the same no matter where you go. Everyone always says how much they want to learn to live “clean and simple,” “experience new things,” and shit. But everyone is always depressed for some reason or another. Well, there would be a lot less depression if people didn’t *leave* all the time. One of the main causes of depression is social isolation--I keep hearing that it is considered normal for people to go through friendships like they’re Kleenex. “Just accept it.” Well, that doesn’t seem normal. All of my parents’ friends are people that they grew up with and maintained relationships with, for decades. Grandparents’ friends are the same way. All of *my* friends are moving away, and it seems like people fade each other out instead of actually confronting anyone. I don’t like it. On an emotional level, I didn’t expect so many of the people that I grew up with to permanently leave, and I don’t like making friends with people if I expect them to not be there in the future. You know? If you can’t trust the person, then you’re fake friends, not really friends. I wouldn’t invest in someone if I knew they were peacing out in the future. Probably a lot of this is that I am the first generation in my entire extended family to go to college and people without college educations don’t tend to travel, so I had different expectations than my friends whose parents had college degrees and were highly mobile. But it is very distressing. Basically, people seem to be a lot more shallow than I anticipated in life and I really think that this is resulting in much, much higher rates of depression. “Shallow" isn’t exactly the right word, but people are more willing to uproot themselves and don’t form bonds as strongly. I have heard numerous foreign students complain about the transient nature of American friendships as well.

CMV: The mobile, transient culture of today is incredibly bad for society and negatively affects mental health. Basically, in a nutshell, it constantly changes or removes your social support system, erodes community faith because you don’t really know who your neighbors are, and encourages people to run away from issues instead of working through them. I used to think traveling was so cool and now it honest-to-god just seems like a way to avoid reality. People are ultimately the same no matter where you go. Everyone always says how much they want to learn to live “clean and simple,” “experience new things,” and shit. But everyone is always depressed for some reason or another. Well, there would be a lot less depression if people didn’t *leave* all the time. One of the main causes of depression is social isolation--I keep hearing that it is considered normal for people to go through friendships like they’re Kleenex. “Just accept it.” Well, that doesn’t seem normal. All of my parents’ friends are people that they grew up with and maintained relationships with, for decades. Grandparents’ friends are the same way. All of *my* friends are moving away, and it seems like people fade each other out instead of actually confronting anyone. I don’t like it. On an emotional level, I didn’t expect so many of the people that I grew up with to permanently leave, and I don’t like making friends with people if I expect them to not be there in the future. You know? If you can’t trust the person, then you’re fake friends, not really friends. I wouldn’t invest in someone if I knew they were peacing out in the future. Probably a lot of this is that I am the first generation in my entire extended family to go to college and people without college educations don’t tend to travel, so I had different expectations than my friends whose parents had college degrees and were highly mobile. But it is very distressing. Basically, people seem to be a lot more shallow than I anticipated in life and I really think that this is resulting in much, much higher rates of depression. “Shallow" isn’t exactly the right word, but people are more willing to uproot themselves and don’t form bonds as strongly. I have heard numerous foreign students complain about the transient nature of American friendships as well.

t3_1efria

I think everyone is bisexual CMV

I think think everyone is bisexual, but the problem is that they don't realize it. They are programmed by society that people are normally straight. If you're gay you find out right away. But being bi you can be attracted to your sex and immediately think you're straight. Straight people never think of exploring the same sex. I think of men and women as ice cream and cake. It's great to like both of them. Maybe you like cake better. Maybe sometimes you're in the mood for ice cream. Honestly, if you were locked in a room with someone of the same sex, wouldn't you want to experiment? Forget social norms. Forget what you know. Forget the difference. Forget what you're comfortable with. Just do it. Because love is love. EDIT: fixed a few mistakes

I think everyone is bisexual CMV. I think think everyone is bisexual, but the problem is that they don't realize it. They are programmed by society that people are normally straight. If you're gay you find out right away. But being bi you can be attracted to your sex and immediately think you're straight. Straight people never think of exploring the same sex. I think of men and women as ice cream and cake. It's great to like both of them. Maybe you like cake better. Maybe sometimes you're in the mood for ice cream. Honestly, if you were locked in a room with someone of the same sex, wouldn't you want to experiment? Forget social norms. Forget what you know. Forget the difference. Forget what you're comfortable with. Just do it. Because love is love. EDIT: fixed a few mistakes

t3_5knj5c

CMV:there are four sexuality's all the other tumblr sexualitys are just preferences

Ok so people on tumblr love making up sexualitys the most famous being pan sexual. I will explain why pan sexual isn't a thing in a moment but first I'd like to point out the sexual orientations I believe are real. Straight,Homosexual, bisexual and asexual. These cover everything your either into the opposit sex, same sex, both sexes or nothing this covers everything. Obviously people on tumblr are special little snowflakes so they need to make up there own sexualitys because now being gay is no longer taboo enough they need to find a new thing to make them special and oppressed. Anyway let's look at the definition of pansexual I found this definition on urban dictionary "One who can love sexuality in many forms. Like bisexuality, but even more fluid, a pansexual person can love not only the traditional male and female genders, but also transgendered, androgynous, and gender fluid people" this is just a fancy way of saying bisexual. They don't discriminate against genders therefore they're bisexual. As for the transgender thing I'll go into that. according to your average tumblr warrior if your transsexual your not separate a gender your the gender you identify as. In other words if you was born a guy and identity as a chick then your a woman you don't have to be put into a different gender category of trans woman your just a normal woman (I personally have this viewpoint) in other words if I a straight man have sex with a trans women that dousnt mean I'm gay or by or any different sexuality because she's a women. Therefore if your willing to sleep with any orientation of gender your just bisexual and very accepting. Let's have a quick look at some more Demisexuality: not feeling attraction towards someone until a certain closeness or bond has been formed This isn't a sexuality it's a dating preference GERONTOSEXUALITY: Attraction primarily to elderly people. This is a preference it would be like me saying me being attracted mainly to brunettes is a sexuality Any way here's a full list of sexualitys https://ageofshitlords.com/complete-list-of-all-tumblr-sexualities-so-far/ I challenge you too find one sexuality in there that isn't a jumped up version one of the four I identify as real.

CMV:there are four sexuality's all the other tumblr sexualitys are just preferences. Ok so people on tumblr love making up sexualitys the most famous being pan sexual. I will explain why pan sexual isn't a thing in a moment but first I'd like to point out the sexual orientations I believe are real. Straight,Homosexual, bisexual and asexual. These cover everything your either into the opposit sex, same sex, both sexes or nothing this covers everything. Obviously people on tumblr are special little snowflakes so they need to make up there own sexualitys because now being gay is no longer taboo enough they need to find a new thing to make them special and oppressed. Anyway let's look at the definition of pansexual I found this definition on urban dictionary "One who can love sexuality in many forms. Like bisexuality, but even more fluid, a pansexual person can love not only the traditional male and female genders, but also transgendered, androgynous, and gender fluid people" this is just a fancy way of saying bisexual. They don't discriminate against genders therefore they're bisexual. As for the transgender thing I'll go into that. according to your average tumblr warrior if your transsexual your not separate a gender your the gender you identify as. In other words if you was born a guy and identity as a chick then your a woman you don't have to be put into a different gender category of trans woman your just a normal woman (I personally have this viewpoint) in other words if I a straight man have sex with a trans women that dousnt mean I'm gay or by or any different sexuality because she's a women. Therefore if your willing to sleep with any orientation of gender your just bisexual and very accepting. Let's have a quick look at some more Demisexuality: not feeling attraction towards someone until a certain closeness or bond has been formed This isn't a sexuality it's a dating preference GERONTOSEXUALITY: Attraction primarily to elderly people. This is a preference it would be like me saying me being attracted mainly to brunettes is a sexuality Any way here's a full list of sexualitys https://ageofshitlords.com/complete-list-of-all-tumblr-sexualities-so-far/ I challenge you too find one sexuality in there that isn't a jumped up version one of the four I identify as real.

t3_4fi4k7

CMV: Not all cultures are equal. Most countries (except Northern Europe, Canada, Aus/NZ, and maybe Singapore)would be better off as colonies and slavery/colonialism were a net plus.

Part one, in my opinion, is obvious. There's a pretty clear hierarchy of countries that are more and less successful, and this generally reflects the level of Northern European influence (black Cayman Islanders are better off by most standards than black Canadians are better off than African Americans are better off than Barbadians are better off than Africans), and most religions, including Islam, would hold the welfare state to be part of their ideals. The second part it's harder, but bear with me. Colonialism, when driven by westernization, has an okay track record and many countries do not yet u have the values to effectively govern themselves. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Not all cultures are equal. Most countries (except Northern Europe, Canada, Aus/NZ, and maybe Singapore)would be better off as colonies and slavery/colonialism were a net plus. Part one, in my opinion, is obvious. There's a pretty clear hierarchy of countries that are more and less successful, and this generally reflects the level of Northern European influence (black Cayman Islanders are better off by most standards than black Canadians are better off than African Americans are better off than Barbadians are better off than Africans), and most religions, including Islam, would hold the welfare state to be part of their ideals. The second part it's harder, but bear with me. Colonialism, when driven by westernization, has an okay track record and many countries do not yet u have the values to effectively govern themselves.

t3_5ofcqa

CMV: I don't think its racist to not want immigrants in my country

I don't think I am racist for liking my country and its people, by and large, the way it is. I don't like walking down the town centre and seeing Muslims in robes and slippers who can barely speak my language and if they could would have little to no desire to associate with me due to being a non-believer. I don't like how Eastern Europeans move in to my area - living 10-12 men a house, not speaking my language and generally littering the streets - they flock to zero-hour contract jobs allowing the local unskilled workforce to be treated like dirt by the unscrupulous employers. I don't like how almost all minorities that come to this country that I meet stick to their self-imposed "ghettos" - for lack of a better term- and have little interaction with the wider society. Am I racist for noticing that almost all of the terrorism in Europe is caused by the Muslim refugees. Am I racist for believing that immigrants cultures are different from my own and while I respect them I don't want to live in them or near them. I have lived many places in my life but recently have moved next to some Polish neighbours. They keep chickens that makes noises, cook meals of what smells like heavily smoked fish 3-5 times a week and I have never talked to them because they can't speak English. I turn on the news and all I see in America is people talking about how racist others are, about BLM rioting and about all these race issues you have there and I don't want that for the UK. So is it racist to not want immigrants, with the desire to keep the UK as it is, as one of the reasons among other issues such as jobs?

CMV: I don't think its racist to not want immigrants in my country. I don't think I am racist for liking my country and its people, by and large, the way it is. I don't like walking down the town centre and seeing Muslims in robes and slippers who can barely speak my language and if they could would have little to no desire to associate with me due to being a non-believer. I don't like how Eastern Europeans move in to my area - living 10-12 men a house, not speaking my language and generally littering the streets - they flock to zero-hour contract jobs allowing the local unskilled workforce to be treated like dirt by the unscrupulous employers. I don't like how almost all minorities that come to this country that I meet stick to their self-imposed "ghettos" - for lack of a better term- and have little interaction with the wider society. Am I racist for noticing that almost all of the terrorism in Europe is caused by the Muslim refugees. Am I racist for believing that immigrants cultures are different from my own and while I respect them I don't want to live in them or near them. I have lived many places in my life but recently have moved next to some Polish neighbours. They keep chickens that makes noises, cook meals of what smells like heavily smoked fish 3-5 times a week and I have never talked to them because they can't speak English. I turn on the news and all I see in America is people talking about how racist others are, about BLM rioting and about all these race issues you have there and I don't want that for the UK. So is it racist to not want immigrants, with the desire to keep the UK as it is, as one of the reasons among other issues such as jobs?

t3_2ypplj

CMV: I believe calling all troops heroes is wrong, due to some not deserving it

I just watched the show Bojack Horseman with the episode "Bojack hates the troops". The summary of it is how BoJack acts like a jerk to a guy, who takes the feud to TV, calling BoJack out for hating troops. One thing leads to another and BoJack says just because we give someone who's already a jerk a gun doesn't automatically make them not a jerk. I understand that what the troops do is brave, but doesn't mean they can behave like asshole's and get away with it. I know its not a huge issue, but treating *every single* one like a hero is ridiculous

CMV: I believe calling all troops heroes is wrong, due to some not deserving it. I just watched the show Bojack Horseman with the episode "Bojack hates the troops". The summary of it is how BoJack acts like a jerk to a guy, who takes the feud to TV, calling BoJack out for hating troops. One thing leads to another and BoJack says just because we give someone who's already a jerk a gun doesn't automatically make them not a jerk. I understand that what the troops do is brave, but doesn't mean they can behave like asshole's and get away with it. I know its not a huge issue, but treating *every single* one like a hero is ridiculous

t3_674b9r

CMV: Non-partisan government is the best government

I've been looking at the various forms of government. Presidential systems, Parliamentary systems. George Washington stayed non-partisan and warned USA against forming parties. I firmly believe USA's government can be fixed by making it non-partisan. People blindly voting democrat or republican are ruining USA. I believe the parties should be destroyed, all voters should be informed of potential candidates, and pick accordingly. I was reading about government gridlock that occurs in presidential systems, but not in parliamentary systems. In parliament, the PM is elected by the legislature, so he is guaranteed to pass laws. Look at T. Roosevelt's 1904 presidency. It was pointless. The Congress refused to pass anything. Imagine if Clinton or Sanders won in 2016. Gridlock, nothing would be passed. People are waking up to the fact they voted for the wrong party, but we only have 2 choices in USA which is not enough (don't say 3rd parties can win, I haven't seen a Libertarian or Green party president in USA). There is definitely a reason USA has terrible voter turnout... a lot of people don't feel represented. The ones that do turnout are usually mindless sheep voting for the party they think they are apart of (like sports teams, Americans blindly cheering for a team)... and a small portion actually have some idea of what is going on. I feel George Washington's vision and guidance would completely fix USA. If we had non-partisan candidates, people had to be informed about who they were voting for, we'd have a much better government. Currently Congress rarely votes against their party for fear of losing re-election. Also, that party may run advertising to purposely destroy that person. Politics is just incredibly dirty, and I think non-partisan government would make it pure. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Non-partisan government is the best government. I've been looking at the various forms of government. Presidential systems, Parliamentary systems. George Washington stayed non-partisan and warned USA against forming parties. I firmly believe USA's government can be fixed by making it non-partisan. People blindly voting democrat or republican are ruining USA. I believe the parties should be destroyed, all voters should be informed of potential candidates, and pick accordingly. I was reading about government gridlock that occurs in presidential systems, but not in parliamentary systems. In parliament, the PM is elected by the legislature, so he is guaranteed to pass laws. Look at T. Roosevelt's 1904 presidency. It was pointless. The Congress refused to pass anything. Imagine if Clinton or Sanders won in 2016. Gridlock, nothing would be passed. People are waking up to the fact they voted for the wrong party, but we only have 2 choices in USA which is not enough (don't say 3rd parties can win, I haven't seen a Libertarian or Green party president in USA). There is definitely a reason USA has terrible voter turnout... a lot of people don't feel represented. The ones that do turnout are usually mindless sheep voting for the party they think they are apart of (like sports teams, Americans blindly cheering for a team)... and a small portion actually have some idea of what is going on. I feel George Washington's vision and guidance would completely fix USA. If we had non-partisan candidates, people had to be informed about who they were voting for, we'd have a much better government. Currently Congress rarely votes against their party for fear of losing re-election. Also, that party may run advertising to purposely destroy that person. Politics is just incredibly dirty, and I think non-partisan government would make it pure.

t3_1vil80

Modern society and laws exist without consent because of a lack of alternative scenarios in which one can live self-sufficiently without assimilating, this makes us all at least temporary and limited slaves at one point in our lives, thereby making modern society unjust CMV.

This post is western centric * People do not choose to be born (so they could not choose to be born in an area that they feel is just) * A child lacks all capabilities of re-establishing themselves (which means whatever resources they use from the system should not be held against them as a debt) * Upon reaching maturity, there exists no legitimate (or legal) scenarios in which someone is allowed to live with self-sufficiently without assimilating. (They must become part of the system to amass enough resources to reestablish themselves) * Since someone has not explicitly consented to be part of this system, and no way exists to opt out of the system, it exists without consent. * The use of force is seen as legitimate. * We are all at least temporarily and to a limited degree then slaves. * Therefor, the system is unjust.

Modern society and laws exist without consent because of a lack of alternative scenarios in which one can live self-sufficiently without assimilating, this makes us all at least temporary and limited slaves at one point in our lives, thereby making modern society unjust CMV. This post is western centric * People do not choose to be born (so they could not choose to be born in an area that they feel is just) * A child lacks all capabilities of re-establishing themselves (which means whatever resources they use from the system should not be held against them as a debt) * Upon reaching maturity, there exists no legitimate (or legal) scenarios in which someone is allowed to live with self-sufficiently without assimilating. (They must become part of the system to amass enough resources to reestablish themselves) * Since someone has not explicitly consented to be part of this system, and no way exists to opt out of the system, it exists without consent. * The use of force is seen as legitimate. * We are all at least temporarily and to a limited degree then slaves. * Therefor, the system is unjust.

t3_326vmy

CMV: It is incredibly rude to book public sleeping areas if you snore

I'm about at my wits end here, looking for some reason not to feel seething hatred for this man right now. I'm traveling this week, staying at a hostel right now and sleeping in a 20-bed dorm. There is a man here who snores ridiculously loud - sounds like an angry horse or feral hog. I have briefly spoken to him during the day, he is also a tourist to the area so it's not like he's borderline homeless and using the hostel as a last resort. It's been 3 days now that I can't get a lick of sleep at night due to the incessant snoring and I'm reaching a breaking point. A good half of us in here are having difficulty sleeping as well, not just me. Is it not extremely rude for him to put himself in this position? Please, give me a reason not to be so upset with him.

CMV: It is incredibly rude to book public sleeping areas if you snore. I'm about at my wits end here, looking for some reason not to feel seething hatred for this man right now. I'm traveling this week, staying at a hostel right now and sleeping in a 20-bed dorm. There is a man here who snores ridiculously loud - sounds like an angry horse or feral hog. I have briefly spoken to him during the day, he is also a tourist to the area so it's not like he's borderline homeless and using the hostel as a last resort. It's been 3 days now that I can't get a lick of sleep at night due to the incessant snoring and I'm reaching a breaking point. A good half of us in here are having difficulty sleeping as well, not just me. Is it not extremely rude for him to put himself in this position? Please, give me a reason not to be so upset with him.