Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_2265g9

CMV: I believe that very graphic images shouldn't be shown in public.

A few days ago at my university, a pro-life group came by. They set up *huge* posters right next to the student union that compared abortion to genocide. That's fair enough that they think that way and want to share their views with everyone, but what bothered me was the pictures. I don't think anyone should be allowed to show an obscenely graphic image in a public place (my university is public). The pictures that the group set up were of both starving children in third-world countries and aborted fetuses ripped into pieces. They were right there, impossible to miss, along a path that almost every student has to take to get to their classes. We have little kids who come by the university with their schools to take tours of our museums. We have mommies and babies, taking strolls through the campus because it's pretty. We have people who just don't want to see something like that while they're going about their business. The best argument I can come up with here is that if an image like that were shown in a movie, the movie would probably be rated R or at least PG-13. I don't think images that are that graphic should be allowed out in full view in a public place. You could argue that it's violating their freedom of speech to make them take it down, but what if they were shouting curse words or racist slurs? What if they were broadcasting porn? They were infringing upon everyone else's right to peacefully exist on the campus. Well, if you think you can, please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that very graphic images shouldn't be shown in public. A few days ago at my university, a pro-life group came by. They set up *huge* posters right next to the student union that compared abortion to genocide. That's fair enough that they think that way and want to share their views with everyone, but what bothered me was the pictures. I don't think anyone should be allowed to show an obscenely graphic image in a public place (my university is public). The pictures that the group set up were of both starving children in third-world countries and aborted fetuses ripped into pieces. They were right there, impossible to miss, along a path that almost every student has to take to get to their classes. We have little kids who come by the university with their schools to take tours of our museums. We have mommies and babies, taking strolls through the campus because it's pretty. We have people who just don't want to see something like that while they're going about their business. The best argument I can come up with here is that if an image like that were shown in a movie, the movie would probably be rated R or at least PG-13. I don't think images that are that graphic should be allowed out in full view in a public place. You could argue that it's violating their freedom of speech to make them take it down, but what if they were shouting curse words or racist slurs? What if they were broadcasting porn? They were infringing upon everyone else's right to peacefully exist on the campus. Well, if you think you can, please CMV.

t3_28pl21

CMV: Banksy is overrated

I went on a street art tour of London yesterday. I saw some amazing pieces like [this](http://pursefullofpennies.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/img_0742.jpg). The grand finale of the tour left me quite disappointed though: it was the [original version](http://wowcool.com/engine/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nipperbazooka.jpg) of Banksy's picture of the HMV dog aiming a bazooka at a gramophone. I get the message behind the picture. Banksy is subverting a corporate logo with an anti-corporate message, while at the same time commenting on the decline of the recorded music industry. He's also managed to make it mildly amusing (though I wouldn't say outright funny). My problem is that of all the art I saw that day, this alone was behind a sheet of protective perspex. It's only his art that gets chipped off walls and sold for millions at auction. People like Banksy because he's subversive, he's political, and he's funny. But if you ask me, most newspaper cartoonists do what he does, but better. His pieces are political, but the messages aren't deep. Corporations treat people like shit. War robs childern of innocence. Anyone with an ounce of sense has internalised those messages by the age of fifteen. Banksy popularised street art, but he didn't invent it. [Blek le Rat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blek_le_Rat) was doing the same sort of artwork years before Banksy. _____ > *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: Banksy is overrated. I went on a street art tour of London yesterday. I saw some amazing pieces like [this](http://pursefullofpennies.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/img_0742.jpg). The grand finale of the tour left me quite disappointed though: it was the [original version](http://wowcool.com/engine/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nipperbazooka.jpg) of Banksy's picture of the HMV dog aiming a bazooka at a gramophone. I get the message behind the picture. Banksy is subverting a corporate logo with an anti-corporate message, while at the same time commenting on the decline of the recorded music industry. He's also managed to make it mildly amusing (though I wouldn't say outright funny). My problem is that of all the art I saw that day, this alone was behind a sheet of protective perspex. It's only his art that gets chipped off walls and sold for millions at auction. People like Banksy because he's subversive, he's political, and he's funny. But if you ask me, most newspaper cartoonists do what he does, but better. His pieces are political, but the messages aren't deep. Corporations treat people like shit. War robs childern of innocence. Anyone with an ounce of sense has internalised those messages by the age of fifteen. Banksy popularised street art, but he didn't invent it. [Blek le Rat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blek_le_Rat) was doing the same sort of artwork years before Banksy.

t3_1h5k81

I believe the Bible should be taught in public schools as a mandatory class. CMV

In the interest of full disclosure, I am Christian, although not your traditional one. That being said, this has nothing to do with my stance. My reasoning is simple: Throughout the western world, the Bible and Christianity have been far and away the most significant influences in culture, literature, art, philosophy, law, etc. That being said, how can someone in the western world considered themselves educated without a basic familiarity and understanding of the Bible, its stories, and philosophy? It has nothing to do with teaching religion, but examining the bible as a piece of literature and philosophy. Such a class should be required of all students, as it is their responsibility as citizens that get in the voting booth to possess a rudimentary understanding of culture, philosophy, etc. Should other religious texts be taught, or atheism? Sure, but only as electives. For example the Koran, while increasingly relevant, has not had nearly as much influence as the Bible and is simply not as important to understanding the western world. Should I live in Saudi Arabia, the Koran should be mandatory and the Bible and elective. It's a simple matter deepening your understanding of the society you live in. Would this violate a separation of church and state? No, because it's not an endorsement of any religion. It's a simple acknowledgement of the text's importance in western society. The point is not to teach a religion as right or wrong, but to examine it the same you would examine any other religion from an anthropological, historical, and philosophical perspective. EDIT: Deltas awarded to Hmkay and pporkpiehat. Both made very good responses so give them a read.

I believe the Bible should be taught in public schools as a mandatory class. CMV. In the interest of full disclosure, I am Christian, although not your traditional one. That being said, this has nothing to do with my stance. My reasoning is simple: Throughout the western world, the Bible and Christianity have been far and away the most significant influences in culture, literature, art, philosophy, law, etc. That being said, how can someone in the western world considered themselves educated without a basic familiarity and understanding of the Bible, its stories, and philosophy? It has nothing to do with teaching religion, but examining the bible as a piece of literature and philosophy. Such a class should be required of all students, as it is their responsibility as citizens that get in the voting booth to possess a rudimentary understanding of culture, philosophy, etc. Should other religious texts be taught, or atheism? Sure, but only as electives. For example the Koran, while increasingly relevant, has not had nearly as much influence as the Bible and is simply not as important to understanding the western world. Should I live in Saudi Arabia, the Koran should be mandatory and the Bible and elective. It's a simple matter deepening your understanding of the society you live in. Would this violate a separation of church and state? No, because it's not an endorsement of any religion. It's a simple acknowledgement of the text's importance in western society. The point is not to teach a religion as right or wrong, but to examine it the same you would examine any other religion from an anthropological, historical, and philosophical perspective. EDIT: Deltas awarded to Hmkay and pporkpiehat. Both made very good responses so give them a read.

t3_1grdpr

I Believe That Osama Bin Laden Succeeded in Defeating the United States, and The U.S. Has Already Lost the "War on Terror" - CMV

Osama Bin Laden's expressed goals were to bankrupt our country, spread our military too thin across the globe, and attack in guerrilla style attacks to slowly chip away at the morale of our country. We live in constant fear of a mysterious Muslim boogeyman and the next big attack, and our government spies and attempts to dominate every aspect of our lives. We are going bankrupt, being unable to pay for necessary public needs like education, hospitals, child care, housing, not too mention our debt. Our interventionist policies, including drone strikes inside of sovereign countries, kill civilians and further hatreds towards the U.S. CMV

I Believe That Osama Bin Laden Succeeded in Defeating the United States, and The U.S. Has Already Lost the "War on Terror" - CMV. Osama Bin Laden's expressed goals were to bankrupt our country, spread our military too thin across the globe, and attack in guerrilla style attacks to slowly chip away at the morale of our country. We live in constant fear of a mysterious Muslim boogeyman and the next big attack, and our government spies and attempts to dominate every aspect of our lives. We are going bankrupt, being unable to pay for necessary public needs like education, hospitals, child care, housing, not too mention our debt. Our interventionist policies, including drone strikes inside of sovereign countries, kill civilians and further hatreds towards the U.S. CMV

t3_5vti89

CMV: The world would be better off if we didn't have pets.

I see a lot of people altruistically supporting animal shelters. Which isn't necessarily bad. The thing is, we only have all these animal shelters because we insist on having pets. If we had no pets, we wouldn't need animal shelters. All the money that goes to animal shelters could be donated or spent elsewhere. All the money that goes into the pet industry could be spent on something more productive and innovative. What spurred this is, I saw comment that said "my husband and I aren't home enough to have a pet so we donate to animal shelters." It turns into this weird circle where, we have some sort of need for pets, they get abandoned, and now we support the organizations that take care of the abandoned pets. It made me think that getting rid of pets would not have much of an effect on ecosystems since they aren't hunting themselves anyway. I do understand that there are maybe psychological benefits to pets. Note: I have a dog. _____ > *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 world would be better off if we didn't have pets. I see a lot of people altruistically supporting animal shelters. Which isn't necessarily bad. The thing is, we only have all these animal shelters because we insist on having pets. If we had no pets, we wouldn't need animal shelters. All the money that goes to animal shelters could be donated or spent elsewhere. All the money that goes into the pet industry could be spent on something more productive and innovative. What spurred this is, I saw comment that said "my husband and I aren't home enough to have a pet so we donate to animal shelters." It turns into this weird circle where, we have some sort of need for pets, they get abandoned, and now we support the organizations that take care of the abandoned pets. It made me think that getting rid of pets would not have much of an effect on ecosystems since they aren't hunting themselves anyway. I do understand that there are maybe psychological benefits to pets. Note: I have a dog.

t3_1hkx0a

I think Edward Snowden had a better chance of an open consideration of his leaks had he relied on the American public for pressure on his own government rather than other nations' governments' asylum. CMV

I make no statement regarding his hero/villain status here; I only mean to discuss the strategy of self preservation and insertion of information to our public discourse to a positive end. The current president, Obama, as well as notables in the mainstream press have been critical and undermining of Snowden's message. These ranks include the former president, Bush, as well his vice president, Cheney. Various senators like Lindsey Graham and Ben Cardin agree on rather extreme methods to bring him back to the United States, sometimes using words like treason. Meanwhile, Senators Rand Paul and Jon Tester have both offered praise, though admittedly restrained, for his actions and influential figures such as Rand Paul's father, Ron, as well as Michael Moore are also both supportive. The normally quite decided voices on all issues political seem to simultaneously decry and praise Snowden as well as his disclosures such as nearly every conservative talk radio host I've listened to(Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin as well as local hosts in Dallas/Fort Worth), sometimes pointing out this is damaging our American brand while also utilizing it as further evidence of the Obama administration's corruption and abuse of power, neglecting its connection to the previous administration in favor of linking it more to the IRS/Benghazi outrage as well as disillusionment with the hope/change/transparency of Obama supporters. I think Snowden would have had a better chance at having an open, fair trial as well as a fairer flash in the media pan news cycle had he initially fled but focused through the Guardian outlet on communicating with those of us in the American public, urging contact with elected representatives to demonstrate the political capital associated with supporting an open discussion of the issues he raised, calling on both the supporters of equity and liberty to drive the stake through the traditional partisan paradigm which is once again exposed as being superficial. Neither path is guaranteed and in fact he stated from the outset he didn't expect to see home again. The path he has been pursuing also may yet pan out; a country may grant him asylum so that he may operate from their embassies or country to have a safe place to speak and observe the fallout in our country, ideally waiting for a popular sentiment that allows his return without extradition and disappearance. That said, the political anarchy that has followed his disclosures is something he could have made use of for his protection in the interim as well as the mechanism by which his possible vindication could be generated. It demonstrates the deep division over these tactics and focusing on the public's discussion and perception of it, and through their activism to their elected representatives and senators, it might have shaped the media coverage to more one of the various opinions and actions of these senators rather than the breathless coverage over which country may grant or deny his asylum next.

I think Edward Snowden had a better chance of an open consideration of his leaks had he relied on the American public for pressure on his own government rather than other nations' governments' asylum. CMV. I make no statement regarding his hero/villain status here; I only mean to discuss the strategy of self preservation and insertion of information to our public discourse to a positive end. The current president, Obama, as well as notables in the mainstream press have been critical and undermining of Snowden's message. These ranks include the former president, Bush, as well his vice president, Cheney. Various senators like Lindsey Graham and Ben Cardin agree on rather extreme methods to bring him back to the United States, sometimes using words like treason. Meanwhile, Senators Rand Paul and Jon Tester have both offered praise, though admittedly restrained, for his actions and influential figures such as Rand Paul's father, Ron, as well as Michael Moore are also both supportive. The normally quite decided voices on all issues political seem to simultaneously decry and praise Snowden as well as his disclosures such as nearly every conservative talk radio host I've listened to(Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin as well as local hosts in Dallas/Fort Worth), sometimes pointing out this is damaging our American brand while also utilizing it as further evidence of the Obama administration's corruption and abuse of power, neglecting its connection to the previous administration in favor of linking it more to the IRS/Benghazi outrage as well as disillusionment with the hope/change/transparency of Obama supporters. I think Snowden would have had a better chance at having an open, fair trial as well as a fairer flash in the media pan news cycle had he initially fled but focused through the Guardian outlet on communicating with those of us in the American public, urging contact with elected representatives to demonstrate the political capital associated with supporting an open discussion of the issues he raised, calling on both the supporters of equity and liberty to drive the stake through the traditional partisan paradigm which is once again exposed as being superficial. Neither path is guaranteed and in fact he stated from the outset he didn't expect to see home again. The path he has been pursuing also may yet pan out; a country may grant him asylum so that he may operate from their embassies or country to have a safe place to speak and observe the fallout in our country, ideally waiting for a popular sentiment that allows his return without extradition and disappearance. That said, the political anarchy that has followed his disclosures is something he could have made use of for his protection in the interim as well as the mechanism by which his possible vindication could be generated. It demonstrates the deep division over these tactics and focusing on the public's discussion and perception of it, and through their activism to their elected representatives and senators, it might have shaped the media coverage to more one of the various opinions and actions of these senators rather than the breathless coverage over which country may grant or deny his asylum next.

t3_3y5s2c

CMV: Democratic-capitalist forms of government do not benefit the people's best interest

The current democratic systems found in the world today essentially cater to the lowest common denominator of society. While there may be a few strides made eventually, too often the masses are simply too ignorant to know what their own best interest is, or how that interest relates to the world at large. This is further compounded by the current capitalist systems which encourage consumption and instant gratification and looks down on rigorous thinking and self-education. For example, Germany instituted an ambitious social insurance program that included unemployment benefits and medical care for it's people in the 1880s while it was ruled by an Emperor. The United States mean while, did not adopt anything of the sort until the New Deal, a good 50 years later, and even then it was not as comprehensive as the German plan.

CMV: Democratic-capitalist forms of government do not benefit the people's best interest. The current democratic systems found in the world today essentially cater to the lowest common denominator of society. While there may be a few strides made eventually, too often the masses are simply too ignorant to know what their own best interest is, or how that interest relates to the world at large. This is further compounded by the current capitalist systems which encourage consumption and instant gratification and looks down on rigorous thinking and self-education. For example, Germany instituted an ambitious social insurance program that included unemployment benefits and medical care for it's people in the 1880s while it was ruled by an Emperor. The United States mean while, did not adopt anything of the sort until the New Deal, a good 50 years later, and even then it was not as comprehensive as the German plan.

t3_1mudct

I believe current road law should not apply to cyclists. CMV

A pedal-powered bicycle is not nearly as dangerous as a car, and the law should not treat them the same as other vehicles. Compared to a bike, cars are a hell of a lot faster, a hell of a lot heavier, much less manoeuvrable and they allow the driver a much more restricted view of the road. Consequently, cars are much more likely to hit a pedestrian, and will cause a lot more damage if they do so. Pretending a bicycle is equivalent to a car, is an inconvenient legal fiction. By treating cars and bicycles the same, the law simply encourages cyclists to ignore it. A person on a bike is more like a pedestrian than someone driving a car, and the law should take this into account. In my view, the law should be changed so as to allow cyclists to * treat a red light like a stop sign, and * cycle on the pavement (so long as they keep their speed under 6mph/jogging speed). I would keep a law that prevents dangerous cycling, so this would not be carte blanche for cyclists to do as they please, but by updating the law in a realistic manner, we could bring some clarity to the rules and cyclists would (hopefully) gain a new respect and understanding of what's allowed and expected of them. CMV

I believe current road law should not apply to cyclists. CMV. A pedal-powered bicycle is not nearly as dangerous as a car, and the law should not treat them the same as other vehicles. Compared to a bike, cars are a hell of a lot faster, a hell of a lot heavier, much less manoeuvrable and they allow the driver a much more restricted view of the road. Consequently, cars are much more likely to hit a pedestrian, and will cause a lot more damage if they do so. Pretending a bicycle is equivalent to a car, is an inconvenient legal fiction. By treating cars and bicycles the same, the law simply encourages cyclists to ignore it. A person on a bike is more like a pedestrian than someone driving a car, and the law should take this into account. In my view, the law should be changed so as to allow cyclists to * treat a red light like a stop sign, and * cycle on the pavement (so long as they keep their speed under 6mph/jogging speed). I would keep a law that prevents dangerous cycling, so this would not be carte blanche for cyclists to do as they please, but by updating the law in a realistic manner, we could bring some clarity to the rules and cyclists would (hopefully) gain a new respect and understanding of what's allowed and expected of them. CMV

t3_2tysl3

CMV: I believe that websites and programs intended to detect photomanipulation such as 'fotoforensics' are useless.

Challenge has ended. ~~I see time and time again on Reddit users using photoanalysis sites like http://fotoforensics.com/ as a means to bebunk or otherwise detect modifications in an image.~~ ~~I believe such sites are not simply completely useless, but to be also negative when analysing an image because some users will think they have detected a manipulation when no such manipulation exists.~~ ~~To change my mind on this matter you must detect 5 of 8 manipulations in this photo: http://i.imgur.com/hyJhv9x.jpg~~ ~~[Fotoforensics link](http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=9082d14fa251b487811232447e4134104634e054.761797)~~ ~~Please use any photo analysis site or program you choose. I will upload the original image after a day or so.~~ _____ > *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 websites and programs intended to detect photomanipulation such as 'fotoforensics' are useless. Challenge has ended. ~~I see time and time again on Reddit users using photoanalysis sites like http://fotoforensics.com/ as a means to bebunk or otherwise detect modifications in an image.~~ ~~I believe such sites are not simply completely useless, but to be also negative when analysing an image because some users will think they have detected a manipulation when no such manipulation exists.~~ ~~To change my mind on this matter you must detect 5 of 8 manipulations in this photo: http://i.imgur.com/hyJhv9x.jpg~~ ~~[Fotoforensics link](http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=9082d14fa251b487811232447e4134104634e054.761797)~~ ~~Please use any photo analysis site or program you choose. I will upload the original image after a day or so.~~

t3_2eg2dz

CMV: The government should be allowed to arrest or even execute a corporation that's guilty of harming people or the public trust.

Note: I'm basing all of this on a story I heard many years ago concerning how states and countries would arrest ships. Basically, some government representative would go to the ship and nail a notice of arrest to the mast. All the officers of the ship are removed from command though the crew can remain. The owners of the ship would have to hire new officers for the ship to be allowed use again. Because of the nature of corporations, there can be situations where the corporation caused injury or death to a person yet no one person actually made a decision that knowingly caused it. Even so, while no one person might be punished for criminal neglect or murder, I do believe the corporation as a whole should be made liable and can be arrested or even executed depending on the severity of the crime and judgement laid down. Arrest: any and all officers of the corporation during the time of incident that led to the arrest are no longer allowed access to that corporation nor hold any decision making authority even if they're in no way connected to the decision or incident that led to the arrest. They're essentially on either paid or unpaid vacation depending on how the board of directors decide. Any officer that happens to be a stock holder or board of director of that corporation is also refused any voting privileges. Bonds can be paid to allow officers access to the company prior to trial, but that must be approved by a judge. Death: Any and all officers active at the time of the incident are permanently banned from participating in that corporation. While they can hold stock in the company, they cede all voting or decision making. Any attempts to circumvent this will be punished harshly. My reasoning: This punishes those in power in a corporation and forces the board of directors to hire new managers and officers to run the day to day operations. Essentially, you've done to a company what is done to a person. It may seem unfair as people might get fired for actions they did not do, however its a corporation found guilty of a crime and being punished and you happen to work for that corporation. If I were arrested, any and all people I employed might get laid off due to my legal issues even though they had nothing to do with why I was arrested. Plus, officers and managers affected by the arrest can still find work at other corporations. In all this, day to day workers will not be affected directly. They continue to work as needed. They just end up getting new bosses they might need to help bring up to speed. I believe this is needed and is much more punishing to a corporation than any monetary fine could do. Change my view _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The government should be allowed to arrest or even execute a corporation that's guilty of harming people or the public trust. Note: I'm basing all of this on a story I heard many years ago concerning how states and countries would arrest ships. Basically, some government representative would go to the ship and nail a notice of arrest to the mast. All the officers of the ship are removed from command though the crew can remain. The owners of the ship would have to hire new officers for the ship to be allowed use again. Because of the nature of corporations, there can be situations where the corporation caused injury or death to a person yet no one person actually made a decision that knowingly caused it. Even so, while no one person might be punished for criminal neglect or murder, I do believe the corporation as a whole should be made liable and can be arrested or even executed depending on the severity of the crime and judgement laid down. Arrest: any and all officers of the corporation during the time of incident that led to the arrest are no longer allowed access to that corporation nor hold any decision making authority even if they're in no way connected to the decision or incident that led to the arrest. They're essentially on either paid or unpaid vacation depending on how the board of directors decide. Any officer that happens to be a stock holder or board of director of that corporation is also refused any voting privileges. Bonds can be paid to allow officers access to the company prior to trial, but that must be approved by a judge. Death: Any and all officers active at the time of the incident are permanently banned from participating in that corporation. While they can hold stock in the company, they cede all voting or decision making. Any attempts to circumvent this will be punished harshly. My reasoning: This punishes those in power in a corporation and forces the board of directors to hire new managers and officers to run the day to day operations. Essentially, you've done to a company what is done to a person. It may seem unfair as people might get fired for actions they did not do, however its a corporation found guilty of a crime and being punished and you happen to work for that corporation. If I were arrested, any and all people I employed might get laid off due to my legal issues even though they had nothing to do with why I was arrested. Plus, officers and managers affected by the arrest can still find work at other corporations. In all this, day to day workers will not be affected directly. They continue to work as needed. They just end up getting new bosses they might need to help bring up to speed. I believe this is needed and is much more punishing to a corporation than any monetary fine could do. Change my view

t3_1fsrof

I believe economists' predictions about the future should be regarded about as reliable and realistic as fortune tellers claiming to see the future. CMV

In other words, the economy is so complex, our understanding so poor, and economists' biases and political agendas so strong that their utterings about what will happen in the future are unreliable, if not outright deceitful and therefore, useless. Example for the majority of economists: failure to foresee 2008.

I believe economists' predictions about the future should be regarded about as reliable and realistic as fortune tellers claiming to see the future. CMV. In other words, the economy is so complex, our understanding so poor, and economists' biases and political agendas so strong that their utterings about what will happen in the future are unreliable, if not outright deceitful and therefore, useless. Example for the majority of economists: failure to foresee 2008.

t3_6kg3t2

CMV:Minneapolis is a crappy city.

I believe that Minneapolis is a frigid place, both meteorologically and spiritually. The passive aggressiveness and introverted nature of its residents stifles any effort to form meaningful friendships. Bugs abound in the summer, further driving people indoors. Minneapolis is a city of hermits. It is tucked in the far northern reaches of the United States, hundreds of miles away from the next largest metropolitan area, reinforcing the feeling of isolation that is a state of being in this place. _____ > *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:Minneapolis is a crappy city. I believe that Minneapolis is a frigid place, both meteorologically and spiritually. The passive aggressiveness and introverted nature of its residents stifles any effort to form meaningful friendships. Bugs abound in the summer, further driving people indoors. Minneapolis is a city of hermits. It is tucked in the far northern reaches of the United States, hundreds of miles away from the next largest metropolitan area, reinforcing the feeling of isolation that is a state of being in this place.

t3_1g6e5s

I am thoroughly convinced that there is no intrinsic purpose to existence. CMV

I am an atheist and a nihilist. Obviously, this has connotations: 1. I believe there is no objective, intrinsic, or otherwise purpose to existence. 2. I do not believe there is a higher power that would be able to instill such purpose. I started feeling this way after watching a lot of debates online, many of them involving the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I have only begun reading Nietzsche's "The Will to Power," but I find myself agreeing with some of his points. There seems to be no way to come to an objective purpose of existence, as there can be no observation, experiment, or measurement to reveal such a thing. TL;DR: I am a nihilist. Please CMV.

I am thoroughly convinced that there is no intrinsic purpose to existence. CMV. I am an atheist and a nihilist. Obviously, this has connotations: 1. I believe there is no objective, intrinsic, or otherwise purpose to existence. 2. I do not believe there is a higher power that would be able to instill such purpose. I started feeling this way after watching a lot of debates online, many of them involving the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I have only begun reading Nietzsche's "The Will to Power," but I find myself agreeing with some of his points. There seems to be no way to come to an objective purpose of existence, as there can be no observation, experiment, or measurement to reveal such a thing. TL;DR: I am a nihilist. Please CMV.

t3_1hdjk9

I don't care if a species goes extinct naturally. CMV

I understand why we should care about a species going extinct because of humanity's effect on their environment. We should do all we can to stop humans from killing animals via poaching, pollution, etc. [http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/whocares.html] (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/whocares.html) [http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/] (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/) I know some plants and animals may taste unique or provide us with an undiscovered medicinal use, but why should I care if a species goes extinct if its environment isn't affected by humans? Isn't it just evolution in progress?

I don't care if a species goes extinct naturally. CMV. I understand why we should care about a species going extinct because of humanity's effect on their environment. We should do all we can to stop humans from killing animals via poaching, pollution, etc. [http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/whocares.html] (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/whocares.html) [http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/] (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/) I know some plants and animals may taste unique or provide us with an undiscovered medicinal use, but why should I care if a species goes extinct if its environment isn't affected by humans? Isn't it just evolution in progress?

t3_339khe

CMV: Christians cannot logically be against abortion.

This doesn't apply to all Christians as only most fit this description. If a person believes that dead babies go to heaven, then they cannot logically be upset that "babies" are aborted. These souls are getting a free ticket to heaven, and the end game on this earth, from a Christian perspective, is to get into heaven. I've only encountered some Catholics who don't believe that babies go to heaven and this obviously doesn't apply to them or any who do not believe that God sends innocents to heaven. It has always baffled me that pro-life movement is made up of so many Christians, when their beliefs seem to be in direct conflict on this issue. I think that if I truly believed that dead babies went to heaven, and that fetuses were babies, then abortion would be the greatest thing on earth. CMV please. I'm hoping that I'm missing something and that people aren't simply this illogical and foolish.

CMV: Christians cannot logically be against abortion. This doesn't apply to all Christians as only most fit this description. If a person believes that dead babies go to heaven, then they cannot logically be upset that "babies" are aborted. These souls are getting a free ticket to heaven, and the end game on this earth, from a Christian perspective, is to get into heaven. I've only encountered some Catholics who don't believe that babies go to heaven and this obviously doesn't apply to them or any who do not believe that God sends innocents to heaven. It has always baffled me that pro-life movement is made up of so many Christians, when their beliefs seem to be in direct conflict on this issue. I think that if I truly believed that dead babies went to heaven, and that fetuses were babies, then abortion would be the greatest thing on earth. CMV please. I'm hoping that I'm missing something and that people aren't simply this illogical and foolish.

t3_1dwfg6

I think when someone suddenly ends a conversation is being disrespectful, CMV.

**[Mini-Rant]** I'll give examples: > *"I'm not talking about this anymore."* - > *"This discussion is over."* - > *"I don't know why you're still talking. I'm done talking to you."* - > *"You're talking to the wall for now on."* Or something along those lines. You don't just end the conversation whenever you want to. Why not be an mature individual and listen to what the other person has to say, regardless if you agree with them or not. When you cut the other person off and refuse to answer them, then the potential dispute that you guys are having is never extinguished and now where it *could've* been done and over with today now has to be dragged on for tomorrow or the next day or the next week. **[End Rant]**

I think when someone suddenly ends a conversation is being disrespectful, CMV. **[Mini-Rant]** I'll give examples: > *"I'm not talking about this anymore."* - > *"This discussion is over."* - > *"I don't know why you're still talking. I'm done talking to you."* - > *"You're talking to the wall for now on."* Or something along those lines. You don't just end the conversation whenever you want to. Why not be an mature individual and listen to what the other person has to say, regardless if you agree with them or not. When you cut the other person off and refuse to answer them, then the potential dispute that you guys are having is never extinguished and now where it *could've* been done and over with today now has to be dragged on for tomorrow or the next day or the next week. **[End Rant]**

t3_3xt1xv

CMV: The wrong Miss Universe beauty pageant winner was a publicity stunt.

There is just no way Steve Harvey accidentally reads the wrong name off a card he has in his hands. Here is the [card](https://i.imgur.com/vYhA6tO.jpg) that Steve Harvey supposedly misread. It clearly shows in bigger font who Miss Universe is. Also one of the judges instantaneously decides to [post on social media](https://twitter.com/NiecyNash/status/678783108628385792) a video that just sounds just not genuine and has no emotion to it at all. Chances are if you don't follow it, the average person didn't even know that a Miss Universe was happening, and right now everyone knows about it. All this did was bring bigger ratings and more fame to people. _____ > *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 wrong Miss Universe beauty pageant winner was a publicity stunt. There is just no way Steve Harvey accidentally reads the wrong name off a card he has in his hands. Here is the [card](https://i.imgur.com/vYhA6tO.jpg) that Steve Harvey supposedly misread. It clearly shows in bigger font who Miss Universe is. Also one of the judges instantaneously decides to [post on social media](https://twitter.com/NiecyNash/status/678783108628385792) a video that just sounds just not genuine and has no emotion to it at all. Chances are if you don't follow it, the average person didn't even know that a Miss Universe was happening, and right now everyone knows about it. All this did was bring bigger ratings and more fame to people.

t3_6pq5st

CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument

Whenever I try to take advantage of a loophole I am asked what would the world look like if everyone would take advantage of said circumstance. This is a terrible argument. The reason I would want to do anything is because of its apparent benefit to me. If other people also take advantage of an opportunity and I still get my benefit everything if fine. If after I start other people take advantage and later cause me a loss that shouldn't stop me from receiving benefits today. CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument _____ > *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: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument. Whenever I try to take advantage of a loophole I am asked what would the world look like if everyone would take advantage of said circumstance. This is a terrible argument. The reason I would want to do anything is because of its apparent benefit to me. If other people also take advantage of an opportunity and I still get my benefit everything if fine. If after I start other people take advantage and later cause me a loss that shouldn't stop me from receiving benefits today. CMV: "What if everyone did it..." is a terrible counter argument

t3_4xx9n4

CMV I feel that so long a woman is able to get an abortion without the consent of the father, a father should be able to absolve himself of any obligations to an unborn child.

To clarify, until the point that a woman is no longer able to abort a fetus, I feel a father should have the right to legally absolve himself of all future obligations to the child, without needing consent from the mother.. this does not include instances of rape, or forced pregnancy. An argument I've heard against this is that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, and a fetus can not be imposed upon her, and my current counter argument to that is that child-support can be financially devastating to a man, forcing him to work more hours, or find a second job, both of which are imposing 18yrs of added physical/mental/psychological strain on him. The argument "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" is a null point because the same could be said for women seeking an abortion due to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. If women can not be forced to bear a child if she doesn't want to, a father should be able to be forced to support one if he doesn't want to.

CMV I feel that so long a woman is able to get an abortion without the consent of the father, a father should be able to absolve himself of any obligations to an unborn child. To clarify, until the point that a woman is no longer able to abort a fetus, I feel a father should have the right to legally absolve himself of all future obligations to the child, without needing consent from the mother.. this does not include instances of rape, or forced pregnancy. An argument I've heard against this is that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, and a fetus can not be imposed upon her, and my current counter argument to that is that child-support can be financially devastating to a man, forcing him to work more hours, or find a second job, both of which are imposing 18yrs of added physical/mental/psychological strain on him. The argument "if you don't want kids, don't have sex" is a null point because the same could be said for women seeking an abortion due to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. If women can not be forced to bear a child if she doesn't want to, a father should be able to be forced to support one if he doesn't want to.

t3_22ztvq

CMV: I believe searching for the MH370 is a waste of time

**EDIT: TITLE SHOULD BE "is a waste of money" not time** I have two main reasons for this which I will outline below: 1) What happens when we find it? Nothing. We might have some intact corpses if we're lucky and some salvage scrap. Closure for families is the best reason I can think of, which is pretty shitty when it comes to a utalitarinism point of view. 2) We are putting millions of dollars globally into finding the said corpses of 200 people where instead, the money could be used to save at least 10 times that lives. Why pick finding dead people over saving living ones? apologies if I hit any personal connections, no-one deserved to die on that flight I just don't think finding it would change the fact that lives were lost. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe searching for the MH370 is a waste of time. **EDIT: TITLE SHOULD BE "is a waste of money" not time** I have two main reasons for this which I will outline below: 1) What happens when we find it? Nothing. We might have some intact corpses if we're lucky and some salvage scrap. Closure for families is the best reason I can think of, which is pretty shitty when it comes to a utalitarinism point of view. 2) We are putting millions of dollars globally into finding the said corpses of 200 people where instead, the money could be used to save at least 10 times that lives. Why pick finding dead people over saving living ones? apologies if I hit any personal connections, no-one deserved to die on that flight I just don't think finding it would change the fact that lives were lost.

t3_258sw7

CMV: I don't think that pride is ever really called for.

I've always felt like being proud of yourself was just inflating your ego and generally being complacent, but when I think about gay pride I don't really know what to think. I'm not proud of myself for being straight. I'm not proud of myself when I do something nice for someone, I do it because it's what I would want done for me, not because it makes me feel like I'm a better person, but in the context of gay pride and similar things I'm incapable of making an opinion. The only way that I can relate even slightly is with depression, and that's stretching the possible association. Like, I'm not proud of myself for not having killed myself, that's overcoming a sort of struggle, but it's not really comparable to being a minority sexually, racially, or in other ways. I'm not sure if this really counts as a CMV post, but help me to develop an existing view? *edit Thanks for the responses, guys. You've helped me a lot to understand 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 don't think that pride is ever really called for. I've always felt like being proud of yourself was just inflating your ego and generally being complacent, but when I think about gay pride I don't really know what to think. I'm not proud of myself for being straight. I'm not proud of myself when I do something nice for someone, I do it because it's what I would want done for me, not because it makes me feel like I'm a better person, but in the context of gay pride and similar things I'm incapable of making an opinion. The only way that I can relate even slightly is with depression, and that's stretching the possible association. Like, I'm not proud of myself for not having killed myself, that's overcoming a sort of struggle, but it's not really comparable to being a minority sexually, racially, or in other ways. I'm not sure if this really counts as a CMV post, but help me to develop an existing view? *edit Thanks for the responses, guys. You've helped me a lot to understand this.

t3_1b5gr3

I want to eat meat, but if a hamburger were in front of me, I wouldn't be able to eat it (I want to), as I believe it's morally wrong. CMV

I want to eat meat. It tastes good, and I truly haven't been getting much protein as a vegetarian. But I'm morally against it. I think that if I'm able to (ie I can make the choice, unlike carnivorous animals), I shouldn't eat animals. ~~Preemptive number 2) I don't think humans are naturally carnivores. Humans teeth and saliva are more herbivore than carnivore. [source](http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores-2/)~~ EDIT: deleted the sub point

I want to eat meat, but if a hamburger were in front of me, I wouldn't be able to eat it (I want to), as I believe it's morally wrong. CMV. I want to eat meat. It tastes good, and I truly haven't been getting much protein as a vegetarian. But I'm morally against it. I think that if I'm able to (ie I can make the choice, unlike carnivorous animals), I shouldn't eat animals. ~~Preemptive number 2) I don't think humans are naturally carnivores. Humans teeth and saliva are more herbivore than carnivore. [source](http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores-2/)~~ EDIT: deleted the sub point

t3_59tywy

CMV: The word nigga no longer means black slave, ergo it's racist to stop any other race from saying nigga.

We all know that it's derived from a racial slur in which black people originally didn't like. I completely understand that it does refer to black people currently, but it's used as a way for a black person to talk about peers, other people of the same race, but a lot of black people have called white people niggas. So what does it mean when a black person calls a white person, or another race a nigga? It obviously can't mean black person, or even black slave, so why aren't any other races allowed to say it? Also, when I talk about racism, I'm talking about the definition in the Oxford dictionary, and not the general "omg u compared this black person to that black person thas raycist" > Noun: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I believe not that all races are equal, or even that all humans are equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I also believe that I'm being prejudiced by believing all humans are equal - because I'm only doing such a thing because it's said so frequently. So yeah, before I deviate a bit like I usually do, let's see if anybody can change my mind.

CMV: The word nigga no longer means black slave, ergo it's racist to stop any other race from saying nigga. We all know that it's derived from a racial slur in which black people originally didn't like. I completely understand that it does refer to black people currently, but it's used as a way for a black person to talk about peers, other people of the same race, but a lot of black people have called white people niggas. So what does it mean when a black person calls a white person, or another race a nigga? It obviously can't mean black person, or even black slave, so why aren't any other races allowed to say it? Also, when I talk about racism, I'm talking about the definition in the Oxford dictionary, and not the general "omg u compared this black person to that black person thas raycist" > Noun: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. I believe not that all races are equal, or even that all humans are equal. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I also believe that I'm being prejudiced by believing all humans are equal - because I'm only doing such a thing because it's said so frequently. So yeah, before I deviate a bit like I usually do, let's see if anybody can change my mind.

t3_2158bf

The e-atheist conception of atheism as "lack of belief" is meaningless and confused. CMV

You've probably seen a chart like [this one](http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/chart.png) during your travels across the world wide web. E-atheists have crafted a model that distinguishes between four types of knowledge claims regarding the divine. To summarize: *Gnostic atheism* -- God does not exist and I can know with certainty *Gnostic theism* -- God does exist and I can know with certainty *Agnostic atheism* -- God does not exist but I can't know with certainty *Agnostic theism* -- God does exist but I can't know with certainty Let's table any questions of etymology- it's true the meaning of words change over time- and just take a look at the stand-alone merits of this model. To my knowledge, no professional philosopher believes this approach is worth a damn, which is troubling. I suspect this is the case for a few simple reasons: 1. "Certainty" has long been abandoned as a reasonable (even possible) standard of knowledge in epistemology. Whether one wants to invoke Descartes or Peirce, there have been knock-down challenges to the possibility of certain knowledge, meaning that *everyone* is an agnostic atheist or theist. 2. There are no gradations. An atheist who is 99% certain of his belief and an atheist who is 1% certain of his belief would both fall into the "agnostic atheist" in this model. That's not too helpful. 3. What does it mean to "lack belief"? The common account reads as follows: to know something, we need empirical evidence of that thing (which is *awful* philosophy and rejected by most every professional in the field); we have no evidence of God; therefore, one lacks belief in God. By this account, I also "lack belief" in unicorns -- except that I *don't* lack belief in unicorns. On the contrary, I have good justification that unicorns *do not* exist. I can understand why e-atheists would wish to present themselves as more modest: it's easier to lack a belief (whatever that means) than possess justification against a claim. But "lacking belief" is what *most* people understand to be agnosticism: you either honestly do not know where you fall on the spectrum, you're still searching, or you're ignorant of philosophy and cannot make an informed claim. E-atheists are not ignorant to the God hypothesis, however: they understand what sorts of claims it makes and offer reasons to reject the hypothesis. There is no "lack of belief" to be found; instead, we find positive claims about where theism goes wrong. But then this model has really caught on, so maybe I'm misunderstanding and there's something to this. Change My View

The e-atheist conception of atheism as "lack of belief" is meaningless and confused. CMV. You've probably seen a chart like [this one](http://reason-being.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/chart.png) during your travels across the world wide web. E-atheists have crafted a model that distinguishes between four types of knowledge claims regarding the divine. To summarize: *Gnostic atheism* -- God does not exist and I can know with certainty *Gnostic theism* -- God does exist and I can know with certainty *Agnostic atheism* -- God does not exist but I can't know with certainty *Agnostic theism* -- God does exist but I can't know with certainty Let's table any questions of etymology- it's true the meaning of words change over time- and just take a look at the stand-alone merits of this model. To my knowledge, no professional philosopher believes this approach is worth a damn, which is troubling. I suspect this is the case for a few simple reasons: 1. "Certainty" has long been abandoned as a reasonable (even possible) standard of knowledge in epistemology. Whether one wants to invoke Descartes or Peirce, there have been knock-down challenges to the possibility of certain knowledge, meaning that *everyone* is an agnostic atheist or theist. 2. There are no gradations. An atheist who is 99% certain of his belief and an atheist who is 1% certain of his belief would both fall into the "agnostic atheist" in this model. That's not too helpful. 3. What does it mean to "lack belief"? The common account reads as follows: to know something, we need empirical evidence of that thing (which is *awful* philosophy and rejected by most every professional in the field); we have no evidence of God; therefore, one lacks belief in God. By this account, I also "lack belief" in unicorns -- except that I *don't* lack belief in unicorns. On the contrary, I have good justification that unicorns *do not* exist. I can understand why e-atheists would wish to present themselves as more modest: it's easier to lack a belief (whatever that means) than possess justification against a claim. But "lacking belief" is what *most* people understand to be agnosticism: you either honestly do not know where you fall on the spectrum, you're still searching, or you're ignorant of philosophy and cannot make an informed claim. E-atheists are not ignorant to the God hypothesis, however: they understand what sorts of claims it makes and offer reasons to reject the hypothesis. There is no "lack of belief" to be found; instead, we find positive claims about where theism goes wrong. But then this model has really caught on, so maybe I'm misunderstanding and there's something to this. Change My View

t3_3ix18i

CMV: Property rental, especially for living spaces (apartments, houses), should also transfer 0.4% ownership of the property each month as well. After 20 years of rent, renter would own almost 100% of the property.

Had a thought about the disparity between mortgages and rent. Two cases: Person A buys a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. Person B rents a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. While both persons paid the same amount, after 20 years person A could sell his property and have $240,000 returned. I understand the importance of rent. Not every person has the financial backing to obtain a long term mortgage. However, there's something that seems wrong with the above. People of means can buy property and essentially have others (renters) pay the mortgage for them. While not a perfect solution, there's something that seems interesting that paying rent includes the requirement that .4% of the property ownership also transfers per month. Of course, the rent would be based in large part on the perceived value of the property and then also include costs that cover services. If a person had a 2 year lease, they'd own almost 10% of the property. During lease renewal, maybe the owner will want to buy that 10% back or the person moves and sells it to a higher bidder. It might not stop slum lords from forcing tenants to sell back their .4% ever month or other under the table dealings, though laws can be set up to protect against such practices. Of course, property owners are not required to rent their property. However, there's something I like about the idea that if you let others use your property, you agree to give up a portion of that property as well as part of that exchange. Basically, rent morphs into a mortgage.

CMV: Property rental, especially for living spaces (apartments, houses), should also transfer 0.4% ownership of the property each month as well. After 20 years of rent, renter would own almost 100% of the property. Had a thought about the disparity between mortgages and rent. Two cases: Person A buys a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. Person B rents a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. While both persons paid the same amount, after 20 years person A could sell his property and have $240,000 returned. I understand the importance of rent. Not every person has the financial backing to obtain a long term mortgage. However, there's something that seems wrong with the above. People of means can buy property and essentially have others (renters) pay the mortgage for them. While not a perfect solution, there's something that seems interesting that paying rent includes the requirement that .4% of the property ownership also transfers per month. Of course, the rent would be based in large part on the perceived value of the property and then also include costs that cover services. If a person had a 2 year lease, they'd own almost 10% of the property. During lease renewal, maybe the owner will want to buy that 10% back or the person moves and sells it to a higher bidder. It might not stop slum lords from forcing tenants to sell back their .4% ever month or other under the table dealings, though laws can be set up to protect against such practices. Of course, property owners are not required to rent their property. However, there's something I like about the idea that if you let others use your property, you agree to give up a portion of that property as well as part of that exchange. Basically, rent morphs into a mortgage.

t3_2awymu

CMV: Nicky Morgan, the new education secretary, is just as awful as Gove.

In my opinion, the Tories are all a bunch of selfish money hoarding bastards who don't give a shit about anyone except themselves. Gove was an absolute blight on education and now we have this woman whose previous title is minister of women and equality but who also voted against gay marriage. She's highly in favour of a number of things that will only serve to benefit the rich and wealthy of the country (like academies and raising tuition fees even further) and I doubt that anything will change from Gove's reign of terror - We may even see it get worse.

CMV: Nicky Morgan, the new education secretary, is just as awful as Gove. In my opinion, the Tories are all a bunch of selfish money hoarding bastards who don't give a shit about anyone except themselves. Gove was an absolute blight on education and now we have this woman whose previous title is minister of women and equality but who also voted against gay marriage. She's highly in favour of a number of things that will only serve to benefit the rich and wealthy of the country (like academies and raising tuition fees even further) and I doubt that anything will change from Gove's reign of terror - We may even see it get worse.

t3_6zmne9

CMV: I'm not sure objectification is a major thing, and if it is, it's not that bad.

1) I doubt that objectification is all that common. I'd think it would be difficult for an average person without a serious mental illness to see a person exactly like they would see an object. I don't know if it's even possible. 2) If you think someone in objectifying another person, do you think they would prefer to have consensual sex with the person, or a robot that is lifelike, but obviously has no consciousness? I'd think most people would choose the person. Similarly, if someone likes breasts I'd expect they'd prefer to touch them on a person, rather than ones separated from a body. 3) Saying "only paying attention to someone's looks is immoral objectification" seems similar to saying that using a cashier only for their services is like slavery. In both cases you know they are a person, but it's no insult to their personhood to not emotionally care about them (beyond basic respect). 4) Bodies are objects, but that doesn't mean the person is. You should avoid being being a rude harassing dick though. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I'm not sure objectification is a major thing, and if it is, it's not that bad. 1) I doubt that objectification is all that common. I'd think it would be difficult for an average person without a serious mental illness to see a person exactly like they would see an object. I don't know if it's even possible. 2) If you think someone in objectifying another person, do you think they would prefer to have consensual sex with the person, or a robot that is lifelike, but obviously has no consciousness? I'd think most people would choose the person. Similarly, if someone likes breasts I'd expect they'd prefer to touch them on a person, rather than ones separated from a body. 3) Saying "only paying attention to someone's looks is immoral objectification" seems similar to saying that using a cashier only for their services is like slavery. In both cases you know they are a person, but it's no insult to their personhood to not emotionally care about them (beyond basic respect). 4) Bodies are objects, but that doesn't mean the person is. You should avoid being being a rude harassing dick though.

t3_1gfezb

I believe that there's nothing racist or sexist about a series with an all-white cast and male lead. CMV

It's my belief that it's an artist's choice to make their characters whatever race or gender they want. If someone believes that their race or gender is under-represented in the media, it's *their* obligation to support or create shows that better represent them. Asking or forcing artists to change their characters for the sake of "correctness" is insulting and counter-productive.

I believe that there's nothing racist or sexist about a series with an all-white cast and male lead. CMV. It's my belief that it's an artist's choice to make their characters whatever race or gender they want. If someone believes that their race or gender is under-represented in the media, it's *their* obligation to support or create shows that better represent them. Asking or forcing artists to change their characters for the sake of "correctness" is insulting and counter-productive.

t3_2p078d

CMV: I believe that the ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood is justified, and is not a form of discrimination.

Here are some statistics. MSM stands for men who have sex with men. "Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections." "More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection." "Today, the false negative rate in the general U.S. population is around 0.003%, or three times out of every 100,000 tests." It just seems like the risk of letting MSM donate blood is not worth whatever sort of "civil right" gay men believe it to be. I am a gay man myself, and I don't feel oppressed just because I can't donate blood. I know that I am part of a demographic that is highly at risk for HIV infection, and it's not like being a MSM is the only condition where you can't donate blood. It doesn't really even have to do with gay men specifically. If you identify as straight, but have had sex with a man once in the past, you can't donate blood. If you are a gay man, but have never had sex with a man, you *can* donate blood. All it has to do with is risk and safety, not civil rights and discrimination. _____ > *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 the ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood is justified, and is not a form of discrimination. Here are some statistics. MSM stands for men who have sex with men. "Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections." "More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection." "Today, the false negative rate in the general U.S. population is around 0.003%, or three times out of every 100,000 tests." It just seems like the risk of letting MSM donate blood is not worth whatever sort of "civil right" gay men believe it to be. I am a gay man myself, and I don't feel oppressed just because I can't donate blood. I know that I am part of a demographic that is highly at risk for HIV infection, and it's not like being a MSM is the only condition where you can't donate blood. It doesn't really even have to do with gay men specifically. If you identify as straight, but have had sex with a man once in the past, you can't donate blood. If you are a gay man, but have never had sex with a man, you *can* donate blood. All it has to do with is risk and safety, not civil rights and discrimination.

t3_1rei4h

i believe that a lot of hiphop takes very little talent or work to produce compared to genres like heavy metal. CMV

i'm a huge metalhead so that's what i'll be using as a counter example. now i honestly don't see how a lot of hiphop artists deserve the praise they get for being "artistic" sure i understand that "freestyle" would take some talent and a decent rhyming vocabulary and that rhyming takes some ability, but so does writing any lyrics. and in a studio atmosphere i can't see how it would take any kind of talent to recite rhyming words to a pre-made beat. while a metal band has to play the instruments, time them together and write separate beats/riffs/etc. for every instrument involved. all the while fitting them to lyrics and singing them in a variety of fashions. all in all i really don't see how something like this [this] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ni2QxT47w) can even be considered to be on equal musical ground as something like [this] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kObI4XuTR2o)

i believe that a lot of hiphop takes very little talent or work to produce compared to genres like heavy metal. CMV. i'm a huge metalhead so that's what i'll be using as a counter example. now i honestly don't see how a lot of hiphop artists deserve the praise they get for being "artistic" sure i understand that "freestyle" would take some talent and a decent rhyming vocabulary and that rhyming takes some ability, but so does writing any lyrics. and in a studio atmosphere i can't see how it would take any kind of talent to recite rhyming words to a pre-made beat. while a metal band has to play the instruments, time them together and write separate beats/riffs/etc. for every instrument involved. all the while fitting them to lyrics and singing them in a variety of fashions. all in all i really don't see how something like this [this] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ni2QxT47w) can even be considered to be on equal musical ground as something like [this] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kObI4XuTR2o)

t3_22g23y

CMV: Even in a liberal society, there's no need to be tolerant of every viewpoint

When it comes to the Brendan Eich controversy, there has been a lot of talk about "tolerance." People who advocated for Eich's removal are hypocrites, the argument goes, because they are themselves intolerant of Eich's difference of opinion. But in my view, this is a poorly thought out argument, and a distraction from the real issue of equal rights for gay people. Yes, it sounds nice at first to have a society where we are tolerant of everyone's views, but in reality almost no one follows this. Think back to how people lived thousands of years ago, before the development of modern systems of morality. At some point in history it was considered perfectly normal and acceptable to murder other humans for material gain, to rape women, etc. During the Middle Ages, governments engaged in gruesome acts of torture as punishments for ordinary crimes. More recently, people in the U.S. kept other humans as slaves. Today, anyone advocating these beliefs would either be shunned or laughed out of room. And this is almost certainly a good thing. We shouldn't have to waste our time debating whether murder, rape or slavery is acceptable; these things should simply be dogmatically taken for granted. By ostracizing these beliefs, we can move on to debating other, more important issues. In a similar way, I would prefer to live in a society where racism, sexism and homophobia are no longer up for debate. Just like there is nothing important lost in terms of "freedom of thought" by making advocacy of murder, slavery and rape unacceptable, I fail to see the downside if these bigoted beliefs are deemed "off limits" by society. Of course, whether being opposed to equal rights for gays is reasonable and acceptable for the CEO of an organization like Mozilla in the year 2014 can be debated, and that's where the debate should be focused. But the idea that we need to be tolerant of all viewpoints is poorly thought out, and has the effect of obscuring the real issue IMO. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Even in a liberal society, there's no need to be tolerant of every viewpoint. When it comes to the Brendan Eich controversy, there has been a lot of talk about "tolerance." People who advocated for Eich's removal are hypocrites, the argument goes, because they are themselves intolerant of Eich's difference of opinion. But in my view, this is a poorly thought out argument, and a distraction from the real issue of equal rights for gay people. Yes, it sounds nice at first to have a society where we are tolerant of everyone's views, but in reality almost no one follows this. Think back to how people lived thousands of years ago, before the development of modern systems of morality. At some point in history it was considered perfectly normal and acceptable to murder other humans for material gain, to rape women, etc. During the Middle Ages, governments engaged in gruesome acts of torture as punishments for ordinary crimes. More recently, people in the U.S. kept other humans as slaves. Today, anyone advocating these beliefs would either be shunned or laughed out of room. And this is almost certainly a good thing. We shouldn't have to waste our time debating whether murder, rape or slavery is acceptable; these things should simply be dogmatically taken for granted. By ostracizing these beliefs, we can move on to debating other, more important issues. In a similar way, I would prefer to live in a society where racism, sexism and homophobia are no longer up for debate. Just like there is nothing important lost in terms of "freedom of thought" by making advocacy of murder, slavery and rape unacceptable, I fail to see the downside if these bigoted beliefs are deemed "off limits" by society. Of course, whether being opposed to equal rights for gays is reasonable and acceptable for the CEO of an organization like Mozilla in the year 2014 can be debated, and that's where the debate should be focused. But the idea that we need to be tolerant of all viewpoints is poorly thought out, and has the effect of obscuring the real issue IMO.

t3_3hi4jt

CMV: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump gain popularity from the same underlying reasons

This is how it appears to me as a non-American. In effect, people are moving to support these two candidates mostly in response to the same set of events: - Disillusionment with the political establishment. Voters are fed up with the highly polished and spin doctored politicians, with overtly similar views, that make up the rest of the leadership candidates. Moreover they feel the insularity of groups within political circles leads to a strong divergence from doing what is best for the people to doing what is best for the elite. In response they support people with seemingly strongly felt policy proposals, messages, and who have only - if at all, existed at the forefront of mainstream politics. - A response to the emergence of political dynasties. Hillary and Jeb both feel like rehashes of past presidents, and voters fear an arrogance and weakening of democracy if familial dominance is extended. - Anger at cronyism and corruption. Support for people percieved to fall less into donor's pockets. Sanders stands against this kind of "selling out" and Trump would seem to be rich enough to fund himself. (Reality isn't important here, only what people think). - Upset at being left behind financially. Sanders talks about raising the minimum wage, organising co-ops and unions and making trade deals beneficial to the American people. Trump talks about forcing companies to situate factories in the USA, especially in cities on steep decline like Detroit. Voter feel these two - Upset at the pace of change. (This goes in alternate directions so may be less suitable). The USA is deeply split in its range of ideologies, Obama felt it prudent to oppose Gay marriage officially when he first ran for President due to this in order to gain enough votes. With Trump, to quite Iain Dey in the London Times "Large numbers of Americans are struggling to get their opinions up to speed with the liberal agenda and they are fed up with being ignored...[which] is why a candidate currently percieved to be a joke is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination" . Conversely others feel that Sanders would push their nation towards a more tolerant and open nation, and more supportive of minorities and the less well off. So please, change this l'il Limey's view that these two candidates gain support for offering their (differing) responses to many of the same problems. _____ > *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 and Donald Trump gain popularity from the same underlying reasons. This is how it appears to me as a non-American. In effect, people are moving to support these two candidates mostly in response to the same set of events: - Disillusionment with the political establishment. Voters are fed up with the highly polished and spin doctored politicians, with overtly similar views, that make up the rest of the leadership candidates. Moreover they feel the insularity of groups within political circles leads to a strong divergence from doing what is best for the people to doing what is best for the elite. In response they support people with seemingly strongly felt policy proposals, messages, and who have only - if at all, existed at the forefront of mainstream politics. - A response to the emergence of political dynasties. Hillary and Jeb both feel like rehashes of past presidents, and voters fear an arrogance and weakening of democracy if familial dominance is extended. - Anger at cronyism and corruption. Support for people percieved to fall less into donor's pockets. Sanders stands against this kind of "selling out" and Trump would seem to be rich enough to fund himself. (Reality isn't important here, only what people think). - Upset at being left behind financially. Sanders talks about raising the minimum wage, organising co-ops and unions and making trade deals beneficial to the American people. Trump talks about forcing companies to situate factories in the USA, especially in cities on steep decline like Detroit. Voter feel these two - Upset at the pace of change. (This goes in alternate directions so may be less suitable). The USA is deeply split in its range of ideologies, Obama felt it prudent to oppose Gay marriage officially when he first ran for President due to this in order to gain enough votes. With Trump, to quite Iain Dey in the London Times "Large numbers of Americans are struggling to get their opinions up to speed with the liberal agenda and they are fed up with being ignored...[which] is why a candidate currently percieved to be a joke is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination" . Conversely others feel that Sanders would push their nation towards a more tolerant and open nation, and more supportive of minorities and the less well off. So please, change this l'il Limey's view that these two candidates gain support for offering their (differing) responses to many of the same problems.

t3_21ex5q

CMV:The practice of eugenics is justifiable in the name of the advancement, the welfare and the betterment of our species.

_____ We have lost a whopping 14 IQ points since the Victorian era due to the fact that smarter women tend to have far fewer children than dumb ones.This is a trend which will have disastrous consequences for the advancement of our species and something needs to be done to stop and reverse it. People take scientific and technological progress for granted, as though it is bound to happen no matter what the circumstances. I tend to disagree. Progress and technological advancement is a result of the work of brilliant minds. Of course we will continue to have technological advancements because we will always have some smart people, but the quality and the speed of our advancements are bound to decrease if there are fewer and fewer smart people within the population. To stop and reverse this trend the government needs to get more involved in the reproductive habits of the population. I tend to disagree with the idea that people's reproductive practices are entirely their own business: if it has important consequences for the rest of the society and generations to come it is not entirely their own business. Saying that people's reproductive habits is their own business is much like saying that people's carbon foot prints should be entirely their own business. If what you do has wide and deep consequences for the rest of the society, then it is not entirely your own business. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html For an article on the impact of intelligence on success look at: http://www.businessinsider.com/intelligence-is-more-important-than-working-hard-2011-11 EDIT: additional link > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:The practice of eugenics is justifiable in the name of the advancement, the welfare and the betterment of our species. _____ We have lost a whopping 14 IQ points since the Victorian era due to the fact that smarter women tend to have far fewer children than dumb ones.This is a trend which will have disastrous consequences for the advancement of our species and something needs to be done to stop and reverse it. People take scientific and technological progress for granted, as though it is bound to happen no matter what the circumstances. I tend to disagree. Progress and technological advancement is a result of the work of brilliant minds. Of course we will continue to have technological advancements because we will always have some smart people, but the quality and the speed of our advancements are bound to decrease if there are fewer and fewer smart people within the population. To stop and reverse this trend the government needs to get more involved in the reproductive habits of the population. I tend to disagree with the idea that people's reproductive practices are entirely their own business: if it has important consequences for the rest of the society and generations to come it is not entirely their own business. Saying that people's reproductive habits is their own business is much like saying that people's carbon foot prints should be entirely their own business. If what you do has wide and deep consequences for the rest of the society, then it is not entirely your own business. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html For an article on the impact of intelligence on success look at: http://www.businessinsider.com/intelligence-is-more-important-than-working-hard-2011-11 EDIT: additional link > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1e330d

I believe the US House, Senate, and President are fundamentally corrupt in their desire for money and power. CMV.

This is not an attempt to expose some grand conspiracy. I believe that any candidate for an elected position of power is not alone in their journey, and almost all of them take campaign contributions with at least a tacit agreement that the contributions will continue for future elections—or perhaps a future seat on the board, etc.—if the "special interest group"/corporation's interests are helped by the candidate's legislation or votes. I believe this also happens between elections, when the senate/house is in session, in the form of lobbying. I do not believe the above is an isolated or made-up scenario; I believe it happens all the time and to almost every legislator at one point or another, and to varying extents. I believe this also occurs with the US President. I find the major complaint among people when talking about politics is how so-and-so legislation is being passed (independent of party-alignment) even though it is downright awful in one way or another. I believe this is due to the corruption of almost all the politicians I have described, in that they are in some ulterior way benefiting from such legislation being passed, be it campaign contributions, future job opportunities, increased value in their investment holdings, or any number of other benefits. I believe that before we can even talk about reforming first pass the post or our two party system, that we must address this problem immediately and directly. I believe that by not acknowledging the influence of money and power on politicians, and instead arguing about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, that we are, in a word, "falling for it". Change my view. *tl;dr: Politicians get money from special interests and lobbying. No good. Very bad.*

I believe the US House, Senate, and President are fundamentally corrupt in their desire for money and power. CMV. This is not an attempt to expose some grand conspiracy. I believe that any candidate for an elected position of power is not alone in their journey, and almost all of them take campaign contributions with at least a tacit agreement that the contributions will continue for future elections—or perhaps a future seat on the board, etc.—if the "special interest group"/corporation's interests are helped by the candidate's legislation or votes. I believe this also happens between elections, when the senate/house is in session, in the form of lobbying. I do not believe the above is an isolated or made-up scenario; I believe it happens all the time and to almost every legislator at one point or another, and to varying extents. I believe this also occurs with the US President. I find the major complaint among people when talking about politics is how so-and-so legislation is being passed (independent of party-alignment) even though it is downright awful in one way or another. I believe this is due to the corruption of almost all the politicians I have described, in that they are in some ulterior way benefiting from such legislation being passed, be it campaign contributions, future job opportunities, increased value in their investment holdings, or any number of other benefits. I believe that before we can even talk about reforming first pass the post or our two party system, that we must address this problem immediately and directly. I believe that by not acknowledging the influence of money and power on politicians, and instead arguing about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, that we are, in a word, "falling for it". Change my view. *tl;dr: Politicians get money from special interests and lobbying. No good. Very bad.*

t3_264wx9

CMV: My girlfriend is thinking about getting a tattoo and I don't like the idea.

Hey guys, I've read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes. My girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and I really don't want her to get one. I have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason. Every argument I've heard for tattoos I can so far see a con towards it. For example I don't see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you. Surely if it means something to you it's already with you for life, in your head. You don't need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head. In addition all the people I know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop-out-failure types or have got the tattoo just because it's something they've seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them. Finally a lot of people who get tattoos don't get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind. It's you own body and surely you want to keep it that way. Her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger. She has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which I don't even know where to start with as I don't know how she can make it look better than what she already has. I can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it? Any comments would be really helpful as I want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: My girlfriend is thinking about getting a tattoo and I don't like the idea. Hey guys, I've read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes. My girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and I really don't want her to get one. I have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason. Every argument I've heard for tattoos I can so far see a con towards it. For example I don't see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you. Surely if it means something to you it's already with you for life, in your head. You don't need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head. In addition all the people I know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop-out-failure types or have got the tattoo just because it's something they've seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them. Finally a lot of people who get tattoos don't get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind. It's you own body and surely you want to keep it that way. Her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger. She has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which I don't even know where to start with as I don't know how she can make it look better than what she already has. I can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it? Any comments would be really helpful as I want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.

t3_6987iy

CMV: In-depth classes in high school for "core courses" (math, english, science, etc) should be optional and replaced with mandatory classes on political systems, home economics (mortgages, tax, jobs, benefits, healthcare, etc).

In elementary and middle school, you're taught the basics of the core courses, and those are often the skills we'll need in those courses for the average life. Basic maths, grammar, vocabulary, basic computer skills, etc. In high school, you're required to take more in-depth courses like trigonometry, calculus, English classes where we covered classics like Shakespeare, and I had to do chemistry, biology, and/or physics. I'm 24 now, a college graduate and living with my girlfriend in our own apartment, but I still have no idea how a mortgage works, I only have a basic understanding of political systems (even my own in the US), don't understand half of what my benefits from my job are, and when I go to the doctor/dentist or whoever, I either have to hope they can figure out how my health insurance works or I have to call my parents. Not once since college have I had to find an integral or derivative, optimize the amount of string or fencing I'd need, continue reading old English classics, or need to figure out how to balance a chemical equation. But hey, those things were deemed more important. I think that once you get to high school, or at least like 11th or 12th grade, in-depth core courses should become optional and you can choose to take them based on if you're still interested. If you like math, you can continue into calculus or mathematical proofs or whatever. If you love literature, you can continue to tougher English classes. If you love a certain science (biology, chemistry, physics), you can take a class on it. You aren't necessarily choosing a college major early, but you're choosing to continue to learn about topics that the average person will never need to use because you're still interested. Instead, those "required" fields in your schedule should be filled with courses on topics that the average person uses throughout their life and is effected by (political systems, home economics (mortgages, tax, jobs, benefits, healthcare, etc)). Here is a good video called [Don't Stay In School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0) that wraps this view up into a rap (no pun intended). _____ > *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-depth classes in high school for "core courses" (math, english, science, etc) should be optional and replaced with mandatory classes on political systems, home economics (mortgages, tax, jobs, benefits, healthcare, etc). In elementary and middle school, you're taught the basics of the core courses, and those are often the skills we'll need in those courses for the average life. Basic maths, grammar, vocabulary, basic computer skills, etc. In high school, you're required to take more in-depth courses like trigonometry, calculus, English classes where we covered classics like Shakespeare, and I had to do chemistry, biology, and/or physics. I'm 24 now, a college graduate and living with my girlfriend in our own apartment, but I still have no idea how a mortgage works, I only have a basic understanding of political systems (even my own in the US), don't understand half of what my benefits from my job are, and when I go to the doctor/dentist or whoever, I either have to hope they can figure out how my health insurance works or I have to call my parents. Not once since college have I had to find an integral or derivative, optimize the amount of string or fencing I'd need, continue reading old English classics, or need to figure out how to balance a chemical equation. But hey, those things were deemed more important. I think that once you get to high school, or at least like 11th or 12th grade, in-depth core courses should become optional and you can choose to take them based on if you're still interested. If you like math, you can continue into calculus or mathematical proofs or whatever. If you love literature, you can continue to tougher English classes. If you love a certain science (biology, chemistry, physics), you can take a class on it. You aren't necessarily choosing a college major early, but you're choosing to continue to learn about topics that the average person will never need to use because you're still interested. Instead, those "required" fields in your schedule should be filled with courses on topics that the average person uses throughout their life and is effected by (political systems, home economics (mortgages, tax, jobs, benefits, healthcare, etc)). Here is a good video called [Don't Stay In School](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0) that wraps this view up into a rap (no pun intended).

t3_2mtw54

CMV: I am very transphobic

Okay, so, if you're transgender, I don't hate you. That's not what I mean. I just mean that, if you're a guy, then I'm going to call you he. I don't buy into all this bullshit about "respecting pronouns" because they're there to distinguish biological differences, often for sexual reasons. When I ask if you're a boy or girl, I'm not wondering if you prefer motorcycles or shoe shopping. If people successfully shift the meaning of gender to not mean the same thing as sex, then it only undermines gender equality by supporting old world gender roles. "If you're a guy that wears dresses, NO. YOU'RE NOT A GUY. YOU HAVE TO BE A GIRL AND USE GIRL PRONOUNS HURRDUUR." Misuse of these pronouns is not only annoying and destructive to our society, but creates complications. If you were a straight male at a bar, how would you feel if you took a girl home, she said she was a girl, and then she whipped out her dick? I know that if I were straight, I would feel manipulated. I either want to get over my transphobia or become politically active to discredit this movement if it is as bad as I think it is. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I am very transphobic. Okay, so, if you're transgender, I don't hate you. That's not what I mean. I just mean that, if you're a guy, then I'm going to call you he. I don't buy into all this bullshit about "respecting pronouns" because they're there to distinguish biological differences, often for sexual reasons. When I ask if you're a boy or girl, I'm not wondering if you prefer motorcycles or shoe shopping. If people successfully shift the meaning of gender to not mean the same thing as sex, then it only undermines gender equality by supporting old world gender roles. "If you're a guy that wears dresses, NO. YOU'RE NOT A GUY. YOU HAVE TO BE A GIRL AND USE GIRL PRONOUNS HURRDUUR." Misuse of these pronouns is not only annoying and destructive to our society, but creates complications. If you were a straight male at a bar, how would you feel if you took a girl home, she said she was a girl, and then she whipped out her dick? I know that if I were straight, I would feel manipulated. I either want to get over my transphobia or become politically active to discredit this movement if it is as bad as I think it is.

t3_3pzgmh

CMV: Seduction is morally wrong, as it is based in manipulating other people

Hey there! For all my teenage years I've seen the idea of trying to approach someone in a romantic/sexual way as something that was *somehow* wrong and inherently problematic, because it ought lead to "mis"-reciprocated relationships. When I started having crushes, I kinda understood why people engaged in this kind of activity, but I still felt there was something inherently wrong in all of this. In the last few days, I think I got why. When you try to seduce someone, you're actually stimulating them to have feelings they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the basis of it. However, that sounds exactly like plain and simple manipulation. That's why I've morally never bought the idea that I should actually pursue relationships, and that's why I never act when I develop feeling for other people - it feels unfair and manipulative. There must be something wrong about my logic. The odds of someone finding someone with reciprocal feelings are just too low for this to be such a common thing. Am I wrong? Why? _____ > *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: Seduction is morally wrong, as it is based in manipulating other people. Hey there! For all my teenage years I've seen the idea of trying to approach someone in a romantic/sexual way as something that was *somehow* wrong and inherently problematic, because it ought lead to "mis"-reciprocated relationships. When I started having crushes, I kinda understood why people engaged in this kind of activity, but I still felt there was something inherently wrong in all of this. In the last few days, I think I got why. When you try to seduce someone, you're actually stimulating them to have feelings they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the basis of it. However, that sounds exactly like plain and simple manipulation. That's why I've morally never bought the idea that I should actually pursue relationships, and that's why I never act when I develop feeling for other people - it feels unfair and manipulative. There must be something wrong about my logic. The odds of someone finding someone with reciprocal feelings are just too low for this to be such a common thing. Am I wrong? Why?

t3_2r5asg

CMV: Girls getting into sexual intercourse will consider anal sex to be totally normal because of all the online porn that is available and watched by guys their age

I am not sure if my view can or should be changed at all, but I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. When I grew up there was no porn easily accessible. A dirty magazine or some vhs tape was all I saw until age 18. A spread pussy was already so extreme for my generation. Today in pretty much any porn video online there is almost always a part of anal sex or something that was taboo 20-30 years ago. If youth is easily exposed to such porn, won't they consider it to be the standard? Will girls feel obligated to offer anal sex because it's portrayed as being a normal part of sex?

CMV: Girls getting into sexual intercourse will consider anal sex to be totally normal because of all the online porn that is available and watched by guys their age. I am not sure if my view can or should be changed at all, but I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. When I grew up there was no porn easily accessible. A dirty magazine or some vhs tape was all I saw until age 18. A spread pussy was already so extreme for my generation. Today in pretty much any porn video online there is almost always a part of anal sex or something that was taboo 20-30 years ago. If youth is easily exposed to such porn, won't they consider it to be the standard? Will girls feel obligated to offer anal sex because it's portrayed as being a normal part of sex?

t3_1uh4em

I believe there is no advantage to living an ethical unselfish life.CMV.

I know people who do not have the smallest qualms about screwing over their best friends to get what they want. I know guys who cheat on their pretty girlfriends about their one night stands with even prettier girls. these same guys who would steal from their own best friends and not show a sign of remorse when caught. this very same person would then hide an important piece of information about the job interview that both of you are supposed to be attending tomorrow. No ethical qualms about anything whatsover. I see these people all around me. I try my best to be as nice to people and helpful as i can, but when i see these scumbags out there, with all the success that i work so hard for, and it all just falls into their laps, i think why not just be like them. CMV magic internet people.

I believe there is no advantage to living an ethical unselfish life.CMV. I know people who do not have the smallest qualms about screwing over their best friends to get what they want. I know guys who cheat on their pretty girlfriends about their one night stands with even prettier girls. these same guys who would steal from their own best friends and not show a sign of remorse when caught. this very same person would then hide an important piece of information about the job interview that both of you are supposed to be attending tomorrow. No ethical qualms about anything whatsover. I see these people all around me. I try my best to be as nice to people and helpful as i can, but when i see these scumbags out there, with all the success that i work so hard for, and it all just falls into their laps, i think why not just be like them. CMV magic internet people.

t3_3hsqdj

CMV: I am perfectly happy with Windows 7, and don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 10

Since Windows 10 has come out and been free to upgrade I have been considering whether or not to upgrade. I have absolutely no compliants about Windows 7, though, and so I see no reason to upgrade. All of my computers are currently running 7, and I don't want to learn a new system if I am happy with the one I have now. In addition to not wanting to learn a new system, I have heard there is a greater degree of surveillance being done by Microsoft on programs installed, communications being sent via computer, etc. This is a bit alarming to me because I believe in a right to individual privacy, but also because some of my work involves potentially having to keep files on a secure drive and Microsoft having access to what I do with my computer might technically violate that, even if I believe that Microsoft probably doesn't care about what I am doing at work. Are there any reasons to upgrade that I am not considering, or any arguments to put my mind at ease about the data collection? _____ > *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 am perfectly happy with Windows 7, and don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 10. Since Windows 10 has come out and been free to upgrade I have been considering whether or not to upgrade. I have absolutely no compliants about Windows 7, though, and so I see no reason to upgrade. All of my computers are currently running 7, and I don't want to learn a new system if I am happy with the one I have now. In addition to not wanting to learn a new system, I have heard there is a greater degree of surveillance being done by Microsoft on programs installed, communications being sent via computer, etc. This is a bit alarming to me because I believe in a right to individual privacy, but also because some of my work involves potentially having to keep files on a secure drive and Microsoft having access to what I do with my computer might technically violate that, even if I believe that Microsoft probably doesn't care about what I am doing at work. Are there any reasons to upgrade that I am not considering, or any arguments to put my mind at ease about the data collection?

t3_57zwmf

CMV: government regulation does not inherently obstruct the benefits that come with a free market; bad policy making does.

It is my understanding that libertarians and similiar affliations/ideologies oppose "big gov't/gov't" in favor of the free market. Aside from my view that a free market is a a fantasy and one that doesnt even produce a feasible benefit, one aspect that the favoring of the free market (and why it's a popular view in the states) is that it encourages and accelerates innovation and growth by not imposing restrictions on companies and allowing competition to operate as the driving force for goods and services to be developed and regulated. Now I do have limited understanding on the intricacies of the libertarian perspective and only base this on what I hear from reddit, and a handful of conservative and libertarian friends who oppose government regulation and involvement which I generally advocate as a liberal and progressive. That said, I dont believe that the failings of government that libertarians wish to fix through free market/small govt are actually because of the innate nature of government or its regulations and restrictions but rather it is bad policy making. Policy making that is encouraged because of moneyed interests, lack of an educated populace, layers of outdated laws and thinking and generally a small amount of effort by policy makers themselves who are not encouraged to innovate and experiment. Now I dont know exactly what the solution to bad policy making but I generally think encouraging more interaction between government bodies and resources in the economy that can work to represent the public interests and encourage ideation and innovation. For example my sister is a designer at a firm who gets contracted to assist in the ideation and innovation processes for businesses. Basically, outsourcing the innovation bulk of tasks in a company especially in ways that allow for crossover between industries and professions. The firm hires highly skilled teams that specialize in having knowledge of an industry and having access to cutting edge/relevant technology and obviously the ability to work with these technologies. This essentially allows companies to outsource a team to develop a project that benefits their product without having to personally hire employees or expand a branch of their company into a sector that they dont have the resources to fully research amd engage with. Now thats just speculation on how it works exactly and its not a perfect system but considering how complicated the world has become with a need to have outreach into such a wide variety of markets (globalization) and platforms (technological expansion) it is understandable that government which affects the entire country/globe could benefit from a similar system. Having to work within the confines of government itself, the politics of bipartisanship and public image means that policy making wont be as dynamic as it should be. Tldr: libertarian attempts to address certain flaws of government are idealistic and unreasonable and it's actually just flawed policy making. Policy making needs to corrected through creative solutions, not the deterioration of government regulation and influence. One possible solution is more integrated interactions between the public and government (in which government serves as the regulator and ethical guard which the public votes for and the public serves as the assistor in innovation and research).

CMV: government regulation does not inherently obstruct the benefits that come with a free market; bad policy making does. It is my understanding that libertarians and similiar affliations/ideologies oppose "big gov't/gov't" in favor of the free market. Aside from my view that a free market is a a fantasy and one that doesnt even produce a feasible benefit, one aspect that the favoring of the free market (and why it's a popular view in the states) is that it encourages and accelerates innovation and growth by not imposing restrictions on companies and allowing competition to operate as the driving force for goods and services to be developed and regulated. Now I do have limited understanding on the intricacies of the libertarian perspective and only base this on what I hear from reddit, and a handful of conservative and libertarian friends who oppose government regulation and involvement which I generally advocate as a liberal and progressive. That said, I dont believe that the failings of government that libertarians wish to fix through free market/small govt are actually because of the innate nature of government or its regulations and restrictions but rather it is bad policy making. Policy making that is encouraged because of moneyed interests, lack of an educated populace, layers of outdated laws and thinking and generally a small amount of effort by policy makers themselves who are not encouraged to innovate and experiment. Now I dont know exactly what the solution to bad policy making but I generally think encouraging more interaction between government bodies and resources in the economy that can work to represent the public interests and encourage ideation and innovation. For example my sister is a designer at a firm who gets contracted to assist in the ideation and innovation processes for businesses. Basically, outsourcing the innovation bulk of tasks in a company especially in ways that allow for crossover between industries and professions. The firm hires highly skilled teams that specialize in having knowledge of an industry and having access to cutting edge/relevant technology and obviously the ability to work with these technologies. This essentially allows companies to outsource a team to develop a project that benefits their product without having to personally hire employees or expand a branch of their company into a sector that they dont have the resources to fully research amd engage with. Now thats just speculation on how it works exactly and its not a perfect system but considering how complicated the world has become with a need to have outreach into such a wide variety of markets (globalization) and platforms (technological expansion) it is understandable that government which affects the entire country/globe could benefit from a similar system. Having to work within the confines of government itself, the politics of bipartisanship and public image means that policy making wont be as dynamic as it should be. Tldr: libertarian attempts to address certain flaws of government are idealistic and unreasonable and it's actually just flawed policy making. Policy making needs to corrected through creative solutions, not the deterioration of government regulation and influence. One possible solution is more integrated interactions between the public and government (in which government serves as the regulator and ethical guard which the public votes for and the public serves as the assistor in innovation and research).

t3_1gnu2e

I buy all my music because not only is it the legal thing to do, but more importantly the artists deserves to be paid for the service they provide me. CMV

Whenever it comes up with people that I buy music, and by which I mean naturally in conversation, I have never went out of my way to say that I do, I get mocked and ridiculed. They believe that I buy music so that I can feel morally superior to them where the reality is I honestly don't care if they buy music or not, I know that I want to pay the artist for the service they gave me through their music. Why should I not pay for music? This isn't just a legal thing, that's not the issue, and it isn't a "not knowing how to get it" issue either. Before you ask I don't torrent/freely download anything including TV and video games and don't use adblocker all for the same reasons, just music is the one that comes up most.

I buy all my music because not only is it the legal thing to do, but more importantly the artists deserves to be paid for the service they provide me. CMV. Whenever it comes up with people that I buy music, and by which I mean naturally in conversation, I have never went out of my way to say that I do, I get mocked and ridiculed. They believe that I buy music so that I can feel morally superior to them where the reality is I honestly don't care if they buy music or not, I know that I want to pay the artist for the service they gave me through their music. Why should I not pay for music? This isn't just a legal thing, that's not the issue, and it isn't a "not knowing how to get it" issue either. Before you ask I don't torrent/freely download anything including TV and video games and don't use adblocker all for the same reasons, just music is the one that comes up most.

t3_2e8kpb

CMV: I think the idea that anonymity turns people into assholes is exaggerated.

Something I've commonly seen mentioned in online conversations is the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" which suggests that "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad." Now it originated from Penny Arcade, so it's clearly simplifying online social behaviors quite a bit. However, I think the whole "anonymity" part is overrated. I've seen people defend asshole-ish behavior by stating something like "oh, it's just the Internet" like people suddenly turn into assholes when they're online but act normally otherwise. With the rise of social media sites, I think that's largely untrue. Google switched the comments section of YouTube to Google+, and I've seen no change in quality even though many people now post behind their real names. Same thing with Facebook - there are an unbelievable number of assholes on Facebook. Same thing with dating sites, too. I think the real issue is not that we're anonymous, it's that people can act out without ever really having to meet the other person face to face. **tl;dr: convince me that anonymity turns people into assholes more so than they would be even without anonymity** _____ > *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 idea that anonymity turns people into assholes is exaggerated. Something I've commonly seen mentioned in online conversations is the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" which suggests that "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad." Now it originated from Penny Arcade, so it's clearly simplifying online social behaviors quite a bit. However, I think the whole "anonymity" part is overrated. I've seen people defend asshole-ish behavior by stating something like "oh, it's just the Internet" like people suddenly turn into assholes when they're online but act normally otherwise. With the rise of social media sites, I think that's largely untrue. Google switched the comments section of YouTube to Google+, and I've seen no change in quality even though many people now post behind their real names. Same thing with Facebook - there are an unbelievable number of assholes on Facebook. Same thing with dating sites, too. I think the real issue is not that we're anonymous, it's that people can act out without ever really having to meet the other person face to face. **tl;dr: convince me that anonymity turns people into assholes more so than they would be even without anonymity**

t3_4uu4mh

CMV: Anger towards some theorists that go against current scientific paradigm (like conspiracy theories) isn't too rational.

Obligatory Disclaimer: English isn't my first language Many years of reading through Reddit posts and comments made me see many showing "anger" towards people who do not have scientific knowledge, or people who explicitly go against them. The two quite common targets were: the moon-landing conspiracy theorists, and the flat Earth theorists. Now, being an undergraduate major in physics, I do "know" the basic mechanics and science behind the two: how we got the moon, and why we can deduce from experiments and observations that the Earth is round, ***which to be honest, don't seem too friendly or obvious enough for a layperson***. (Now I do not know whether there are political groups which are actively seeking some benefits by disinformation, and *those* people are exempt from my discussion.) This is exemplified by the sheer astronomical distance between the earth and the moon: we are desensitized. If we just step out into the night, and with some luck, we can see a full moon. And if we just stare at it for a moment, we can slowly begin to appreciate how far away it really is. And if someone besides you benignly told you that "*we've been there*," I don't know about you but I think I'll be blown away. In fact, whenever I see a moon, I'm always blown away, because that thing seems really far away (and it is.) Similar reasoning applies to the curvature of Earth. If we step outside and look around, there's no way we could tell whether the surface we're standing on is curved. What I'm ultimately trying to say is, It is very difficult for a layperson to fathom the current accomplishments of science. It is almost irrational for them to accept (quite blindly) what science has done without actively participating in its studies, and no, I do not think preliminary education qualifies for that. Therefore, it's not irrational of them, it's irrational of you. So I do not really understand the "anger" towards these people, because the current feat of science is literally incredible. _____ > *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: Anger towards some theorists that go against current scientific paradigm (like conspiracy theories) isn't too rational. Obligatory Disclaimer: English isn't my first language Many years of reading through Reddit posts and comments made me see many showing "anger" towards people who do not have scientific knowledge, or people who explicitly go against them. The two quite common targets were: the moon-landing conspiracy theorists, and the flat Earth theorists. Now, being an undergraduate major in physics, I do "know" the basic mechanics and science behind the two: how we got the moon, and why we can deduce from experiments and observations that the Earth is round, ***which to be honest, don't seem too friendly or obvious enough for a layperson***. (Now I do not know whether there are political groups which are actively seeking some benefits by disinformation, and *those* people are exempt from my discussion.) This is exemplified by the sheer astronomical distance between the earth and the moon: we are desensitized. If we just step out into the night, and with some luck, we can see a full moon. And if we just stare at it for a moment, we can slowly begin to appreciate how far away it really is. And if someone besides you benignly told you that "*we've been there*," I don't know about you but I think I'll be blown away. In fact, whenever I see a moon, I'm always blown away, because that thing seems really far away (and it is.) Similar reasoning applies to the curvature of Earth. If we step outside and look around, there's no way we could tell whether the surface we're standing on is curved. What I'm ultimately trying to say is, It is very difficult for a layperson to fathom the current accomplishments of science. It is almost irrational for them to accept (quite blindly) what science has done without actively participating in its studies, and no, I do not think preliminary education qualifies for that. Therefore, it's not irrational of them, it's irrational of you. So I do not really understand the "anger" towards these people, because the current feat of science is literally incredible.

t3_2cayvr

CMV: I believe I've come up with a definition of art vs. "not art" that is almost universally applicable.

Outside of academia, (where generally, if someone says it's art, for the sake of discussion it's treated as art) - there is considerable debate about what counts as art, and what doesn't. Well, maybe just on reddit. But often, I feel it would be helpful to have a clear and reliable definition of what counts as art, so the discussion could move forward. This also addresses a common opinion that boils down to "I don't like it, therefore it is not art". Anyway, here's my definition of art: Any form of communication with at least one layer of abstraction. [edit: removed word attempted] Here is why I think this works. It's medium-agnostic, so it can apply equally well to any type of art including spoken word, performance, sculpture, whatever. It's non-normative, meaning we don't have to consider whether the artist did a good job or had any particular purpose. It boils down to: Was there communication? (even unintentional?) And: Was the communication abstracted in some way? By this, I mean the full content isn't just explicitly stated. Examples of what is not art: A stop sign is not art. It's communication (you stop here) but the message is not really abstracted. A random splotch of oil on the ground that looks really awesome is not art, because it wasn't produced by a person to communicate anything. Jackson Pollock's work is art, because there is communication about his thoughts, feelings, and art itself in there - although it is heavily abstracted. Difficulties/objections: >This idea eliminates the boundary between art and design! Indeed, for example stylization of text could be considered abstracted communication. I think this is OK. Design can be considered a type of art. >This means really shitty art is "art"! Yes, I guess it does. BONUS ROUND: My definition of "Good Art" (which I realize is too subjective to debate meaningfully, but I'm throwing it in here anyway): Good art helps one's fellow humans understand better. Here "understand" means understanding themselves, others, the world around them, life, culture, etc. It is orthogonal here to the idea of knowledge, in the sense of information that hasn't been emotionally integrated into one's worldview or mindset. I like this definition because it encompasses just about all art that's considered "great" while allowing us to reject art that's superficially well-executed or conceptually interesting, but ultimately worthless to the human experience. For example, Star Wars fan art is usually not good art. Imitative contemporary abstract nonsense is often not good art. But maybe Jeff Koons can be considered good art again? In this light, Duchamp's Fountain and Malevich's black squares can be more important (to me, anyway) than ... say... Monet. Interesting! Okay, that's it! What do you think, is there a more useful definition of art we can use? How about good art? ____ > *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 I've come up with a definition of art vs. "not art" that is almost universally applicable. Outside of academia, (where generally, if someone says it's art, for the sake of discussion it's treated as art) - there is considerable debate about what counts as art, and what doesn't. Well, maybe just on reddit. But often, I feel it would be helpful to have a clear and reliable definition of what counts as art, so the discussion could move forward. This also addresses a common opinion that boils down to "I don't like it, therefore it is not art". Anyway, here's my definition of art: Any form of communication with at least one layer of abstraction. [edit: removed word attempted] Here is why I think this works. It's medium-agnostic, so it can apply equally well to any type of art including spoken word, performance, sculpture, whatever. It's non-normative, meaning we don't have to consider whether the artist did a good job or had any particular purpose. It boils down to: Was there communication? (even unintentional?) And: Was the communication abstracted in some way? By this, I mean the full content isn't just explicitly stated. Examples of what is not art: A stop sign is not art. It's communication (you stop here) but the message is not really abstracted. A random splotch of oil on the ground that looks really awesome is not art, because it wasn't produced by a person to communicate anything. Jackson Pollock's work is art, because there is communication about his thoughts, feelings, and art itself in there - although it is heavily abstracted. Difficulties/objections: >This idea eliminates the boundary between art and design! Indeed, for example stylization of text could be considered abstracted communication. I think this is OK. Design can be considered a type of art. >This means really shitty art is "art"! Yes, I guess it does. BONUS ROUND: My definition of "Good Art" (which I realize is too subjective to debate meaningfully, but I'm throwing it in here anyway): Good art helps one's fellow humans understand better. Here "understand" means understanding themselves, others, the world around them, life, culture, etc. It is orthogonal here to the idea of knowledge, in the sense of information that hasn't been emotionally integrated into one's worldview or mindset. I like this definition because it encompasses just about all art that's considered "great" while allowing us to reject art that's superficially well-executed or conceptually interesting, but ultimately worthless to the human experience. For example, Star Wars fan art is usually not good art. Imitative contemporary abstract nonsense is often not good art. But maybe Jeff Koons can be considered good art again? In this light, Duchamp's Fountain and Malevich's black squares can be more important (to me, anyway) than ... say... Monet. Interesting! Okay, that's it! What do you think, is there a more useful definition of art we can use? How about good art? ____ > *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_1xojat

No fault divorce is a bad thing. CMV

I may be a little bit shortsighted in my view on the this, but I believe no fault divorce to be a bad thing. Marriage in my view, is basically only meaningful if it is somewhat binding in it's intent of making a permanent union between two people. I am not saying that ALL divorce should be disallowed. Certainly cases of cheating or abuse should be able to end the marriage. But what is the point of a marriage if at any point one party can just up and leave? I admit I may be a bit ignorant on specific divorce law here, but regardless, the point remains that the marriage can be terminated for less than dire reasons. If a marriage is meant to be a holy union, as it is in some religions, why is no fault divorce permitted? Again I am a bit ignorant as to some specific religious customs outside of Christianity but I suspect it is not. If a marriage is meant to provide stability towards raising children, as I think is the state's goal, why is no fault divorce permissible then? Surely, except in certain cases of abuse, having two parents around would be in the child's better interest than one? So what then is the purpose of marriage then, if you can get a no fault divorce at any time? Immediately, I can see scenarios where a no fault divorce massively fucks over one party. Imagine a woman who owns a successful mining industry, and is married to a man who plans to divorce her for "irreconcilable differences". Again, I am not aware of the specifics of divorce law here, but I am well aware of cases where one party makes off like a bandit because they just wait long enough in the marriage before calling it quits (example, Vanessa Bryant. Let's not get into that argument though, about whether she deserves what she is getting or not, that's a whole different thread.) ...I'm already rambling. I think that is enough to illustrate my point though. So, fix any holes in my ignorance of divorce law, provide me a unique insight I may have overlooked... CMV reddit.

No fault divorce is a bad thing. CMV. I may be a little bit shortsighted in my view on the this, but I believe no fault divorce to be a bad thing. Marriage in my view, is basically only meaningful if it is somewhat binding in it's intent of making a permanent union between two people. I am not saying that ALL divorce should be disallowed. Certainly cases of cheating or abuse should be able to end the marriage. But what is the point of a marriage if at any point one party can just up and leave? I admit I may be a bit ignorant on specific divorce law here, but regardless, the point remains that the marriage can be terminated for less than dire reasons. If a marriage is meant to be a holy union, as it is in some religions, why is no fault divorce permitted? Again I am a bit ignorant as to some specific religious customs outside of Christianity but I suspect it is not. If a marriage is meant to provide stability towards raising children, as I think is the state's goal, why is no fault divorce permissible then? Surely, except in certain cases of abuse, having two parents around would be in the child's better interest than one? So what then is the purpose of marriage then, if you can get a no fault divorce at any time? Immediately, I can see scenarios where a no fault divorce massively fucks over one party. Imagine a woman who owns a successful mining industry, and is married to a man who plans to divorce her for "irreconcilable differences". Again, I am not aware of the specifics of divorce law here, but I am well aware of cases where one party makes off like a bandit because they just wait long enough in the marriage before calling it quits (example, Vanessa Bryant. Let's not get into that argument though, about whether she deserves what she is getting or not, that's a whole different thread.) ...I'm already rambling. I think that is enough to illustrate my point though. So, fix any holes in my ignorance of divorce law, provide me a unique insight I may have overlooked... CMV reddit.

t3_6ihcuk

CMV: The only logically way to reconcile the abortion debate is to admit that abortion ends a human life, but also that protection of human life is not always the primary concern of the law.

I'm pro-choice, but I also think that the traditional talking points on both sides completely ignore those on the other side. The simple fact is that trying to define the point at which a zygote or a fetus becomes "a person" is pointless. Any dividing line you come up with is going to be arbitrary and subject to changes in technology or random chance. The only logical point at which to define a pre-born person as a human life is at conception. That being said, we as a society don't care about human life above all else, nor should we. Life has a variable value depending on the factors weighed against it. You're not allowed to kill a person outside of a uterus, true. But we as a society don't really go out of our way to save lives even when it would be easy to do so. When the federal maximum speed limit was up for review, experts in the field showed irrefutable evidence that keeping the speed limit at 65 mph saved X number of lives per year, and we, as a nation responded, in a unified voice, "Ehhh, but we like to go fast." But sure, that's personal choice. On the other hand, nothing actually says you can't have your kids in the car when you drive 85 miles per hour across the open plains of Texas. Sure they have to be wearing their seat belts, but if we really wanted them safe, shouldn't the kids be wearing helmets, too? You could make the argument that it's a question of commission vs. omission, but since we're talking about children, we've already crossed that philosophical bridge. Once they're born, you can't just leave them to fend for themselves, or you go to jail. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The only logically way to reconcile the abortion debate is to admit that abortion ends a human life, but also that protection of human life is not always the primary concern of the law. I'm pro-choice, but I also think that the traditional talking points on both sides completely ignore those on the other side. The simple fact is that trying to define the point at which a zygote or a fetus becomes "a person" is pointless. Any dividing line you come up with is going to be arbitrary and subject to changes in technology or random chance. The only logical point at which to define a pre-born person as a human life is at conception. That being said, we as a society don't care about human life above all else, nor should we. Life has a variable value depending on the factors weighed against it. You're not allowed to kill a person outside of a uterus, true. But we as a society don't really go out of our way to save lives even when it would be easy to do so. When the federal maximum speed limit was up for review, experts in the field showed irrefutable evidence that keeping the speed limit at 65 mph saved X number of lives per year, and we, as a nation responded, in a unified voice, "Ehhh, but we like to go fast." But sure, that's personal choice. On the other hand, nothing actually says you can't have your kids in the car when you drive 85 miles per hour across the open plains of Texas. Sure they have to be wearing their seat belts, but if we really wanted them safe, shouldn't the kids be wearing helmets, too? You could make the argument that it's a question of commission vs. omission, but since we're talking about children, we've already crossed that philosophical bridge. Once they're born, you can't just leave them to fend for themselves, or you go to jail.

t3_4pucre

CMV: I shouldn't "want" to pick up trash because my effect on the environment is negligible.

The title is one thing but my POV is a little different and more specific. I'll try to explain the problem and if you have any questions regarding the situation ill try to provide an unbiased answer (as factual as possible) Here it is: I live in Israel and recruitment to the IDF (Israeli army) is mandatory once you are >18 and after highschool, BUT anyone can avoid recruitment (the method isn't really relevant to the post) I've had a recuring argument with many people regarding this type of decision. The way I view it: there are "many" (about 180,000) people that are actively part of the IDF, 1/180,000 is a negligbly small number (this has to be taken as some sort of an axiom of the arguement although I'm willing to debate this as well). if 1/180,000 is a negligibly small number that implicates that an average person would have a negligible effect on the whole, therfore mister average dude shouldn't want to be recruited if there are more prefferable options. A derivative of this logic is that one should always act for self gain because the negative effects on society are negligible. The opposing argument that is very popular mentions the fact that the army is comprised of individuals which all have a negligible effect on the whole as a pillar to their arguement, I think this is logically fallacious because it assumes dependence between the units of the whole that is nonexistent and is therfore irrelevant. I'm not sure if I'm the retard or the people I'm arguing with are heavily conditioned by society here (I grew up in the US) This was much easier to state verbally. Thank you in advance! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I shouldn't "want" to pick up trash because my effect on the environment is negligible. The title is one thing but my POV is a little different and more specific. I'll try to explain the problem and if you have any questions regarding the situation ill try to provide an unbiased answer (as factual as possible) Here it is: I live in Israel and recruitment to the IDF (Israeli army) is mandatory once you are >18 and after highschool, BUT anyone can avoid recruitment (the method isn't really relevant to the post) I've had a recuring argument with many people regarding this type of decision. The way I view it: there are "many" (about 180,000) people that are actively part of the IDF, 1/180,000 is a negligbly small number (this has to be taken as some sort of an axiom of the arguement although I'm willing to debate this as well). if 1/180,000 is a negligibly small number that implicates that an average person would have a negligible effect on the whole, therfore mister average dude shouldn't want to be recruited if there are more prefferable options. A derivative of this logic is that one should always act for self gain because the negative effects on society are negligible. The opposing argument that is very popular mentions the fact that the army is comprised of individuals which all have a negligible effect on the whole as a pillar to their arguement, I think this is logically fallacious because it assumes dependence between the units of the whole that is nonexistent and is therfore irrelevant. I'm not sure if I'm the retard or the people I'm arguing with are heavily conditioned by society here (I grew up in the US) This was much easier to state verbally. Thank you in advance!

t3_57erd9

CMV: Realistically, hurting the majority of poor people will not hurt the majority of wealthy people in any significant way

I've heard some people say that hurting the majority of poor people will also hurt the majority of wealthy people - I just don't see how this is possible and I think poor people are saying it just to make them feel better about themselves. In this CMV, let's define a wealthy person as a multi-millionaire. Let's say that in the future, lots of poor people die due to a heatwave (correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is possible if climate change gets worse). Now, how exactly are the majority of wealthy people going to get hurt in any significant way if poor people suffer or poor people die off? I mean, they're still going to have their millions of dollars, aren't they? Other wealthy people are still going to buy their products, aren't they? So how exactly are wealthy people hurt in any way? CMV. EDIT: I have been informed that a heatwave isn't likely to cause poor people to die. So instead of that example, let me just replace it with "any event that would realistically cause a lot of poor people to suffer/die." EDIT2: To CMV, tell me: A) An event that is realistically likely to occur that will hurt the majority of poor people and B) How this will hurt the majority of wealthy people. At the moment, reading through these posts, I'm just not convinced that the majority of wealthy people will be affected in any significant way. EDIT3: Well, I was wrong! Clearly if you make poor people desperate enough, they will hurt the wealthy if they need to get food. It doesn't even have to be about the government cutting welfare services, it could be natural disasters such as floods that cause poor people to be desperate. _____ > *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: Realistically, hurting the majority of poor people will not hurt the majority of wealthy people in any significant way. I've heard some people say that hurting the majority of poor people will also hurt the majority of wealthy people - I just don't see how this is possible and I think poor people are saying it just to make them feel better about themselves. In this CMV, let's define a wealthy person as a multi-millionaire. Let's say that in the future, lots of poor people die due to a heatwave (correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is possible if climate change gets worse). Now, how exactly are the majority of wealthy people going to get hurt in any significant way if poor people suffer or poor people die off? I mean, they're still going to have their millions of dollars, aren't they? Other wealthy people are still going to buy their products, aren't they? So how exactly are wealthy people hurt in any way? CMV. EDIT: I have been informed that a heatwave isn't likely to cause poor people to die. So instead of that example, let me just replace it with "any event that would realistically cause a lot of poor people to suffer/die." EDIT2: To CMV, tell me: A) An event that is realistically likely to occur that will hurt the majority of poor people and B) How this will hurt the majority of wealthy people. At the moment, reading through these posts, I'm just not convinced that the majority of wealthy people will be affected in any significant way. EDIT3: Well, I was wrong! Clearly if you make poor people desperate enough, they will hurt the wealthy if they need to get food. It doesn't even have to be about the government cutting welfare services, it could be natural disasters such as floods that cause poor people to be desperate.

t3_28j548

CMV: Video games are teaching people to kill other people

The realism in games such as call of duty and battlefield mirror that of the cop and soldier training simulators designed to teach people knee jerk methods on shooting others. Observing depictions of human death and suffering has become the past time for millions of kids around the world. To think that the mind is not being trained to be more violent through media seems illogical to me. In ww2 there was a serious problem with soldiers not shooting there guns and not having the will power to, so the militarily started introducing the man shaped silhouette to pop up so the soldiers could learn based on stimulus response to shoot a human figure. Kids are being taught that they can gain points or a high score through human death and suffering. Change muh view

CMV: Video games are teaching people to kill other people. The realism in games such as call of duty and battlefield mirror that of the cop and soldier training simulators designed to teach people knee jerk methods on shooting others. Observing depictions of human death and suffering has become the past time for millions of kids around the world. To think that the mind is not being trained to be more violent through media seems illogical to me. In ww2 there was a serious problem with soldiers not shooting there guns and not having the will power to, so the militarily started introducing the man shaped silhouette to pop up so the soldiers could learn based on stimulus response to shoot a human figure. Kids are being taught that they can gain points or a high score through human death and suffering. Change muh view

t3_3mqped

CMV: college students should get grant or scholarship money on the backend - or when they complete their degree.

Investing in a student upfront is a shaky prospect. Many students who qualify for grants and scholarships based on need or ethnicity will never finish. Of those who start freshman year, 40% are likely to earn a bachelors in 6 years. 75% of remedial college students never graduate. Those are terrible numbers. Collegeatlas.org. I have other citations but I am on mobile. If there's debate on accuracy, I'll try to provide. It would be better to have them take loans through school, then have the grants and scholarships pay off the amount. If you have $50k in scholarship money waiting, the first $50k in loans will be paid off and have no interest. Interest should not accrue on the first $50k IF you stay in school. Students should be able to take a leave of absence for a year, max 2 throughout and not be penalized. It might be a good idea to invest and give more grants to encourage progress. From my own experience I witnessed a hoard of freshman leave and I know many had scholarships. It seems a shame that the money they received didn't go to better use. You could say a scholarship for a sophomore education is better than nothing - well not if they left due to grades. It's a wash. If we want low performers to go to college, they need incentives to finish. Short of that, we're flushing money.

CMV: college students should get grant or scholarship money on the backend - or when they complete their degree. Investing in a student upfront is a shaky prospect. Many students who qualify for grants and scholarships based on need or ethnicity will never finish. Of those who start freshman year, 40% are likely to earn a bachelors in 6 years. 75% of remedial college students never graduate. Those are terrible numbers. Collegeatlas.org. I have other citations but I am on mobile. If there's debate on accuracy, I'll try to provide. It would be better to have them take loans through school, then have the grants and scholarships pay off the amount. If you have $50k in scholarship money waiting, the first $50k in loans will be paid off and have no interest. Interest should not accrue on the first $50k IF you stay in school. Students should be able to take a leave of absence for a year, max 2 throughout and not be penalized. It might be a good idea to invest and give more grants to encourage progress. From my own experience I witnessed a hoard of freshman leave and I know many had scholarships. It seems a shame that the money they received didn't go to better use. You could say a scholarship for a sophomore education is better than nothing - well not if they left due to grades. It's a wash. If we want low performers to go to college, they need incentives to finish. Short of that, we're flushing money.

t3_51wmpg

CMV: in English, the letter "X" is useless, it has no true sound, and should be dropped from the English alphabet.

The letter X, what sound does it make? In fox, it makes a "KS" sound. In xylophone, a "Z" sound. I hope you see that it's pronounced different depending on nothing but the whim of the words creator. It has a place in science and mathematics, however, that is all, much like omega or delta. So removing it from English would be giving it a faith much lie them, not redundant but, relevant, in its field. Unlike in English. When was the last time you typed "x" on a keyboard? Probably a year ago, unless you had a x-ray or play a xylophone. I feel it is a relic, a silly, useless letter, that serves no purpose. Or does it? CMV....

CMV: in English, the letter "X" is useless, it has no true sound, and should be dropped from the English alphabet. The letter X, what sound does it make? In fox, it makes a "KS" sound. In xylophone, a "Z" sound. I hope you see that it's pronounced different depending on nothing but the whim of the words creator. It has a place in science and mathematics, however, that is all, much like omega or delta. So removing it from English would be giving it a faith much lie them, not redundant but, relevant, in its field. Unlike in English. When was the last time you typed "x" on a keyboard? Probably a year ago, unless you had a x-ray or play a xylophone. I feel it is a relic, a silly, useless letter, that serves no purpose. Or does it? CMV....

t3_2avwph

CMV: "All" Indians are corrupt business owners.

Edit: Lol didn't know this subreddit is actually "agree with my POPULAR POLITICALLY CORRECT views so we can all circlejerk about how righteous we are" I have both been working for East Indians as well as interviewing with them. My experience has been that they are utterly corrupt people who have no morals, driven purely on profit. My experience has included predatory interview practices where I was asked questions about my citizenship, whether I was living alone in the city/country (i am a visible minority). I also worked for an East Indian guy who did very questionable moral things such as taking charity money that were donated in the name of helping children. There was also nickel diming and practices which were detrimental to the wellbeing of his clients. As a result of these experiences, I am fearful of dealing with them in business, as I have recently moved from being a working joe to a small business owner, since I cannot trust for them to either work for me or work with me. I should mention that prior to these experiences, I rejected these ideas as bigoted and racist.

CMV: "All" Indians are corrupt business owners. Edit: Lol didn't know this subreddit is actually "agree with my POPULAR POLITICALLY CORRECT views so we can all circlejerk about how righteous we are" I have both been working for East Indians as well as interviewing with them. My experience has been that they are utterly corrupt people who have no morals, driven purely on profit. My experience has included predatory interview practices where I was asked questions about my citizenship, whether I was living alone in the city/country (i am a visible minority). I also worked for an East Indian guy who did very questionable moral things such as taking charity money that were donated in the name of helping children. There was also nickel diming and practices which were detrimental to the wellbeing of his clients. As a result of these experiences, I am fearful of dealing with them in business, as I have recently moved from being a working joe to a small business owner, since I cannot trust for them to either work for me or work with me. I should mention that prior to these experiences, I rejected these ideas as bigoted and racist.

t3_1kuhzh

I believe that economic issues should be paramount to social issues in elections. CMV

In the past presidential election, social issues seemed to become such a huge piece of why people voted for who they did, in a lot of cases even trumping economic issues. I think that that is absolutely ludicrous. While social issues are very important, in my opinion, economic issues are paramount. If the U.S. doesn't stop bickering over whether the LGBT community can marry, over abortion, etc. then our economic crisis will just get worse and worse. What will it matter who can marry if our economy goes down the drain? When no one can afford college, when the government simply can't pay its employees, when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, will it really matter that gay people can't marry? Don't get me wrong, social issues define who we are as a country and our freedom. After the economy is stable, social issues should definitely be the priority, but it's not going to be stable for quite a long time.

I believe that economic issues should be paramount to social issues in elections. CMV. In the past presidential election, social issues seemed to become such a huge piece of why people voted for who they did, in a lot of cases even trumping economic issues. I think that that is absolutely ludicrous. While social issues are very important, in my opinion, economic issues are paramount. If the U.S. doesn't stop bickering over whether the LGBT community can marry, over abortion, etc. then our economic crisis will just get worse and worse. What will it matter who can marry if our economy goes down the drain? When no one can afford college, when the government simply can't pay its employees, when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, will it really matter that gay people can't marry? Don't get me wrong, social issues define who we are as a country and our freedom. After the economy is stable, social issues should definitely be the priority, but it's not going to be stable for quite a long time.

t3_4yuh3z

CMV: The banana should be the fruit winning gold medal, while the strawberry has no place on the podium at all

In today's [Google doodle](https://www.google.com/doodles/2016-doodle-fruit-games-day-17), the fruit games come to an end with the strawberry as the ultimate winner, the banana seems to be third place and the second place is absent (what's up with that?!). I believe that this result is wrong and shows bad judgement on the Google doodle team part. First of all, the banana is clearly the best fruit in the world: It's delicious; A key ingredient in many fruit shakes, cakes, salads and more; can be used as a paste to substitute eggs and more in various recipes; Literally handy; Available all year long; And has the best natural wrappers of all fruits and vegetables - great protection, easy to open and with a genius color coding system that tells you the exact condition of the fruit. The strawberry on the other hand, although popular, is a second-tier fruit that would never win any fruit competition. It's difficult to find excellent strawberries even on it's short season - most packs would contain many greenish and mutated fruits. It's cover can barely protect it from cuts and slashes, not to mention the massive amount of pesticides required to maintain it's health. I personally also find strawberries too sour to eat as-is, without artificially adding sugar. I can easily find a dozen fruits that are better than strawberry in every attribute: melon, grapes, watermelon, pear, clementine and many more. _____ > *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 banana should be the fruit winning gold medal, while the strawberry has no place on the podium at all. In today's [Google doodle](https://www.google.com/doodles/2016-doodle-fruit-games-day-17), the fruit games come to an end with the strawberry as the ultimate winner, the banana seems to be third place and the second place is absent (what's up with that?!). I believe that this result is wrong and shows bad judgement on the Google doodle team part. First of all, the banana is clearly the best fruit in the world: It's delicious; A key ingredient in many fruit shakes, cakes, salads and more; can be used as a paste to substitute eggs and more in various recipes; Literally handy; Available all year long; And has the best natural wrappers of all fruits and vegetables - great protection, easy to open and with a genius color coding system that tells you the exact condition of the fruit. The strawberry on the other hand, although popular, is a second-tier fruit that would never win any fruit competition. It's difficult to find excellent strawberries even on it's short season - most packs would contain many greenish and mutated fruits. It's cover can barely protect it from cuts and slashes, not to mention the massive amount of pesticides required to maintain it's health. I personally also find strawberries too sour to eat as-is, without artificially adding sugar. I can easily find a dozen fruits that are better than strawberry in every attribute: melon, grapes, watermelon, pear, clementine and many more.

t3_26zny1

CMV: I believe that Mad Men is not just showing the era it was set in; it is actually sexist.

Preface: I have only recently begun watching this show, and just finished the first season at the time of making this post. I will not limit the discussion to the first season nor require spoiler tags, just wanted to preface my opinion. My Opinion: While at the time/setting that the show took place, there were a number of sexist opinions and actions, the show Mad Men goes beyond that, reinforcing those stereotypes and never displaying the sexist tones as anything but fact. This is shown repeatedly when even the most stubborn of females on the show eventually "come around" and end up having sex with one of the male characters. Females are encouraged to show behavior that will make them more likeable by the men around them, and whenever a female character tries to take actions which would put her as an equal to a man or try to follow her desires, it has negative consequences. Ex: The male characters of the show repeatedly sleep with anyone around them, but when a female decides to pursue sex with a character, she ends up lovesick and later pregnant. Coupled with the repeated sexual harassment by nearly every male character in the show, I find no reason not to find that the show is actually sexist and is actively furthering sexist views. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that Mad Men is not just showing the era it was set in; it is actually sexist. Preface: I have only recently begun watching this show, and just finished the first season at the time of making this post. I will not limit the discussion to the first season nor require spoiler tags, just wanted to preface my opinion. My Opinion: While at the time/setting that the show took place, there were a number of sexist opinions and actions, the show Mad Men goes beyond that, reinforcing those stereotypes and never displaying the sexist tones as anything but fact. This is shown repeatedly when even the most stubborn of females on the show eventually "come around" and end up having sex with one of the male characters. Females are encouraged to show behavior that will make them more likeable by the men around them, and whenever a female character tries to take actions which would put her as an equal to a man or try to follow her desires, it has negative consequences. Ex: The male characters of the show repeatedly sleep with anyone around them, but when a female decides to pursue sex with a character, she ends up lovesick and later pregnant. Coupled with the repeated sexual harassment by nearly every male character in the show, I find no reason not to find that the show is actually sexist and is actively furthering sexist views. Change my view.

t3_375hfg

CMV: It is unfair to blame Jar Jar Binks for the rise of the Empire.

On multiple occasions I have seen people claim that if not for Jar Jar, Palpatine would never have been given emergency powers and would not have been able form the Clone Army. I believe this is unfair for two reason: That Jar Jar was not the only senator that would have made the motion for emergency powers and that he was manipulated by Palpatine to do it. For my first point, I would find impossible to believe that there was not a single corrupt senator in the Galactic Senate that Palpatine could have bribed or otherwise coerced. There were thousands of members and more than one was shown to be corrupt in multiple cannons of the series. How difficult do fans honestly think it would have been for Palpatine to promise one of them greater wealth or a governorship on a choice planet? Add that to the fact the Jar Jar wasn't bribed, but believed he was acting for the good of the confederation. Which adds to my second point. Jar jar WAS manipulated by Palpatine, the man he only knew as senator and then chancellor who helped save Naboo. He was convinced that Palpatine's only goal was to stop the separatists. He did not know about the sith or about Palpatines true intentions, and how could he have? Based solely on the information we know Jar Jar to have had, helping Palpatine was a logical choice. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is unfair to blame Jar Jar Binks for the rise of the Empire. On multiple occasions I have seen people claim that if not for Jar Jar, Palpatine would never have been given emergency powers and would not have been able form the Clone Army. I believe this is unfair for two reason: That Jar Jar was not the only senator that would have made the motion for emergency powers and that he was manipulated by Palpatine to do it. For my first point, I would find impossible to believe that there was not a single corrupt senator in the Galactic Senate that Palpatine could have bribed or otherwise coerced. There were thousands of members and more than one was shown to be corrupt in multiple cannons of the series. How difficult do fans honestly think it would have been for Palpatine to promise one of them greater wealth or a governorship on a choice planet? Add that to the fact the Jar Jar wasn't bribed, but believed he was acting for the good of the confederation. Which adds to my second point. Jar jar WAS manipulated by Palpatine, the man he only knew as senator and then chancellor who helped save Naboo. He was convinced that Palpatine's only goal was to stop the separatists. He did not know about the sith or about Palpatines true intentions, and how could he have? Based solely on the information we know Jar Jar to have had, helping Palpatine was a logical choice.

t3_1jk8dd

I predict our eventual move to the cloud will end 99.99% of piracy. CMV.

With Internet infrastructure slowly developing and improving, cloud solutions are slowly becoming more viable. Sooner or later, as we are moving with Microsoft's Office 365 and Adobe's Creative Cloud, pretty much all applications and games will run virtualized on a server. Screenshots of the applications will be sent from the server to your PC and any input will be sent from your PC to the server. We can already see this happening for games with Nvidia's shield streaming service. With complete cloud solutions (we haven't quite reached this yet), the companies no longer provide you with a copy of the program code (in binary that is) and therefore in order to modify the application, you would have to either physically go to the server or hack the server which is incredibly hard and relies on a finite and shrinking amount of security holes created due to human mistakes. Change my view.

I predict our eventual move to the cloud will end 99.99% of piracy. CMV. With Internet infrastructure slowly developing and improving, cloud solutions are slowly becoming more viable. Sooner or later, as we are moving with Microsoft's Office 365 and Adobe's Creative Cloud, pretty much all applications and games will run virtualized on a server. Screenshots of the applications will be sent from the server to your PC and any input will be sent from your PC to the server. We can already see this happening for games with Nvidia's shield streaming service. With complete cloud solutions (we haven't quite reached this yet), the companies no longer provide you with a copy of the program code (in binary that is) and therefore in order to modify the application, you would have to either physically go to the server or hack the server which is incredibly hard and relies on a finite and shrinking amount of security holes created due to human mistakes. Change my view.

t3_6jvove

CMV:The constitution protects political violence under the 2nd amendment

I was watching Tucker Carlson tonight last night and found this segment riveting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPdfMYFWoeY Does Dave Ross have a point here? Ross argues that Steve Scalise shooter James Hodgkinson's actions were protected under the constitution. That if you were to interpret the 2nd amendment in the constitution as a right to use political violence against tyranny, than you can argue Hodgkinson was enacting said right. If you accept this interpretation of the 2nd amendment than the question becomes, what is tyranny? Or who are tyrants? Depending on what you believe it can be easily concluded that some people (some substantial people) believe that we are presently ruled by tyrants. With narratives that Trump is a traitor or a Putin puppet, or that the GOP is trying to send people to their deathbeds with their new healthcare bill, is this tyranny? Similar arguments were made during the Obama administration about those on the right. Was that tyranny? Does the constitution define tyranny in a way in which we can positively conclude that what Hodgkinson did was not protected under the 2nd amendment? I'm off the impression that Ross is making a compelling case here, and am eager to have my view changed. _____ > *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 constitution protects political violence under the 2nd amendment. I was watching Tucker Carlson tonight last night and found this segment riveting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPdfMYFWoeY Does Dave Ross have a point here? Ross argues that Steve Scalise shooter James Hodgkinson's actions were protected under the constitution. That if you were to interpret the 2nd amendment in the constitution as a right to use political violence against tyranny, than you can argue Hodgkinson was enacting said right. If you accept this interpretation of the 2nd amendment than the question becomes, what is tyranny? Or who are tyrants? Depending on what you believe it can be easily concluded that some people (some substantial people) believe that we are presently ruled by tyrants. With narratives that Trump is a traitor or a Putin puppet, or that the GOP is trying to send people to their deathbeds with their new healthcare bill, is this tyranny? Similar arguments were made during the Obama administration about those on the right. Was that tyranny? Does the constitution define tyranny in a way in which we can positively conclude that what Hodgkinson did was not protected under the 2nd amendment? I'm off the impression that Ross is making a compelling case here, and am eager to have my view changed.

t3_1pj4g7

If you are a single parent, you are a bad judge of character and an even worse decision maker. CMV

The obvious exception here is if you are a single parent because you chose to be(adoption), or the other parent was killed or died in random accident. If you had a child with someone and then broke up and are now raising the child alone or sharing duties with the other parent this cmv applies. If you choose to have a child with someone, its safe to assume that either you felt the relationship was stable enough for unprotected sex, which shows your inability to judge others character, or the you have unprotected sex, which means you are a bad decision maker. It seems like single parents take issue with the previous paragraph. I don't understand how you could argue that a man/woman who has a child with someone and stays with that someone isn't a better judge of character than the man/woman who has the kid and then breaks up. If I was hiring for a job that required good judgement and decision making I would rule out single parents immediately. It doesn't mean you are the worst decision maker, only that you are worse at making decisions and judging people than your counterparts who stayed together. I don't particularly care if you are a single parent, I just find it interesting that you can judge a heroin addict, violent criminal, or rapists for bad decisions, but not a single parent. CMV

If you are a single parent, you are a bad judge of character and an even worse decision maker. CMV. The obvious exception here is if you are a single parent because you chose to be(adoption), or the other parent was killed or died in random accident. If you had a child with someone and then broke up and are now raising the child alone or sharing duties with the other parent this cmv applies. If you choose to have a child with someone, its safe to assume that either you felt the relationship was stable enough for unprotected sex, which shows your inability to judge others character, or the you have unprotected sex, which means you are a bad decision maker. It seems like single parents take issue with the previous paragraph. I don't understand how you could argue that a man/woman who has a child with someone and stays with that someone isn't a better judge of character than the man/woman who has the kid and then breaks up. If I was hiring for a job that required good judgement and decision making I would rule out single parents immediately. It doesn't mean you are the worst decision maker, only that you are worse at making decisions and judging people than your counterparts who stayed together. I don't particularly care if you are a single parent, I just find it interesting that you can judge a heroin addict, violent criminal, or rapists for bad decisions, but not a single parent. CMV

t3_382wa7

CMV: Police body cameras are a good option to deal with police accountabllity.

Body cameras for police are beneficial because they increase accountability for both police and civilians. Tony Farrar, the police chief of Rialto, California says “"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature. As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better." This increase in accountability would greatly improve police/civilian interaction. Body cameras also reduce police officers use of force. After cameras were introduced in Rialto California in February of 2012, Officers' use of force fell by 60%. This comes in turn with the increase in officer accountability, and the improvement of the relationship between officer and civilian. While some people may say that police body cameras will infringe on the privacy rights of individuals interacting with the police, the benefits of body cameras far outweigh any possible disadvantage. Additionally it is possible to edit the footage from body cameras in order to protect the privacy of those not involved in a specific incident. If body cameras had been implemented nationwide years ago, cases like the controversial shooting of Michael Brown may very well never have happened, and if they had, body cameras would have provided excellent evidence for the cases, making it far easier to determine exactly what had happened. Overall, the benefits of implementing body cameras on police officers far outweigh the disadvantages. _____ > *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: Police body cameras are a good option to deal with police accountabllity. Body cameras for police are beneficial because they increase accountability for both police and civilians. Tony Farrar, the police chief of Rialto, California says “"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature. As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better." This increase in accountability would greatly improve police/civilian interaction. Body cameras also reduce police officers use of force. After cameras were introduced in Rialto California in February of 2012, Officers' use of force fell by 60%. This comes in turn with the increase in officer accountability, and the improvement of the relationship between officer and civilian. While some people may say that police body cameras will infringe on the privacy rights of individuals interacting with the police, the benefits of body cameras far outweigh any possible disadvantage. Additionally it is possible to edit the footage from body cameras in order to protect the privacy of those not involved in a specific incident. If body cameras had been implemented nationwide years ago, cases like the controversial shooting of Michael Brown may very well never have happened, and if they had, body cameras would have provided excellent evidence for the cases, making it far easier to determine exactly what had happened. Overall, the benefits of implementing body cameras on police officers far outweigh the disadvantages.

t3_6fnnda

CMV: UNSONG should not be permitted to enforce copyright on Names whose use is primarily medical. [minimal spoilers]

I understand that encouraging people to discover Names is highly important to progress and to the defense of the Untied States. The Comet King thought that the profit motive would be highly effective, and no doubt he was right. But expanding the concept of copyright to include discoveries (of the universe and arguably Divine nature) rather than merely the invention of a particular way to express a concept that may be expressed in many ways is a huge expansion of copyright. So is enforcing copyright by military force rather than by fines. This kind of expansion of an already-problematic concept can be justified by the serious threats that the Untied States face. Very well, but let us not suppose that those who discover Divine Names really have a moral claim to be the only ones permitted to utter those Names. If UNSONG could exercise its jurisdiction only over *most* new Names and not over the most commonly used medical Names such as the Coagulant Name, there would be nearly as much incentive to discover new Names. Since it is so difficult to predict what a Name will do, it is highly unlikely that research can be directed towards certain types of Names rather than others, so such a restriction wouldn't be causing Kabbalists to focus their efforts on non-medical areas - nobody knows where a connection will lead. I think this specific restriction on UNSONG should have minimal impact on profits and on Name discovery, while saving numerous lives. CMV.

CMV: UNSONG should not be permitted to enforce copyright on Names whose use is primarily medical. [minimal spoilers]. I understand that encouraging people to discover Names is highly important to progress and to the defense of the Untied States. The Comet King thought that the profit motive would be highly effective, and no doubt he was right. But expanding the concept of copyright to include discoveries (of the universe and arguably Divine nature) rather than merely the invention of a particular way to express a concept that may be expressed in many ways is a huge expansion of copyright. So is enforcing copyright by military force rather than by fines. This kind of expansion of an already-problematic concept can be justified by the serious threats that the Untied States face. Very well, but let us not suppose that those who discover Divine Names really have a moral claim to be the only ones permitted to utter those Names. If UNSONG could exercise its jurisdiction only over *most* new Names and not over the most commonly used medical Names such as the Coagulant Name, there would be nearly as much incentive to discover new Names. Since it is so difficult to predict what a Name will do, it is highly unlikely that research can be directed towards certain types of Names rather than others, so such a restriction wouldn't be causing Kabbalists to focus their efforts on non-medical areas - nobody knows where a connection will lead. I think this specific restriction on UNSONG should have minimal impact on profits and on Name discovery, while saving numerous lives. CMV.

t3_1e1gal

I don't believe North Korea would aggressively use nuclear weapons if they obtained them. CMV

I think that international pressure would keep NK from using a nuclear device against another state if they were to acquire one. Both China and Russia work as a big enough deterrence in the region, and the United States would likely support action against NK if a nuke was detonated. I believe North Korea is a rational actor which would not commit suicide through an open attack. All their displays of force and missile tests are for show and are simply meant to inspire fear in order for them to gain political leverage in the international community.

I don't believe North Korea would aggressively use nuclear weapons if they obtained them. CMV. I think that international pressure would keep NK from using a nuclear device against another state if they were to acquire one. Both China and Russia work as a big enough deterrence in the region, and the United States would likely support action against NK if a nuke was detonated. I believe North Korea is a rational actor which would not commit suicide through an open attack. All their displays of force and missile tests are for show and are simply meant to inspire fear in order for them to gain political leverage in the international community.

t3_6u8l7a

CMV: Laci Green has made a bad long term business decision by "taking the red pill""

I don't want to argue about what she said, and whether it was right or wrong, but I think she is in the process of losing mainstream credibility because of it. When I mean bad business decision, I mean she's seen as a sellout, sacrificing image for money There's a huge difference between her debating/reaching out to people like Sargon, and other youtubers like hbomberguy or contrapoints doing it. They have smaller channels, and almost no mainstream recognition, and therefore less to lose. She mentions the red pill, but "not in the pickup artist sense". Lets face it, she's not addressing Matrix fans. This won't matter to people who do google it, because they will likely find the redpill subreddit and see the sidebar. The next time someone thinks to invite her to an event, they will definitely think twice when they see this. She may not get on tv as easily either. She might get more youtube dosh, but it comes at the price of sacrificing credibility in the eyes of her audience and the mainstream. She has more subscribers than most of the people she's reaching out to. Another reason why I think it is a bad idea is that the people she's reaching out to haven't made the same concessions/sacrifices. They seem cautious at best, and not very enthusiastic, and their audiences will likely follow in the same vein. Just to clarify, I don't think she's done a 180 on her beliefs, imo she's just shifted enough to date ChrisRayGun. Maybe a forty degree turn. Considering she's a public figure, and that she hasn't spoken out about the difference between their views, I can understand the reaction from her fans. edit: some things that will change my view 1. showing me that pivot can be consistently *and* significantly more lucrative 2. proving that people don't care about this 3. other stuff I haven't thought of _____ > *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: Laci Green has made a bad long term business decision by "taking the red pill"". I don't want to argue about what she said, and whether it was right or wrong, but I think she is in the process of losing mainstream credibility because of it. When I mean bad business decision, I mean she's seen as a sellout, sacrificing image for money There's a huge difference between her debating/reaching out to people like Sargon, and other youtubers like hbomberguy or contrapoints doing it. They have smaller channels, and almost no mainstream recognition, and therefore less to lose. She mentions the red pill, but "not in the pickup artist sense". Lets face it, she's not addressing Matrix fans. This won't matter to people who do google it, because they will likely find the redpill subreddit and see the sidebar. The next time someone thinks to invite her to an event, they will definitely think twice when they see this. She may not get on tv as easily either. She might get more youtube dosh, but it comes at the price of sacrificing credibility in the eyes of her audience and the mainstream. She has more subscribers than most of the people she's reaching out to. Another reason why I think it is a bad idea is that the people she's reaching out to haven't made the same concessions/sacrifices. They seem cautious at best, and not very enthusiastic, and their audiences will likely follow in the same vein. Just to clarify, I don't think she's done a 180 on her beliefs, imo she's just shifted enough to date ChrisRayGun. Maybe a forty degree turn. Considering she's a public figure, and that she hasn't spoken out about the difference between their views, I can understand the reaction from her fans. edit: some things that will change my view 1. showing me that pivot can be consistently *and* significantly more lucrative 2. proving that people don't care about this 3. other stuff I haven't thought of

t3_3fhtb3

CMV: We are not better than the criminals we lock up in prison as we waste enormous amounts of resources on frivolous things while we could save lives

My idea stems from the following analogy: Scenario 1 John is a rich businessman and Caroline a homeless girl that will die in few days if she is not given some money for food. John does an action (stabbing) that result in Caroline to die. John is therefore responsible of another person's death. Scenario 2 Carl is a rich businessman and Jacob a homeless guy that will die in few days if he is not given some money for food. Carl does an action (ignoring Jacob's needs, spending his money on the last iPhone instead) that result in Jacob to die. Carl is therefore responsible of another person's death.

CMV: We are not better than the criminals we lock up in prison as we waste enormous amounts of resources on frivolous things while we could save lives. My idea stems from the following analogy: Scenario 1 John is a rich businessman and Caroline a homeless girl that will die in few days if she is not given some money for food. John does an action (stabbing) that result in Caroline to die. John is therefore responsible of another person's death. Scenario 2 Carl is a rich businessman and Jacob a homeless guy that will die in few days if he is not given some money for food. Carl does an action (ignoring Jacob's needs, spending his money on the last iPhone instead) that result in Jacob to die. Carl is therefore responsible of another person's death.

t3_38x28x

CMV: Kurt Cobain Is a bad musician.

Where do I start? His guitar playing is rudimentary at best, using either the four basic chords, or power chords. His lyrics were a joke, as he admitted. And finally: He was never on pitch singing, his howling was detestable, and easily replicated, and lastly: Little known to most "Nirvana fanboys/girls", nirvana did not start the grunge revolution, bands like soundgarden and the melvins started it. Kurt Cobain is hailed as a voice of a generation, but sitting at a technical standpoint he's just not very good. Grunge isn't about being bad, or being different. It's about doing something new, adjacent to the rules. Like Vedders Falsetto chirps, or cornells nasal scales. Not being off pitch and being a bad singer.

CMV: Kurt Cobain Is a bad musician. Where do I start? His guitar playing is rudimentary at best, using either the four basic chords, or power chords. His lyrics were a joke, as he admitted. And finally: He was never on pitch singing, his howling was detestable, and easily replicated, and lastly: Little known to most "Nirvana fanboys/girls", nirvana did not start the grunge revolution, bands like soundgarden and the melvins started it. Kurt Cobain is hailed as a voice of a generation, but sitting at a technical standpoint he's just not very good. Grunge isn't about being bad, or being different. It's about doing something new, adjacent to the rules. Like Vedders Falsetto chirps, or cornells nasal scales. Not being off pitch and being a bad singer.

t3_6u2168

CMV: The physical world does not exist the way it is perceived

I believe the qualities and attributes of physical matter are created and manifested in our minds. Every sense, such as, smell, touch, taste, feel etc. do not belong to an object we perceive, but rather belong to the mind of the person viewing an object. Therefore, there is little to know about the intrinsic value of the physical world, and we have little reason to accept it in the way it is sensed. To further my point, I would like to ask you to imagine two men. One man is completely colorblind and only sees the world in black and white. The other man can see every color a completely capable man would see. Both men find themselves staring at a scarf. The colorblind man sees a black and white scarf and accepts this as the real scarf. He claims the scarf is colorless and that is what the scarf truly is. The not colorblind man sees the same scarf and claims that the colorblind man is wrong and in fact this scarf is truly a beautiful, colorful scarf that consists of every color of the rainbow. The non-colorblind man claims the colorblind man will never see the scarf the way it truly is. If the scarf is truly colorful, why is it that when we lack the tools to interpret the color through our senses, that color no longer exists to us. Can we assume that color exists only in our senses and not in the object? Since our senses are part of our mind, does that color only exist in the human mind and not outside of it? Science would tell us that the scarf produces a certain wave length of light which pass through our eyes, and then is interpreted by our brains. Can we go as far as to say any object is any color? Rather it produces a wavelength and our brains produce a corresponding color based on the way we evolved to perceive the world. If color belongs to our brains and not the object, is the color outside the mind just a collection of wavelengths? Can we assume this is the case with every other sense or perception? My goal is to prove that every sense or perception does not belong to the to the physical world, rather it is produced and is unique to our human brains. Science tells us the way the physical world seems to be, but our senses is just the way we evolved to interpret vibrations, wavelengths and other energy around us. If this is true what can we say about the intrinsic value of the world? Can it ever be truly perceived by people? Are we constantly viewing our world through a median that changes and warps the world to our evolutionary advantage? I am asking you to prove to me that we see the world for what it really is. Is the physical world colorful, hot, cold dark, loud, etc. or are all those senses a product of our minds interpretation of an unknown realm that remains unperceivable. _____ > *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 physical world does not exist the way it is perceived. I believe the qualities and attributes of physical matter are created and manifested in our minds. Every sense, such as, smell, touch, taste, feel etc. do not belong to an object we perceive, but rather belong to the mind of the person viewing an object. Therefore, there is little to know about the intrinsic value of the physical world, and we have little reason to accept it in the way it is sensed. To further my point, I would like to ask you to imagine two men. One man is completely colorblind and only sees the world in black and white. The other man can see every color a completely capable man would see. Both men find themselves staring at a scarf. The colorblind man sees a black and white scarf and accepts this as the real scarf. He claims the scarf is colorless and that is what the scarf truly is. The not colorblind man sees the same scarf and claims that the colorblind man is wrong and in fact this scarf is truly a beautiful, colorful scarf that consists of every color of the rainbow. The non-colorblind man claims the colorblind man will never see the scarf the way it truly is. If the scarf is truly colorful, why is it that when we lack the tools to interpret the color through our senses, that color no longer exists to us. Can we assume that color exists only in our senses and not in the object? Since our senses are part of our mind, does that color only exist in the human mind and not outside of it? Science would tell us that the scarf produces a certain wave length of light which pass through our eyes, and then is interpreted by our brains. Can we go as far as to say any object is any color? Rather it produces a wavelength and our brains produce a corresponding color based on the way we evolved to perceive the world. If color belongs to our brains and not the object, is the color outside the mind just a collection of wavelengths? Can we assume this is the case with every other sense or perception? My goal is to prove that every sense or perception does not belong to the to the physical world, rather it is produced and is unique to our human brains. Science tells us the way the physical world seems to be, but our senses is just the way we evolved to interpret vibrations, wavelengths and other energy around us. If this is true what can we say about the intrinsic value of the world? Can it ever be truly perceived by people? Are we constantly viewing our world through a median that changes and warps the world to our evolutionary advantage? I am asking you to prove to me that we see the world for what it really is. Is the physical world colorful, hot, cold dark, loud, etc. or are all those senses a product of our minds interpretation of an unknown realm that remains unperceivable.

t3_20p2st

Under Almost No Circumstances Is It Acceptable to Shoot an Unarmed Person CMV

EDIT1: I feel I need to rephrase the view I currently hold: **Under almost no circumstances is it morally permissible to shoot and kill an unarmed individual.** The caveat being situations in which someone has threatened harm and/or is in the act of trying to harm you, the use of force is permissible. That said, killing someone when you have the capacity to disarm/render them a non-threat is still wrong. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Over the past year a number of cases made the news wherein someone armed with a gun has shot and killed an unarmed person due to negligence, misunderstanding, or the escalation of a trite conflict. While I don't want to want to delve too deep into identity politics, I think it's noteworthy that a large percentage of these victims are young minority men; a population that is not often protected/given empathy by the general public. I'm hesitant to say that this type of crime is increasing in frequency, but our awareness of it has skyrocketed due to the way in which media has become interconnected. What prompted this CMV was [this case in particular.](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlikely-for-houston-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/) Long story short: a father found a 17 year old boy in his 16 year old daughter's bed at 2:30am, the daughter said she didn't know him and the dad ends up shooting him in the head, killing him. Turns out the guy was her boyfriend and completely unarmed. Talking to some acquaintances that grew up in Detroit during the 70s/80s, the attitude that it's okay to use deadly force on unarmed individuals is acceptable is relatively new, even in the case of home intruders. To some extent I get the desire to protect oneself/one's family/one's community, but it seems like too often this results in "shoot first, ask questions later" situations in which an innocent person is killed. In the context of this article, the father had a 17 year old, and I would guess at least partially undressed boy at gunpoint and *kills* him because he moved his hands in a way that the father interpreted as reaching for a weapon. The argument that the father did this in self-defense completely ignores the inherent power dynamic of that situation by casting the person with the gun as the "victim," and thereby justifying harsh actions they choose to take. I'm all for Second Amendment rights, but with the caveat that gun owners use their guns responsibly. Over and over we hear people talk about how they own a gun for protection, but rarely do we hear about that resulting in the saving of a life. *Particularly in the case that the person is visibly unarmed and authorities are on their way*, I believe it's irresponsible and unacceptable to shoot an individual. CMV Note: I'll likely edit the OP to add new points and clarify existing ones as I receive comments. Sorry if anything is initially confusing!

Under Almost No Circumstances Is It Acceptable to Shoot an Unarmed Person CMV. EDIT1: I feel I need to rephrase the view I currently hold: **Under almost no circumstances is it morally permissible to shoot and kill an unarmed individual.** The caveat being situations in which someone has threatened harm and/or is in the act of trying to harm you, the use of force is permissible. That said, killing someone when you have the capacity to disarm/render them a non-threat is still wrong. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Over the past year a number of cases made the news wherein someone armed with a gun has shot and killed an unarmed person due to negligence, misunderstanding, or the escalation of a trite conflict. While I don't want to want to delve too deep into identity politics, I think it's noteworthy that a large percentage of these victims are young minority men; a population that is not often protected/given empathy by the general public. I'm hesitant to say that this type of crime is increasing in frequency, but our awareness of it has skyrocketed due to the way in which media has become interconnected. What prompted this CMV was [this case in particular.](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlikely-for-houston-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/) Long story short: a father found a 17 year old boy in his 16 year old daughter's bed at 2:30am, the daughter said she didn't know him and the dad ends up shooting him in the head, killing him. Turns out the guy was her boyfriend and completely unarmed. Talking to some acquaintances that grew up in Detroit during the 70s/80s, the attitude that it's okay to use deadly force on unarmed individuals is acceptable is relatively new, even in the case of home intruders. To some extent I get the desire to protect oneself/one's family/one's community, but it seems like too often this results in "shoot first, ask questions later" situations in which an innocent person is killed. In the context of this article, the father had a 17 year old, and I would guess at least partially undressed boy at gunpoint and *kills* him because he moved his hands in a way that the father interpreted as reaching for a weapon. The argument that the father did this in self-defense completely ignores the inherent power dynamic of that situation by casting the person with the gun as the "victim," and thereby justifying harsh actions they choose to take. I'm all for Second Amendment rights, but with the caveat that gun owners use their guns responsibly. Over and over we hear people talk about how they own a gun for protection, but rarely do we hear about that resulting in the saving of a life. *Particularly in the case that the person is visibly unarmed and authorities are on their way*, I believe it's irresponsible and unacceptable to shoot an individual. CMV Note: I'll likely edit the OP to add new points and clarify existing ones as I receive comments. Sorry if anything is initially confusing!

t3_550wba

CMV: I believe it would be stupid to institute an assault weapons ban in the US.

This is the definition of assault weapon I am talking about: > Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon It would be banning a weapon that is not a threat. Out of the 11961 murders in the US during 2015, only 248 occurred with rifles of any kind. To put this into perspective 1567 murders occurred with knives, 435 with blunt objects, and 5562 occurred with handguns. I do not believe that to be enough of a problem to ban them. It would not ban equally effective rifles. A Ruger Mini 14 is a semiautomatic 5.56 carbine that uses a box magazine, yet is not considered an assault weapon even though for all intents and purposes it is just as effective as a AR15 which is one. Another similar case is with the M1A and the AR10. All of these weapons were modeled after guns used by the US military and are effective designs. The cost of such a ban would vastly outweigh the benefits Even if such a ban reduced the number of rifle deaths by 100%, such a ban would cost so much that more lives could be saved elsewhere for far cheaper Mini 14: https://imgur.com/gallery/zMtKFZA M1A: https://imgur.com/gallery/PPcKwP5 AR 15 and AR 10: https://imgur.com/gallery/iMo8k5E Murder by weapon type: https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe it would be stupid to institute an assault weapons ban in the US. This is the definition of assault weapon I am talking about: > Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon It would be banning a weapon that is not a threat. Out of the 11961 murders in the US during 2015, only 248 occurred with rifles of any kind. To put this into perspective 1567 murders occurred with knives, 435 with blunt objects, and 5562 occurred with handguns. I do not believe that to be enough of a problem to ban them. It would not ban equally effective rifles. A Ruger Mini 14 is a semiautomatic 5.56 carbine that uses a box magazine, yet is not considered an assault weapon even though for all intents and purposes it is just as effective as a AR15 which is one. Another similar case is with the M1A and the AR10. All of these weapons were modeled after guns used by the US military and are effective designs. The cost of such a ban would vastly outweigh the benefits Even if such a ban reduced the number of rifle deaths by 100%, such a ban would cost so much that more lives could be saved elsewhere for far cheaper Mini 14: https://imgur.com/gallery/zMtKFZA M1A: https://imgur.com/gallery/PPcKwP5 AR 15 and AR 10: https://imgur.com/gallery/iMo8k5E Murder by weapon type: https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

t3_1yxnwd

I think CrossFit is not only an annoying fitness fad, but dangerous to most participants. CMV...

I have been involved in weight training and exercise science for roughly a decade, and from about 2010 to the present, CrossFit seems to have exploded as a fitness fad. Like previous and current fitness fads, from Tae Bo to P90X to Insanity, CrossFit seems to attract *primarily* inexperienced individuals. Below, I will explain the various safety concerns I have seen with CrossFit, and why they are dangerous: 1) CrossFit instructors do not go through a rigorous certification program like traditional ACSM or ACE personal trainers. CrossFit Level 1 certification is a two-day course, while ACSM, ACE, and comparable certifications take six-twelve months to complete. While *some* CrossFit instructors may possess additional credentials, there is no way for the general public (without extensive prior knowledge of the exercise science field and certification process) to evaluate a CrossFit instructor's credentials effectively. Inexperienced newcomers will be especially ill-equipped to evaluate the quality of instruction. 2) CrossFit is not based on sound exercise science. Traditional lifting techniques have developed over decades of ongoing exercise science research, and methods such as low repetitions for complex lifts (to reduce fatigue and thus limit poor form) developed specifically to prevent injury. CrossFit chooses to ignore mountains of data and basic safety precautions, without any kind of explanation for doing so. Additionally, CrossFit does not place an emphasis on correct form *as a general rule* (I know some "boxes" run counter to this rule). Combining complex lifts, fatigue, *and* general lack of emphasis on form constitutes **actively increasing the risk of serious injury.** Proper training should mitigate this risk as much as possible. 3) CrossFit actively encourages muscular over-use. The "Uncle Rhabdo" mascot/concept trivializes very real risks to participants, who generally lack the experience to know when enough truly is enough. So to summarize, briefly, a combination of poor trainer credentialing and certification, inexperienced participants unable to evaluate trainer experience, the primary use of complex lifts beyond the point of fatigue, and the glorification of rhabdomyolysis (a very serious medical condition induced by extreme muscle fatigue), make CrossFit not merely an annoying fad, but **actively dangerous to most participants**. CMV!

I think CrossFit is not only an annoying fitness fad, but dangerous to most participants. CMV... I have been involved in weight training and exercise science for roughly a decade, and from about 2010 to the present, CrossFit seems to have exploded as a fitness fad. Like previous and current fitness fads, from Tae Bo to P90X to Insanity, CrossFit seems to attract *primarily* inexperienced individuals. Below, I will explain the various safety concerns I have seen with CrossFit, and why they are dangerous: 1) CrossFit instructors do not go through a rigorous certification program like traditional ACSM or ACE personal trainers. CrossFit Level 1 certification is a two-day course, while ACSM, ACE, and comparable certifications take six-twelve months to complete. While *some* CrossFit instructors may possess additional credentials, there is no way for the general public (without extensive prior knowledge of the exercise science field and certification process) to evaluate a CrossFit instructor's credentials effectively. Inexperienced newcomers will be especially ill-equipped to evaluate the quality of instruction. 2) CrossFit is not based on sound exercise science. Traditional lifting techniques have developed over decades of ongoing exercise science research, and methods such as low repetitions for complex lifts (to reduce fatigue and thus limit poor form) developed specifically to prevent injury. CrossFit chooses to ignore mountains of data and basic safety precautions, without any kind of explanation for doing so. Additionally, CrossFit does not place an emphasis on correct form *as a general rule* (I know some "boxes" run counter to this rule). Combining complex lifts, fatigue, *and* general lack of emphasis on form constitutes **actively increasing the risk of serious injury.** Proper training should mitigate this risk as much as possible. 3) CrossFit actively encourages muscular over-use. The "Uncle Rhabdo" mascot/concept trivializes very real risks to participants, who generally lack the experience to know when enough truly is enough. So to summarize, briefly, a combination of poor trainer credentialing and certification, inexperienced participants unable to evaluate trainer experience, the primary use of complex lifts beyond the point of fatigue, and the glorification of rhabdomyolysis (a very serious medical condition induced by extreme muscle fatigue), make CrossFit not merely an annoying fad, but **actively dangerous to most participants**. CMV!

t3_21j776

CMV: I don't think you can be straight or gay

I think that "straight", "gay", "lesbian" or other labels of this kind that we constantly use are unneccessary and wrong. For me, there is no sexual orientation, and I'm a strong believer that "you fall in love with a person, not with a gender". Being "insert sexual orientation here" should, if at all, be something resctricted to an exact moment, like "At the moment, I'm in a heterosexual relationship", not "I'm straight". (like, forever and indefinitely). Sexual Orientation shouldn't be part of your personality. It's just the way you act in this very moment. For example: If my boyfriend happened to be a woman, I would still want to be in a relationship with him (her) and have the same romantic attachment to him (her). You can never know, what if you meet someone - "the one" - and this person happens to be of the same gender as you, but you identify as heterosexual? Would you still fall in love with this person? I believe you would. Would you magically transform into a "gay person"? No, because there is no such thing. You can and should just love them as you are. Maybe you were in lesbian relationships your whole life, and it just happens that you fall in love with a man. Life is unpredictable, and love shouldn't have such labels. This whole thing is what bugs me so much about a definite "I am xyz", because, anything can happen really and you shouldn't have to question your "orientation" or your whole definition of yourself because of it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think you can be straight or gay. I think that "straight", "gay", "lesbian" or other labels of this kind that we constantly use are unneccessary and wrong. For me, there is no sexual orientation, and I'm a strong believer that "you fall in love with a person, not with a gender". Being "insert sexual orientation here" should, if at all, be something resctricted to an exact moment, like "At the moment, I'm in a heterosexual relationship", not "I'm straight". (like, forever and indefinitely). Sexual Orientation shouldn't be part of your personality. It's just the way you act in this very moment. For example: If my boyfriend happened to be a woman, I would still want to be in a relationship with him (her) and have the same romantic attachment to him (her). You can never know, what if you meet someone - "the one" - and this person happens to be of the same gender as you, but you identify as heterosexual? Would you still fall in love with this person? I believe you would. Would you magically transform into a "gay person"? No, because there is no such thing. You can and should just love them as you are. Maybe you were in lesbian relationships your whole life, and it just happens that you fall in love with a man. Life is unpredictable, and love shouldn't have such labels. This whole thing is what bugs me so much about a definite "I am xyz", because, anything can happen really and you shouldn't have to question your "orientation" or your whole definition of yourself because of it.

t3_3ch04i

CMV: For the sake of costume, it is completely acceptable to attempt to lighten/darken your skin color.

On the internet recently, I see media controversies over photos that emerge of people that have lightened or darkened their skin color while attempting to portray a character, or real person. Example: [CNN coverage of Paula Dean Photograph that sparked controversy over 'brownface](http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/living/paula-deen-brownface-feat/?sr=fb070715pauladeenbrownface4pStoryGallLink)' In this [photo](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150707125107-paula-deen-brownface-tweet-exlarge-169.jpg) she is clearly trying to re-create or pay homage to 'I Love Lucy' - In this TV show Lucy is married to the Cuban-American [Ricky Ricardo.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_and_Ricky_Ricardo) If you have seen this show you know that a defining aspect of Ricky is his vibrance which coincides with his nationality. I don't see how changing the color of your skin in order to more accurately represent a person or character is in any way racist or controversial. People generally respect costumes for their: Effort, Accuracy, Creativity, Execution. For example if my costume was to dress up like Obama - I can not simply put on a suit with a flag pin - many people would be more likely to interpret that as just some politician. However, if I were to put in the effort and used makeup to darken my skin color to more accurately depict the character. More people would be likely to 'get it' which should be the goal of any costume. _____ > *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: For the sake of costume, it is completely acceptable to attempt to lighten/darken your skin color. On the internet recently, I see media controversies over photos that emerge of people that have lightened or darkened their skin color while attempting to portray a character, or real person. Example: [CNN coverage of Paula Dean Photograph that sparked controversy over 'brownface](http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/living/paula-deen-brownface-feat/?sr=fb070715pauladeenbrownface4pStoryGallLink)' In this [photo](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150707125107-paula-deen-brownface-tweet-exlarge-169.jpg) she is clearly trying to re-create or pay homage to 'I Love Lucy' - In this TV show Lucy is married to the Cuban-American [Ricky Ricardo.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_and_Ricky_Ricardo) If you have seen this show you know that a defining aspect of Ricky is his vibrance which coincides with his nationality. I don't see how changing the color of your skin in order to more accurately represent a person or character is in any way racist or controversial. People generally respect costumes for their: Effort, Accuracy, Creativity, Execution. For example if my costume was to dress up like Obama - I can not simply put on a suit with a flag pin - many people would be more likely to interpret that as just some politician. However, if I were to put in the effort and used makeup to darken my skin color to more accurately depict the character. More people would be likely to 'get it' which should be the goal of any costume.

t3_6lsuj6

CMV: Cooking and modern-day cuisine is symboloc of poverty, slavery, and low social status.

Cooking is a low status activity, it only became necessary in times of poverty when fresh fruit was unavailable due to wandering away from the tropics. People are addicted to starch, blood, salt, and fungus-based foods in the same way as drug addicts. Once you develop the internal culture for those foods, you'll seek them even if given fresh, ripe fruits. Cookies are a low status symbol and they're iconic of slave food. How would the cookie have originated? Start with the basic ingredients: wheat (seeds from grass), milk (taken from an unwilling herbivore), eggs (collected from a bird's nest), salt (crystals collected from boiling down sea water) ... For the wheat to be edible it is first ground into a powder, then mixed with the other two ingredients. The batter is then exposed to fungal activity, which helps break the starch into sugar and enables it to rise. It's then cooked to further develop the starch into sugar. Keep in mind the main thing we're searching for in all of this is sugar or that sweet taste. That's provided primarily by wheat in polysaccharide form, then by the milk in disaccharide form. As simple sugars are scarce, we're dropping down to our secondary fuel source: fats, provided in milk and eggs. As potassium and other electrolytes are also scarce, we're substituting them with sodium in the form of inorganic salt. You now find agriculture, cooking, restaurants, bakeries, butchers, etc. are just leftovers from a history of adapting to having our primary food source (fruits) taken away, and nutritional theories are ass backwards in the sense that they originate from studies done on people using these poverty foods as a foundation for a healthy human, rather than an islander who lacks our bad habits of cooking, meat and starch eating, salting, and food combining. When you have an abundance of nutritionally complete food available to you you don't have to piece together whatever scraps you can scrounge together in order to make a meal, you just sit by a tree and eat till you are satisfied.

CMV: Cooking and modern-day cuisine is symboloc of poverty, slavery, and low social status. Cooking is a low status activity, it only became necessary in times of poverty when fresh fruit was unavailable due to wandering away from the tropics. People are addicted to starch, blood, salt, and fungus-based foods in the same way as drug addicts. Once you develop the internal culture for those foods, you'll seek them even if given fresh, ripe fruits. Cookies are a low status symbol and they're iconic of slave food. How would the cookie have originated? Start with the basic ingredients: wheat (seeds from grass), milk (taken from an unwilling herbivore), eggs (collected from a bird's nest), salt (crystals collected from boiling down sea water) ... For the wheat to be edible it is first ground into a powder, then mixed with the other two ingredients. The batter is then exposed to fungal activity, which helps break the starch into sugar and enables it to rise. It's then cooked to further develop the starch into sugar. Keep in mind the main thing we're searching for in all of this is sugar or that sweet taste. That's provided primarily by wheat in polysaccharide form, then by the milk in disaccharide form. As simple sugars are scarce, we're dropping down to our secondary fuel source: fats, provided in milk and eggs. As potassium and other electrolytes are also scarce, we're substituting them with sodium in the form of inorganic salt. You now find agriculture, cooking, restaurants, bakeries, butchers, etc. are just leftovers from a history of adapting to having our primary food source (fruits) taken away, and nutritional theories are ass backwards in the sense that they originate from studies done on people using these poverty foods as a foundation for a healthy human, rather than an islander who lacks our bad habits of cooking, meat and starch eating, salting, and food combining. When you have an abundance of nutritionally complete food available to you you don't have to piece together whatever scraps you can scrounge together in order to make a meal, you just sit by a tree and eat till you are satisfied.

t3_1oe434

I don't like impressions and impersonations. CMV.

I see a lot of people enjoy impressions because of the thousands of videos out there with hundreds of thousands of views. Saturday Night Live also does a lot of them of celebrities. I think they are weird. I get a cringe feeling when I watch them and usually have to look away. I don't know the exact reason, but it may have something to do with the weird faces people make when doing impressions or if they mess up they look rather stupid. I want to be able to enjoy impressions too. This is the only impression video I've been able to enjoy and it's probably because its more like a cover and the guy looks like he's having the time of his life [HERE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR0oclr_Tr8) I like Jay Pharaoh, but I really can't stand watching this, even though he is doing a good job. [HERE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcC_HcKjRX8) Edit: The commenters helped me realize why I don't like them and it may be irreversible.

I don't like impressions and impersonations. CMV. I see a lot of people enjoy impressions because of the thousands of videos out there with hundreds of thousands of views. Saturday Night Live also does a lot of them of celebrities. I think they are weird. I get a cringe feeling when I watch them and usually have to look away. I don't know the exact reason, but it may have something to do with the weird faces people make when doing impressions or if they mess up they look rather stupid. I want to be able to enjoy impressions too. This is the only impression video I've been able to enjoy and it's probably because its more like a cover and the guy looks like he's having the time of his life [HERE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR0oclr_Tr8) I like Jay Pharaoh, but I really can't stand watching this, even though he is doing a good job. [HERE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcC_HcKjRX8) Edit: The commenters helped me realize why I don't like them and it may be irreversible.

t3_71xd69

CMV: all those humanitarian campaigns helping mortality in Africa are a ticking timebomb

Simply put, [this graph](https://imgur.com/a/Du2VE) should be much more worrying to everybody out there thinking of the future. There are countless of campaigns focusing on helping somehow the poorer parts of Africa, but this graph shows something very few seems to think much about. Where are all these young people going to go once the become adults and realize they have little to no opportunities in countries were they were born? Why is no humanitarian cause talking about Africa being the biggest population boom in the World, while [even the UN is concerned about total world population growth](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12338901)?

CMV: all those humanitarian campaigns helping mortality in Africa are a ticking timebomb. Simply put, [this graph](https://imgur.com/a/Du2VE) should be much more worrying to everybody out there thinking of the future. There are countless of campaigns focusing on helping somehow the poorer parts of Africa, but this graph shows something very few seems to think much about. Where are all these young people going to go once the become adults and realize they have little to no opportunities in countries were they were born? Why is no humanitarian cause talking about Africa being the biggest population boom in the World, while [even the UN is concerned about total world population growth](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12338901)?

t3_1oev9q

I believe that men are just plain better, biologically suited to accomplish more and any perceived patriarchy is a result of this. CMV

To clear things up, first of all, what i mean about the patriarchy part is that men's accomplishments just naturally put them at the top of the pyramid eg. inventing things or being a better hunter makes them more *I don't really have any statistics on this but it seems to me that in almost any measure men have achieved more than women. Science and mathematics are hands down dominated by men. The 4 I believe to have had the biggest impact on science and mathematics are all men:Euclid,Newton, Einstein and Darwin. People will point out people like Mary Curie but for every Mary Curie there are 5 other well known men scientists with comparable or better achievemen *In athletics, again, the fastest person has always been a man same for strongest or most athletically intelligent (eg. Peyton Manning being able to read a defense). *The closest area is probably literature and arts. The greatest English writer is very arguably and widely considered to be Shakespeare and for art name any Renaissance artist, all better than any woman artist I have ever heard of. * Men have also dominated politics. Genghis khan had the largest land empire, the founders of the united states were all or mostly men and even today most of the world leaders are men. * Finally, I'm guessing the main arguments used to try and CMV are going to be about how men have systematically oppressed women and about women's childcaring abilites. My question has always been if women are equal or greater than men, why did they allow themselves to be oppressed. I'll concede childcare as something that women are better at but i don't think that's anything compared to how much men have achieved. So reddit, CMV.

I believe that men are just plain better, biologically suited to accomplish more and any perceived patriarchy is a result of this. CMV. To clear things up, first of all, what i mean about the patriarchy part is that men's accomplishments just naturally put them at the top of the pyramid eg. inventing things or being a better hunter makes them more *I don't really have any statistics on this but it seems to me that in almost any measure men have achieved more than women. Science and mathematics are hands down dominated by men. The 4 I believe to have had the biggest impact on science and mathematics are all men:Euclid,Newton, Einstein and Darwin. People will point out people like Mary Curie but for every Mary Curie there are 5 other well known men scientists with comparable or better achievemen *In athletics, again, the fastest person has always been a man same for strongest or most athletically intelligent (eg. Peyton Manning being able to read a defense). *The closest area is probably literature and arts. The greatest English writer is very arguably and widely considered to be Shakespeare and for art name any Renaissance artist, all better than any woman artist I have ever heard of. * Men have also dominated politics. Genghis khan had the largest land empire, the founders of the united states were all or mostly men and even today most of the world leaders are men. * Finally, I'm guessing the main arguments used to try and CMV are going to be about how men have systematically oppressed women and about women's childcaring abilites. My question has always been if women are equal or greater than men, why did they allow themselves to be oppressed. I'll concede childcare as something that women are better at but i don't think that's anything compared to how much men have achieved. So reddit, CMV.

t3_241a46

CMV:I don't feel enough information exists about the potential health risks from second hand exposure to electronic cigarettes and I don't feel they should be allowed to smoke indoors.

I am not aware of any longitudinal studies about the potential health risks. Every time I see someone smoking them inside, whether it's a bar, restaurant, or any other public setting, I can't help but feel that in the future people will look back on us and think, "didn't they know any better?" To me it feels like watching Mad Men and seeing everyone smoke or that scene from Dazed and Confused where the pharmacist gives that woman health advice while selling her cigarettes. I'm not against smoking but I feel that it should not be allowed indoors. Please give me a fresh perspective and educate me if I'm wrong. I'm looking forward to any responses. _____ > *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 feel enough information exists about the potential health risks from second hand exposure to electronic cigarettes and I don't feel they should be allowed to smoke indoors. I am not aware of any longitudinal studies about the potential health risks. Every time I see someone smoking them inside, whether it's a bar, restaurant, or any other public setting, I can't help but feel that in the future people will look back on us and think, "didn't they know any better?" To me it feels like watching Mad Men and seeing everyone smoke or that scene from Dazed and Confused where the pharmacist gives that woman health advice while selling her cigarettes. I'm not against smoking but I feel that it should not be allowed indoors. Please give me a fresh perspective and educate me if I'm wrong. I'm looking forward to any responses.

t3_2rspje

CMV: Pugs

I have some major beef with pugs. I understand that this is purely a taste issue and that I can't speak for everyone when I say that pugs are easily the worst dogs you can have. Pugs have a long line of health issues stemming from bad breeding. They have more health issues that they are prone to than any dog I have ever heard of. Specifically: * They can barely breathe without suffocating * Their faces are where the top of their fucking head should be so if they run into something they risk their facial structure * Unless you can somehow make them muster up their energy, they **WILL** get obese regardless of diet. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_meningoencephalitis * 2/3 chance at getting [Hip Dysplasia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_dysplasia_\(canine\)) You can bring up the fact that they are some of the most sweet and loving dogs that there are. This may be true, but I don't fully agree and I think there is some missing information in this argument. I believe that these dogs are only so nice to be around is because they are so dumb that they can't tell the difference between a threat and a friend. These dogs will run up to a robber and lick his hand. At least other small dogs would have the sense to be sketched out at first. *This is not a home defense argument - I'm aware that other small dogs stand no chance at guarding a home either* They are ugly. Holy christ they are ugly. Imagine with me for a second - what if there were different breeds of humans. Now imagine one breed that had a scrunched in face, wide eyes, a consistent frown, and get so fat that they can't turn their necks. That's the pug race. Some can argue that their features are cute and part of their charm. I once again, do not agree. I think they are in that grey zone of not so ugly that it's sickening, but just ugly enough to make people feel bad for them. They are lazy. You can not make these dogs do anything that exerts too much energy. Even if you do -- make sure it's not too hot outside or else they could overheat and die. Keep in mind, you must get them to both exert effort and not overheat, otherwise they will get fat and die. Congratulations; this breed is so stupid it's setting itself up for failure. 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: Pugs. I have some major beef with pugs. I understand that this is purely a taste issue and that I can't speak for everyone when I say that pugs are easily the worst dogs you can have. Pugs have a long line of health issues stemming from bad breeding. They have more health issues that they are prone to than any dog I have ever heard of. Specifically: * They can barely breathe without suffocating * Their faces are where the top of their fucking head should be so if they run into something they risk their facial structure * Unless you can somehow make them muster up their energy, they **WILL** get obese regardless of diet. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_meningoencephalitis * 2/3 chance at getting [Hip Dysplasia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_dysplasia_\(canine\)) You can bring up the fact that they are some of the most sweet and loving dogs that there are. This may be true, but I don't fully agree and I think there is some missing information in this argument. I believe that these dogs are only so nice to be around is because they are so dumb that they can't tell the difference between a threat and a friend. These dogs will run up to a robber and lick his hand. At least other small dogs would have the sense to be sketched out at first. *This is not a home defense argument - I'm aware that other small dogs stand no chance at guarding a home either* They are ugly. Holy christ they are ugly. Imagine with me for a second - what if there were different breeds of humans. Now imagine one breed that had a scrunched in face, wide eyes, a consistent frown, and get so fat that they can't turn their necks. That's the pug race. Some can argue that their features are cute and part of their charm. I once again, do not agree. I think they are in that grey zone of not so ugly that it's sickening, but just ugly enough to make people feel bad for them. They are lazy. You can not make these dogs do anything that exerts too much energy. Even if you do -- make sure it's not too hot outside or else they could overheat and die. Keep in mind, you must get them to both exert effort and not overheat, otherwise they will get fat and die. Congratulations; this breed is so stupid it's setting itself up for failure. Change my view.

t3_2byhr0

CMV:I think size does matter, but 'Largely' due to Porn

I'm not going to deny that it is likely that for hundreds of years there has been an association between size/height and masculinity. In this, men being either Tall or well-built fits with this notion of masculinity. The male sex organ is often seen as the 'most sexual' part of a man's body...in culture and art and literature the penis stands in for a man. A man can be ' a dick' or 'a prick' or any other number of metonymies/synechodochies that substitute the man for his member. Studies I have seen focused on either women preferring longer penises visually but with diminishing returns after a certain point, or on women preferring the stimulation brought by girth rather than length. Here enters the porn debacle. In a race to the longest, porn has encouraged larger and larger penises, allegedly to enmasculate the male viewer, the competition has resulted in 'genetic miracles' being 'the norm in porn'. This is arguably, similar to women judging themselves according to waifer thin, impossible beautiful and proportioned super models. The issue here as well is that porn is informed by American values and reflective of them.Bigger is better is something that is ubiquitous in american culture where that comes to monster trucks, fast food meals or penises. Porn has more and more influenced popular culture in the last 20 years. Most women have seen porn and its hard to imagine it is not influencing their tastes, although men have practically no power to change their penis size. In addition to this are all the difficulties with judging penis size, the angle looked from, how overweight the bearer is, the woman or mans previous experience and so on. I have a feeling women tend to overestimate the inches of their Bfs penises, not the relative size but the absolute size in inches. 6 inches is the norm but women talk as though every guy they date is a 7-10 incher...which are stastically pretty rare compared to 5-6. If penis size 'didnt matter' then dildos would be 3 inches not 8 inches. It matters but most of the mattering us probably down to tastes, tastes formulated by porn.And if porn really does cater to mens fantasies of larger phalluses, then men have literally fucked themselves over. _____ > *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 size does matter, but 'Largely' due to Porn. I'm not going to deny that it is likely that for hundreds of years there has been an association between size/height and masculinity. In this, men being either Tall or well-built fits with this notion of masculinity. The male sex organ is often seen as the 'most sexual' part of a man's body...in culture and art and literature the penis stands in for a man. A man can be ' a dick' or 'a prick' or any other number of metonymies/synechodochies that substitute the man for his member. Studies I have seen focused on either women preferring longer penises visually but with diminishing returns after a certain point, or on women preferring the stimulation brought by girth rather than length. Here enters the porn debacle. In a race to the longest, porn has encouraged larger and larger penises, allegedly to enmasculate the male viewer, the competition has resulted in 'genetic miracles' being 'the norm in porn'. This is arguably, similar to women judging themselves according to waifer thin, impossible beautiful and proportioned super models. The issue here as well is that porn is informed by American values and reflective of them.Bigger is better is something that is ubiquitous in american culture where that comes to monster trucks, fast food meals or penises. Porn has more and more influenced popular culture in the last 20 years. Most women have seen porn and its hard to imagine it is not influencing their tastes, although men have practically no power to change their penis size. In addition to this are all the difficulties with judging penis size, the angle looked from, how overweight the bearer is, the woman or mans previous experience and so on. I have a feeling women tend to overestimate the inches of their Bfs penises, not the relative size but the absolute size in inches. 6 inches is the norm but women talk as though every guy they date is a 7-10 incher...which are stastically pretty rare compared to 5-6. If penis size 'didnt matter' then dildos would be 3 inches not 8 inches. It matters but most of the mattering us probably down to tastes, tastes formulated by porn.And if porn really does cater to mens fantasies of larger phalluses, then men have literally fucked themselves over.

t3_6668m8

CMV: All social justice movements (feminism, BLM, LGBTQA equality, etc) should abandon their individual "labels" and unify under a single Egalitarian movement.

My belief is that having separate terms for each of these equality movements just muddies the waters and makes the already somewhat vague principles of each movement more difficult to nail down. There is power in numbers and having all these groups come together under a single title that is all encompassing would benefit everyone involved. Anyone who is fighting for equal rights for their respective movement is extremely likely to believe in equal rights for other groups too. I believe it would be extremely difficult to find a feminist who doesn't believe blacks should have equal rights as whites, for example. A potential way of changing my view would be to prove this assumption false, FYI. There's also the added benefit of increased social pressure to identify as an egalitarian. Imagine if a politician, who didn't support marriage equality, refused to identify as egalitarian. That would immediately imply he does not want equal rights for everyone which sounds a lot more insane opposing individual beliefs, such as marriage equality for the gays/lesbians. In effect, it would be much easier to "single out" individuals who weren't supportive because the term egalitarian is so broad. This would help push the movement's message across the political and social spectrum. Did I explain that well? I don't feel like I did haha. Ultimately I think the biggest benefit is the simplicity of an egalitarian message. Equal rights for all people regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. _____ > *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: All social justice movements (feminism, BLM, LGBTQA equality, etc) should abandon their individual "labels" and unify under a single Egalitarian movement. My belief is that having separate terms for each of these equality movements just muddies the waters and makes the already somewhat vague principles of each movement more difficult to nail down. There is power in numbers and having all these groups come together under a single title that is all encompassing would benefit everyone involved. Anyone who is fighting for equal rights for their respective movement is extremely likely to believe in equal rights for other groups too. I believe it would be extremely difficult to find a feminist who doesn't believe blacks should have equal rights as whites, for example. A potential way of changing my view would be to prove this assumption false, FYI. There's also the added benefit of increased social pressure to identify as an egalitarian. Imagine if a politician, who didn't support marriage equality, refused to identify as egalitarian. That would immediately imply he does not want equal rights for everyone which sounds a lot more insane opposing individual beliefs, such as marriage equality for the gays/lesbians. In effect, it would be much easier to "single out" individuals who weren't supportive because the term egalitarian is so broad. This would help push the movement's message across the political and social spectrum. Did I explain that well? I don't feel like I did haha. Ultimately I think the biggest benefit is the simplicity of an egalitarian message. Equal rights for all people regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

t3_4l92o9

CMV: In order to avoid a catastrophic deadly health crisis, the US and other countries should immediately ban the use of antibiotics in all animals raised for food, including imported meat.

Basically, I'm basing my view from [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/26/the-superbug-that-doctors-have-been-dreading-just-reached-the-u-s/?hpid=hp_no-name_tyh-superbug-255pm_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory), which indicates 1) there was only one antibiotic left in the world that is good against some bacteria deadly to humans, 2) Chinese meat producers used that antibiotic in meat production, 3) as with other antibiotics, the use of them to improve meat production has led to resistant strains of the deadly bacteria. Having cheaper meat (antibiotics given to healthy food animals tend to make them get fatter, and thus cheaper per pound to produce) is not worth the risk to human life that comes from emerging resistant bacteria. Because this is a matter of life and death, the US and other countries should immediately ban the use of antibiotics in meat production and should ban imported meat products that cannot prove they were produced without antibiotics. This will not completely solve the problem, but as other countries follow suit it should quickly take hold as an international norm essential to preserving human health. I recognize that there is a "grey area" regarding animals that are genuinely sick and may need antibiotics to return to health and not infect other animals. At this point, though, it seems to me that it's safer and more effective to require that such animals be destroyed in order to draw a bright line. I potentially am open to clearly defined exceptions to this if they could be effectively enforced. Change my view! (Note, I will be available to respond for at least one hour, and then I will respond again when I wake up tomorrow.) Edit: It appears a number of responses seem to be addressing the question of whether a catastrophic deadly health crisis is *certain*; (they are suggesting that such a crisis is not certain, or perhaps not even likely, or if likely not serious, because they speculate that new drugs will arrive in time). I'm not claiming (and did not believe) that such a crisis of epic proportion is *absolutely certain* on our current path. But it now seems at worst *likely* and at best *quite possible indeed*. (Just like taking cocaine every day for two months is not *absolutely certain* to lead addiction and/or jail, but it's probably something you should stop doing just the same.) By either measure, I think a policy of ceasing to use antibiotics to fatten animals is warranted. _____ > *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 order to avoid a catastrophic deadly health crisis, the US and other countries should immediately ban the use of antibiotics in all animals raised for food, including imported meat. Basically, I'm basing my view from [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/26/the-superbug-that-doctors-have-been-dreading-just-reached-the-u-s/?hpid=hp_no-name_tyh-superbug-255pm_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory), which indicates 1) there was only one antibiotic left in the world that is good against some bacteria deadly to humans, 2) Chinese meat producers used that antibiotic in meat production, 3) as with other antibiotics, the use of them to improve meat production has led to resistant strains of the deadly bacteria. Having cheaper meat (antibiotics given to healthy food animals tend to make them get fatter, and thus cheaper per pound to produce) is not worth the risk to human life that comes from emerging resistant bacteria. Because this is a matter of life and death, the US and other countries should immediately ban the use of antibiotics in meat production and should ban imported meat products that cannot prove they were produced without antibiotics. This will not completely solve the problem, but as other countries follow suit it should quickly take hold as an international norm essential to preserving human health. I recognize that there is a "grey area" regarding animals that are genuinely sick and may need antibiotics to return to health and not infect other animals. At this point, though, it seems to me that it's safer and more effective to require that such animals be destroyed in order to draw a bright line. I potentially am open to clearly defined exceptions to this if they could be effectively enforced. Change my view! (Note, I will be available to respond for at least one hour, and then I will respond again when I wake up tomorrow.) Edit: It appears a number of responses seem to be addressing the question of whether a catastrophic deadly health crisis is *certain*; (they are suggesting that such a crisis is not certain, or perhaps not even likely, or if likely not serious, because they speculate that new drugs will arrive in time). I'm not claiming (and did not believe) that such a crisis of epic proportion is *absolutely certain* on our current path. But it now seems at worst *likely* and at best *quite possible indeed*. (Just like taking cocaine every day for two months is not *absolutely certain* to lead addiction and/or jail, but it's probably something you should stop doing just the same.) By either measure, I think a policy of ceasing to use antibiotics to fatten animals is warranted.

t3_1cczua

I think that pride for anything but what you yourself directly accomplished causes much more harm than good. CMV

This includes pride in where you were born, what your family members have done, and who your ancestors were. It leads to baseless and unnecessary conflict between people who have no good reason to be fighting in the first place.

I think that pride for anything but what you yourself directly accomplished causes much more harm than good. CMV. This includes pride in where you were born, what your family members have done, and who your ancestors were. It leads to baseless and unnecessary conflict between people who have no good reason to be fighting in the first place.

t3_1n6i42

I believe that the marital relationship between spouses should take priority over the relationship of their children. CMV.

In other words, I think the best way to love your children is to love your spouse more. From my experience, most people think that the happiness of their children should come first, at the expense of your marriage if need be. Heres and example to illustrate what I'm talking about. Your husband and you have been going through a rough couple of months. You rarely talk anymore, and when you do its only about your children. Because of the fighting that's been happening, he's been sleeping on the couch. Instead of taking the time to make an effort and reconnect with your husband, you continue taking your kids to their soccer games and birthday parties. **In your mind, you think that to be the best parent you can be, you need to love your kids more than your husband.** If the marital relationship is dissolving because of that love, thats too bad, you gotta do what you gotta do. I think the ultimate way to love and provide for your children is to ensure they have a stable home with parents who have a strong foundation. A child will have a better life if they have parents who love each other more than they love the child. **Getting moms full love and attention is less important than living in a stable and united home.** CMV.

I believe that the marital relationship between spouses should take priority over the relationship of their children. CMV. In other words, I think the best way to love your children is to love your spouse more. From my experience, most people think that the happiness of their children should come first, at the expense of your marriage if need be. Heres and example to illustrate what I'm talking about. Your husband and you have been going through a rough couple of months. You rarely talk anymore, and when you do its only about your children. Because of the fighting that's been happening, he's been sleeping on the couch. Instead of taking the time to make an effort and reconnect with your husband, you continue taking your kids to their soccer games and birthday parties. **In your mind, you think that to be the best parent you can be, you need to love your kids more than your husband.** If the marital relationship is dissolving because of that love, thats too bad, you gotta do what you gotta do. I think the ultimate way to love and provide for your children is to ensure they have a stable home with parents who have a strong foundation. A child will have a better life if they have parents who love each other more than they love the child. **Getting moms full love and attention is less important than living in a stable and united home.** CMV.

t3_64o8uf

CMV: The United States of America has ultimately been a force of good and should remain the "leader" of the free world.

-The U.S. generally supports liberal ideas, such as democracy, free speech, and freedom of religion. Other powers such as Russia and China are relatively authoritarian states that suppress rights. -The U.S. does not have a history of starting massive wars and having vast colonial empires such as European nations (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, etc.) -The U.S. has the strength to lead. Relatively benevolent nations such as Canada, Australia or Sweden lack the same kind of power and influence the U.S. has diplomatically, economically, and militarily. Furthermore, the rise of a superpower has created a relative peace in the world. -In my opinion, U.S. foreign policy has been a net contribution to this world. The government has obviously committed harmful actions, such as the War in Iraq as well as overthrowing elected leaders. However, it has done a tremendous amount of good, too. It defended an almost defeated South Korea from the North. It helped rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II (e.g. Berlin Airlift, Marshall Plan, etc.). It loaned massive amounts of supplies to the U.K. and the Soviet Union during WW2. It established the (unfortunately failed) League of Nations, paving the way to the United Nations. It created an economic system that fueled safe globalization.

CMV: The United States of America has ultimately been a force of good and should remain the "leader" of the free world. -The U.S. generally supports liberal ideas, such as democracy, free speech, and freedom of religion. Other powers such as Russia and China are relatively authoritarian states that suppress rights. -The U.S. does not have a history of starting massive wars and having vast colonial empires such as European nations (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, etc.) -The U.S. has the strength to lead. Relatively benevolent nations such as Canada, Australia or Sweden lack the same kind of power and influence the U.S. has diplomatically, economically, and militarily. Furthermore, the rise of a superpower has created a relative peace in the world. -In my opinion, U.S. foreign policy has been a net contribution to this world. The government has obviously committed harmful actions, such as the War in Iraq as well as overthrowing elected leaders. However, it has done a tremendous amount of good, too. It defended an almost defeated South Korea from the North. It helped rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II (e.g. Berlin Airlift, Marshall Plan, etc.). It loaned massive amounts of supplies to the U.K. and the Soviet Union during WW2. It established the (unfortunately failed) League of Nations, paving the way to the United Nations. It created an economic system that fueled safe globalization.

t3_66uvli

CMV: Permanent damage from problems such as climate change and nuclear war are more important than any other issue if your moral system defines good as continuation and advancement of intelligence

Assume the goal is continuation and advancement of intelligence. The most intelligent system we know of is human society. Unless there is reason to believe something can be smarter than human society our primary concern is improving and maintaining human society. The earth will probably be habitable for human society for at least a few billion more years without human intervention. The general trend of human society has been upwards since its formation. Unless improvement of human society is decreasing the goal should be to maintain human society as improvement is safely happening. Humanity can undergo a total economic collapse and recover within at most a few hundred years. Even if we are set back to the bronze age we are still able to reach our current situation again. The only problems that we can't recover fully from would be permanent damage to the habitat of human society. The major threats to the habitat of human society are climate change and nuclear holocaust. Every effort should be towards the prevention of climate change and nuclear holocaust. Every other issue is unimportant. With this moral view dealing with issues such as civil rights and corruption only matter if it helps prevent the end of humanity. _____ > *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: Permanent damage from problems such as climate change and nuclear war are more important than any other issue if your moral system defines good as continuation and advancement of intelligence. Assume the goal is continuation and advancement of intelligence. The most intelligent system we know of is human society. Unless there is reason to believe something can be smarter than human society our primary concern is improving and maintaining human society. The earth will probably be habitable for human society for at least a few billion more years without human intervention. The general trend of human society has been upwards since its formation. Unless improvement of human society is decreasing the goal should be to maintain human society as improvement is safely happening. Humanity can undergo a total economic collapse and recover within at most a few hundred years. Even if we are set back to the bronze age we are still able to reach our current situation again. The only problems that we can't recover fully from would be permanent damage to the habitat of human society. The major threats to the habitat of human society are climate change and nuclear holocaust. Every effort should be towards the prevention of climate change and nuclear holocaust. Every other issue is unimportant. With this moral view dealing with issues such as civil rights and corruption only matter if it helps prevent the end of humanity.

t3_71lgrw

CMV: My liberal arts degree, and Most liberal arts degrees are not helping millennials get employment

[This study](https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-2016-accenture-college-graduate-employment-research) indicates that 51% of millenials are underemployed. [This one](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/40-of-unemployed-workers-are-millennials-2014-07-03) indicates that of the unemployed, 40% are millenials. There are huge number of studies displaying these statistics in different ways and place the blame in different places. I am under the impression that part of the terrible pressure on millennials is student debt, especially when we are so under/unemployed. Overall, we are the most educated cohort in American history, and yet [we're worse off than our parents](http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/millennials-first-worse-parents.htm) who were *better off* than their parents, on average. I am not trying to conflate college with a job training program. Instead, I am saying that *society* is conflating it and is thus damaging our entire generation with lies. My main point is: degrees are **not** helping millennials get jobs and it was a mistake to get a degree if I was trying to get a job. Currently, more than a a year out of college I have had *no* jobs that paid more than minimum wage. **tl;dr: Degrees are not helping millennials get jobs the way that society proclaimed they would.** **EDIT: I should clarify that liberal arts degree to me is a *non-STEM* 4 year degree without a specific technical application. IE, my degree in "Government"** _____ > *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: My liberal arts degree, and Most liberal arts degrees are not helping millennials get employment. [This study](https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-2016-accenture-college-graduate-employment-research) indicates that 51% of millenials are underemployed. [This one](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/40-of-unemployed-workers-are-millennials-2014-07-03) indicates that of the unemployed, 40% are millenials. There are huge number of studies displaying these statistics in different ways and place the blame in different places. I am under the impression that part of the terrible pressure on millennials is student debt, especially when we are so under/unemployed. Overall, we are the most educated cohort in American history, and yet [we're worse off than our parents](http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/millennials-first-worse-parents.htm) who were *better off* than their parents, on average. I am not trying to conflate college with a job training program. Instead, I am saying that *society* is conflating it and is thus damaging our entire generation with lies. My main point is: degrees are **not** helping millennials get jobs and it was a mistake to get a degree if I was trying to get a job. Currently, more than a a year out of college I have had *no* jobs that paid more than minimum wage. **tl;dr: Degrees are not helping millennials get jobs the way that society proclaimed they would.** **EDIT: I should clarify that liberal arts degree to me is a *non-STEM* 4 year degree without a specific technical application. IE, my degree in "Government"**

t3_1vuol2

[CMV] I am frightened for the safety of all the people at the Sochi Olympics

The Olympic games brings people together in a positive way. It is truly a world-wide celebration. Extremists that are targeting this event are cowardly and evil. I will never understand the idea of hurting innocent people as a way to further a cause. * I am worried about all the athletes, support personnel, and reporters * I don't think the Russia's government will be able to secure the event * I think that a combination of pride and political tensions will prevent Russia from fully utilizing other countries' assorted security expertise * If there is enough loss of life, we can reasonably see the start of World War III Please change my view.

[CMV] I am frightened for the safety of all the people at the Sochi Olympics. The Olympic games brings people together in a positive way. It is truly a world-wide celebration. Extremists that are targeting this event are cowardly and evil. I will never understand the idea of hurting innocent people as a way to further a cause. * I am worried about all the athletes, support personnel, and reporters * I don't think the Russia's government will be able to secure the event * I think that a combination of pride and political tensions will prevent Russia from fully utilizing other countries' assorted security expertise * If there is enough loss of life, we can reasonably see the start of World War III Please change my view.

t3_1ifl06

I feel that a solution to tackling abuse of social/welfare programs in the US is incredibly simple: The longer you are on a program, the more hoops you have to jump through to stay on it. CMV

**Edit: I fail and didn't revisit this thread since personal crap came up and I left work early yesterday. I feel like to reply to stuff now would be mostly pointless since most people don't visit their replies once they are this old. Good discussion though, thanks** Almost everytime I see debates about programs like food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and so on, the primary concern is the people who are potentially abusing it. Granted, this is a very valid concern. Anecdotal experience: I had a roommate who got on food stamps. They gave him x amount immediately no questions asked. They said for him to continue getting stamps, he had to jump through a few hoops. One hoop in particular: he had to go to an 8-hour seminar of some kind, which I assume is job-hunt related or something along those lines, but to be honest I am not sure what it was about. Anyway, he didn't ever go. He was *that* lazy. He didn't want to go to a lousy seminar to get free money. This makes me think. What would be the harm in taking this concept and expanding on it to weed out some of the leechers and abusers? Make it be almost as much a pain in the butt to jump through all these hoops like seminars and verifications, etc, to the point that if you are actually **able** to get a job and support yourself, you are more likely to do that vs comfortably living off the government effortlessly. Example: Unemployment. I feel that for x amount of time after being laid off, it should be pretty much as it is currently: relatively easy to receive. But after x time ( **much** less than a year) you will be forced to jump through more hoops to maintain the benefit. This could include a number of things, but random examples: X hours of community service per week. X hours per week of attending seminars. Require proof that you attended x # of job fairs. Require proof you have taken classes of some kind. (I am trying to only provide examples. Please try to avoid nitpicking one of my examples as your entire defense why my idea is stupid) TL:DR: Don't deny aid to those who need it. Simply instead make it where the longer and longer you are on it, the more and more hoops you have to jump through, and time you have to invest into maintaining the benefits. Basically, make the milk just a little sour and less appealing to actually depend on long term unless you actually *need* it.

I feel that a solution to tackling abuse of social/welfare programs in the US is incredibly simple: The longer you are on a program, the more hoops you have to jump through to stay on it. CMV. **Edit: I fail and didn't revisit this thread since personal crap came up and I left work early yesterday. I feel like to reply to stuff now would be mostly pointless since most people don't visit their replies once they are this old. Good discussion though, thanks** Almost everytime I see debates about programs like food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and so on, the primary concern is the people who are potentially abusing it. Granted, this is a very valid concern. Anecdotal experience: I had a roommate who got on food stamps. They gave him x amount immediately no questions asked. They said for him to continue getting stamps, he had to jump through a few hoops. One hoop in particular: he had to go to an 8-hour seminar of some kind, which I assume is job-hunt related or something along those lines, but to be honest I am not sure what it was about. Anyway, he didn't ever go. He was *that* lazy. He didn't want to go to a lousy seminar to get free money. This makes me think. What would be the harm in taking this concept and expanding on it to weed out some of the leechers and abusers? Make it be almost as much a pain in the butt to jump through all these hoops like seminars and verifications, etc, to the point that if you are actually **able** to get a job and support yourself, you are more likely to do that vs comfortably living off the government effortlessly. Example: Unemployment. I feel that for x amount of time after being laid off, it should be pretty much as it is currently: relatively easy to receive. But after x time ( **much** less than a year) you will be forced to jump through more hoops to maintain the benefit. This could include a number of things, but random examples: X hours of community service per week. X hours per week of attending seminars. Require proof that you attended x # of job fairs. Require proof you have taken classes of some kind. (I am trying to only provide examples. Please try to avoid nitpicking one of my examples as your entire defense why my idea is stupid) TL:DR: Don't deny aid to those who need it. Simply instead make it where the longer and longer you are on it, the more and more hoops you have to jump through, and time you have to invest into maintaining the benefits. Basically, make the milk just a little sour and less appealing to actually depend on long term unless you actually *need* it.

t3_3gei8j

CMV: Targets removal of gender-coded signage is an absurd overreaction to gender/sex issues.

> [Target recently removed gender labels from kids sections after complaints.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-07/target-removes-gender-labels-from-kids-sections-after-complaints) The kids’ bedding section will no longer feature boy and girl signage, and the toy department will be without labels and pink or blue paper on the shelves, Minneapolis-based Target said on its website Friday. Gender labels will remain in the kids’ clothing section because of sizing and fit differences. I fully support gender equality and campaigns that attack gender issues. For example, I feel that the state-wide legalization of gay marriage was a huge victory. I was also very happy to hear that the Boy Scouts will now allow homosexuals to apply as scout leaders. I think these are great shifts in the sociological landscape. They are important issues that previously had serious, unjust ramifications. I believe that we should fight battles like this. However, there is an age old saying that goes, "Choose your battles wisely." In Targets case, I feel that the public outcry against gender-coded signage was hypersensitive and asinine. I do not see "Boy" and "Girl" signs as nefarious perpetrators of sexual discrimination. The items will still be kept separate, rather than scattered together. So although the physical testament that a section is only for boys or girls will be removed, the items will still be segregated. Typically, people shop by department. "Boy" and "Girl" are perfectly good ways of separating clothing/items by department. This will only cause inconvenience for shoppers who struggle to find the proper section in a massive department store. Can someone point out the reason for these complaints? _____ > *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: Targets removal of gender-coded signage is an absurd overreaction to gender/sex issues. > [Target recently removed gender labels from kids sections after complaints.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-07/target-removes-gender-labels-from-kids-sections-after-complaints) The kids’ bedding section will no longer feature boy and girl signage, and the toy department will be without labels and pink or blue paper on the shelves, Minneapolis-based Target said on its website Friday. Gender labels will remain in the kids’ clothing section because of sizing and fit differences. I fully support gender equality and campaigns that attack gender issues. For example, I feel that the state-wide legalization of gay marriage was a huge victory. I was also very happy to hear that the Boy Scouts will now allow homosexuals to apply as scout leaders. I think these are great shifts in the sociological landscape. They are important issues that previously had serious, unjust ramifications. I believe that we should fight battles like this. However, there is an age old saying that goes, "Choose your battles wisely." In Targets case, I feel that the public outcry against gender-coded signage was hypersensitive and asinine. I do not see "Boy" and "Girl" signs as nefarious perpetrators of sexual discrimination. The items will still be kept separate, rather than scattered together. So although the physical testament that a section is only for boys or girls will be removed, the items will still be segregated. Typically, people shop by department. "Boy" and "Girl" are perfectly good ways of separating clothing/items by department. This will only cause inconvenience for shoppers who struggle to find the proper section in a massive department store. Can someone point out the reason for these complaints?

t3_2a0rbm

CMV: Crimes against the environment and society should be much more harshly punished.

I find it acceptable that certain groups of people do not deserve to live. I think the environment is more important than individual people. (though the continued existence of humanity is, selfishly, important to me) I think that crimes against the environment and society should be much more severely punished. People who hunt endangered trophy animals and people who do [things like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco) should be eligible for extremely harsh prison sentences (25 to Life). There are also people who are in positions of power( ex. high level businessmen, politicians, and police officers) and betray the public trust. These people ought to be stripped of their personhood. They'd be unable to be sued or be sued, sure. That is one drawback, however, the complete and total forfeiture of their assets to be distributed amongst those most affected would preclude the need to sue such things. They would not have an easy life as they could be forced to do any such task that people see fit for them to perform. Laws would not apply to them. I'm not sure who would be responsible for the things, but I don't see that as a point of concern. **Meat of the argument if you want to skip a bit of a tangent:** The reason I see such a harsh punishment as just and fair is that these sorts of things are easily worse than the worst crimes we have now. People who kill other people on anything but a genocidal scale harm many lives, but people who cause other species to be extinct through gross misconduct or warm the earth by being wasteful, do harm to all of us and all future generations of society. They should be removed from it. Also, few people would be in jail overall in this scenario as I'd reduce the sentences for more minor crimes. Potential counterpoints: *That's communism!* I don't care that it is anti-capitalist. I view it as a heavily modified form of utilitarianism/socialism (though inconsistencies with the base ideology is not worth mentioning). *People have inherent value and are way more important than the environment.* I do buy into the idea that one human has a higher base value than one non-endangered, non-human animal, but one human does not outweigh all of society and then environment. *This goes too far.* I don't believe that compromise is possible in America. We don't prioritize the environment and society nearly enough and I'd rather be too harsh than not harsh enough and destroy one of the few (and possibly only) life-supporting planets in the universe. *This will never work!* I think it could work in my form of government, but that's another, longer CMV, I guess. For now, let's stick to the idea that these sorts of crimes are much worse. Note: This specifically refers to the United States of America, but I could see it as acceptable elsewhere if need be. I really only mention this to help the CMVers looking for a delta to get a frame of reference. Not claiming America is better or worse than anywhere else on this issue. _____ > *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: Crimes against the environment and society should be much more harshly punished. I find it acceptable that certain groups of people do not deserve to live. I think the environment is more important than individual people. (though the continued existence of humanity is, selfishly, important to me) I think that crimes against the environment and society should be much more severely punished. People who hunt endangered trophy animals and people who do [things like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco) should be eligible for extremely harsh prison sentences (25 to Life). There are also people who are in positions of power( ex. high level businessmen, politicians, and police officers) and betray the public trust. These people ought to be stripped of their personhood. They'd be unable to be sued or be sued, sure. That is one drawback, however, the complete and total forfeiture of their assets to be distributed amongst those most affected would preclude the need to sue such things. They would not have an easy life as they could be forced to do any such task that people see fit for them to perform. Laws would not apply to them. I'm not sure who would be responsible for the things, but I don't see that as a point of concern. **Meat of the argument if you want to skip a bit of a tangent:** The reason I see such a harsh punishment as just and fair is that these sorts of things are easily worse than the worst crimes we have now. People who kill other people on anything but a genocidal scale harm many lives, but people who cause other species to be extinct through gross misconduct or warm the earth by being wasteful, do harm to all of us and all future generations of society. They should be removed from it. Also, few people would be in jail overall in this scenario as I'd reduce the sentences for more minor crimes. Potential counterpoints: *That's communism!* I don't care that it is anti-capitalist. I view it as a heavily modified form of utilitarianism/socialism (though inconsistencies with the base ideology is not worth mentioning). *People have inherent value and are way more important than the environment.* I do buy into the idea that one human has a higher base value than one non-endangered, non-human animal, but one human does not outweigh all of society and then environment. *This goes too far.* I don't believe that compromise is possible in America. We don't prioritize the environment and society nearly enough and I'd rather be too harsh than not harsh enough and destroy one of the few (and possibly only) life-supporting planets in the universe. *This will never work!* I think it could work in my form of government, but that's another, longer CMV, I guess. For now, let's stick to the idea that these sorts of crimes are much worse. Note: This specifically refers to the United States of America, but I could see it as acceptable elsewhere if need be. I really only mention this to help the CMVers looking for a delta to get a frame of reference. Not claiming America is better or worse than anywhere else on this issue.

t3_2edcvr

CMV: There's nothing wrong with rich and/or famous celebrities using crowdfunding. In fact, it's actually beneficial.

I have witnessed several instances of backlash against celebrities like [Zach Braff](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/was-it-ethical-for-zach-braff-to-take-to-kickstarter.html), Spike Lee and Richard Garriott turning to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites to seek money for their ventures. The argument seems to boil down to "they're taking away attention from the people who NEED this instead of using the traditional channels they already have access to!" This argument seems to be based on the erroneous premise that people have some sort of fixed crowdfunding budget and thus people who would donate to indie documentaries and the like instead goes to Braff et al. Even if you make the concession that people's disposable income is limited and that in some cases it DOES happen, it doesn't mean that their time with crowdfuning begins and ends with those big name projects: it has [been](https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects) [documented](https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/who-is-kickstarter-for) that these big projects actually draw in the big name artist's fanbase who then stick around and contribute to other projects. Running around trashing celebrities for doing this is incredibly shortsighted, IMHO. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's nothing wrong with rich and/or famous celebrities using crowdfunding. In fact, it's actually beneficial. I have witnessed several instances of backlash against celebrities like [Zach Braff](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/was-it-ethical-for-zach-braff-to-take-to-kickstarter.html), Spike Lee and Richard Garriott turning to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites to seek money for their ventures. The argument seems to boil down to "they're taking away attention from the people who NEED this instead of using the traditional channels they already have access to!" This argument seems to be based on the erroneous premise that people have some sort of fixed crowdfunding budget and thus people who would donate to indie documentaries and the like instead goes to Braff et al. Even if you make the concession that people's disposable income is limited and that in some cases it DOES happen, it doesn't mean that their time with crowdfuning begins and ends with those big name projects: it has [been](https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/blockbuster-effects) [documented](https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/who-is-kickstarter-for) that these big projects actually draw in the big name artist's fanbase who then stick around and contribute to other projects. Running around trashing celebrities for doing this is incredibly shortsighted, IMHO.

t3_69311a

CMV: Ideology and Politics mixing is similar to the mixture of Religion and State.

To add clarity: Things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc are moral issues that are not inherently political but have become political hot topics due to various factors. This in my mind is very similar to how religious ideologies have affected politics in the past, obviously often in a different direction then today. I have a hard time seeing the difference between a mixture of ideology and state and a mixture of religion and state, save for the mythological aspect. Thanks for reading and participating! _____ > *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: Ideology and Politics mixing is similar to the mixture of Religion and State. To add clarity: Things like racism, sexism, homophobia etc are moral issues that are not inherently political but have become political hot topics due to various factors. This in my mind is very similar to how religious ideologies have affected politics in the past, obviously often in a different direction then today. I have a hard time seeing the difference between a mixture of ideology and state and a mixture of religion and state, save for the mythological aspect. Thanks for reading and participating!

t3_1u8w3x

CMV: Getting high/intoxicated is absolutely normal and it shouldn't be encouraged nor discouraged.

[Dolphins do it]( http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/dolphins-get-high-pufferfish-toxin) I've read that giraffes also get drink off spoiled fruit. Humans enjoy getting intoxicated. That's obvious. Every industrialized country has an alcohol industry. The US sells millions of bottles of beer every year. Furthermore, it's been shown that animals also enjoy being intoxicated. And because they can't think "I want to get intoxicated" they are going off an instinctual desire rather than a conscious decision. Our human brains also get us high on purpose to reward behavior that promotes us staying alive. Our brains give us a chemical cocktail every time we eat, in order to encourage us to eat. Same with sex and exercise. ~~We also have receptors specifically for marijuana called endocannabinoid receptors. Why are those there? Our evolution doesn't require us to get high on marijuana so why do we have receptors for it?~~ With regard to neither encouraging or discouraging intoxication, humans who are going to abuse it will do so without regard to laws and their health. If someone is an addict and hurting people or not supporting their family, then of course we should intervene. But only to protect others, not to stop someone from getting high. CMV EDIT: Fixed my misconception. Thank you /u/Zippityzoppity.

CMV: Getting high/intoxicated is absolutely normal and it shouldn't be encouraged nor discouraged. [Dolphins do it]( http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/dolphins-get-high-pufferfish-toxin) I've read that giraffes also get drink off spoiled fruit. Humans enjoy getting intoxicated. That's obvious. Every industrialized country has an alcohol industry. The US sells millions of bottles of beer every year. Furthermore, it's been shown that animals also enjoy being intoxicated. And because they can't think "I want to get intoxicated" they are going off an instinctual desire rather than a conscious decision. Our human brains also get us high on purpose to reward behavior that promotes us staying alive. Our brains give us a chemical cocktail every time we eat, in order to encourage us to eat. Same with sex and exercise. ~~We also have receptors specifically for marijuana called endocannabinoid receptors. Why are those there? Our evolution doesn't require us to get high on marijuana so why do we have receptors for it?~~ With regard to neither encouraging or discouraging intoxication, humans who are going to abuse it will do so without regard to laws and their health. If someone is an addict and hurting people or not supporting their family, then of course we should intervene. But only to protect others, not to stop someone from getting high. CMV EDIT: Fixed my misconception. Thank you /u/Zippityzoppity.

t3_2h5zqc

CMV: Teachers shouldn't count an assignment as late unless they've already graded it.

* One of the problems with late assignments is that it requires the teacher to go back into the gradebook and change a student's score from a zero to whatever it is with the penalty. But, that inconvenience doesn't exist if the teacher hasn't graded any students for that assignment by the time the late assignment has been turned in. * How can a teacher expect students to be timely if they aren't timely themselves? Setting deadlines on assignments creates stress in students, but if they don't apply that same level of stress to themselves, students feel their hard work to get it in on time is under appreciated. * The longer a teacher doesn't grade an assignment, the greater chance it has of becoming lost. * The student is often faced with a penalty (grade reduction) for late assignments, but the teacher faces no penalty for late grading.

CMV: Teachers shouldn't count an assignment as late unless they've already graded it. * One of the problems with late assignments is that it requires the teacher to go back into the gradebook and change a student's score from a zero to whatever it is with the penalty. But, that inconvenience doesn't exist if the teacher hasn't graded any students for that assignment by the time the late assignment has been turned in. * How can a teacher expect students to be timely if they aren't timely themselves? Setting deadlines on assignments creates stress in students, but if they don't apply that same level of stress to themselves, students feel their hard work to get it in on time is under appreciated. * The longer a teacher doesn't grade an assignment, the greater chance it has of becoming lost. * The student is often faced with a penalty (grade reduction) for late assignments, but the teacher faces no penalty for late grading.

t3_4a8m5a

CMV: jurors who know that eyewitness identification doesn't constitute proof of guilt should treat it as such

(This is based on the jury system in the USA.) In 1985 Ronald Cotton was wrongfully convicted of rape based heavily on eyewitness identification. A victim identified him as the assailant, with detail, strong emotion, and 100% confidence. He was exonerated in 1995 based on DNA evidence. We can say now that the eyewitness identification, despite the verdict, did not prove that Cotton was guilty. This is obvious because you can't prove something that's false. There are numerous other cases of incorrect eyewitness identification. Not the majority, but certainly enough to say that, in general, eyewitness identification alone does not **prove** that someone is guilty. So, say I'm aware of that fact and I'm a juror on a trial where the prosecution's case depends on eyewitness identification by the victim being correct. I'm asked, "Did the prosecution prove that the defendant is guilty?" My answer is no. Not because I have any _particular_ reason to disbelieve the testimony, but simply because, like I just said, eyewitness identification doesn't prove guilt. I know that jurors are not to assume evidence that isn't presented, or do their own investigation, or have any bias against the State. I completely agree with all of that, so simply telling me those things will not change my view. From my point of view I'm not talking about doing any of those things. The simple fact is that I know that eyewitness identification doesn't prove guilt. If I were to say that it does in this case, I would be lying in my judgment, and jurors aren't supposed to lie either. I would like my view changed because I would like to be able to serve on a jury, and according to the consensus on r/legaladvice, I shouldn't be on a jury with this 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: jurors who know that eyewitness identification doesn't constitute proof of guilt should treat it as such. (This is based on the jury system in the USA.) In 1985 Ronald Cotton was wrongfully convicted of rape based heavily on eyewitness identification. A victim identified him as the assailant, with detail, strong emotion, and 100% confidence. He was exonerated in 1995 based on DNA evidence. We can say now that the eyewitness identification, despite the verdict, did not prove that Cotton was guilty. This is obvious because you can't prove something that's false. There are numerous other cases of incorrect eyewitness identification. Not the majority, but certainly enough to say that, in general, eyewitness identification alone does not **prove** that someone is guilty. So, say I'm aware of that fact and I'm a juror on a trial where the prosecution's case depends on eyewitness identification by the victim being correct. I'm asked, "Did the prosecution prove that the defendant is guilty?" My answer is no. Not because I have any _particular_ reason to disbelieve the testimony, but simply because, like I just said, eyewitness identification doesn't prove guilt. I know that jurors are not to assume evidence that isn't presented, or do their own investigation, or have any bias against the State. I completely agree with all of that, so simply telling me those things will not change my view. From my point of view I'm not talking about doing any of those things. The simple fact is that I know that eyewitness identification doesn't prove guilt. If I were to say that it does in this case, I would be lying in my judgment, and jurors aren't supposed to lie either. I would like my view changed because I would like to be able to serve on a jury, and according to the consensus on r/legaladvice, I shouldn't be on a jury with this view.

t3_3vm4fj

CMV: Abortion should only be practiced before the baby has any brain waves

I've been thinking about it recently, and I think I've flipped sides. Yes, abortion helps people, but so does stealing things. And yes, there are young people who can get their lives ruined, but that's frankly on them and we can't stop people from feeling the repercussions of their actions. If we put as much money into helping pregnant women give birth and making the adoption process easier and less expensive as we do into abortion, we'd get the same result in the end. And as for rape victims, there's the morning after pill and a few weeks after the action that you can abort. And I have sympathy, but I believe that at a certain point, abortion is the murder of another human being. The bottom line is, if you don't want a child, don't have unprotected sex or don't have sex at all. Sexual education and things like that will help immensely with the teenage pregnancy problem. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Abortion should only be practiced before the baby has any brain waves. I've been thinking about it recently, and I think I've flipped sides. Yes, abortion helps people, but so does stealing things. And yes, there are young people who can get their lives ruined, but that's frankly on them and we can't stop people from feeling the repercussions of their actions. If we put as much money into helping pregnant women give birth and making the adoption process easier and less expensive as we do into abortion, we'd get the same result in the end. And as for rape victims, there's the morning after pill and a few weeks after the action that you can abort. And I have sympathy, but I believe that at a certain point, abortion is the murder of another human being. The bottom line is, if you don't want a child, don't have unprotected sex or don't have sex at all. Sexual education and things like that will help immensely with the teenage pregnancy problem.

t3_4jxz99

CMV: Ever since I went to r/coontown I've started to think of black people as a different species. Help me.

I have read facts like the average IQ of a black person is below the average person. And that the skull of a black man closely resembles the homo erectus and you can tell race based on the skull and they have smaller skulls therefore smaller brains. There brains even weigh less. Yes i'm aware that there are really smart black people but this can be explained because they are outliers or they have white blood in them since there was alot of racial mixing (like Obama).Then there are the bothersome observations like how [civilizations failed to develop](https://imgur.com/Szyhlmy) in africa. In over 6000 years of recorded history black africa building capability has not progressed beyond that of a mud hut. Beavers, birds, rats can do the same job. Then there's the fact about how in sub-Saharan africa they still didn't developed any written language. I say sub-Saharan since the ethiopians did but they have arab blood in them since they were part of the Aksum kingdom. Then there is the genetic argument. They are missing genes that make them less intelligent and more aggressive. [They have around 20% more testosterone](https://archive.is/xDxHg). Then there is the crime element. There are so many statistics but the three that stick out is that 50% of black males will be charged with a serious felony in their lifetime and Blacks commit 53% of all murder and 1 in 3 rapes, despite being only 12% of the population. I want to go back to the civilization of africa. How come the only successful black african country is south africa? Because it was ruled by whites. When the blacks toke over they fucked it up badly. I can't find any significant inventions that came out of africa. They havn't even developed the wheel. And how about their behavior? Have you seen how they go beserk and (forgive me i know it's wrong but this is the term they use) "chimp out" [like this girl](http://www.worldstaruncut.com/uncut/87309). But it doesn't end their, there is a whole website dedicated to this phenomena and millions of more videos documenting their behavior including flash mobs that rob stores and beat up innocent people for no reason. There's alot more to say but i guess we'll leave that to the discussion. I must be wrong right? Because a lot of the world view blacks as our equals. But how can I treat them as my equals since they are inherently flawed? And this is based on both observation and evidence. So help me CMV. Edit: ok sorry guys it's been three hours, it toke me more time than expected to set this up. I'll be back tomorrow to reply and answer.

CMV: Ever since I went to r/coontown I've started to think of black people as a different species. Help me. I have read facts like the average IQ of a black person is below the average person. And that the skull of a black man closely resembles the homo erectus and you can tell race based on the skull and they have smaller skulls therefore smaller brains. There brains even weigh less. Yes i'm aware that there are really smart black people but this can be explained because they are outliers or they have white blood in them since there was alot of racial mixing (like Obama).Then there are the bothersome observations like how [civilizations failed to develop](https://imgur.com/Szyhlmy) in africa. In over 6000 years of recorded history black africa building capability has not progressed beyond that of a mud hut. Beavers, birds, rats can do the same job. Then there's the fact about how in sub-Saharan africa they still didn't developed any written language. I say sub-Saharan since the ethiopians did but they have arab blood in them since they were part of the Aksum kingdom. Then there is the genetic argument. They are missing genes that make them less intelligent and more aggressive. [They have around 20% more testosterone](https://archive.is/xDxHg). Then there is the crime element. There are so many statistics but the three that stick out is that 50% of black males will be charged with a serious felony in their lifetime and Blacks commit 53% of all murder and 1 in 3 rapes, despite being only 12% of the population. I want to go back to the civilization of africa. How come the only successful black african country is south africa? Because it was ruled by whites. When the blacks toke over they fucked it up badly. I can't find any significant inventions that came out of africa. They havn't even developed the wheel. And how about their behavior? Have you seen how they go beserk and (forgive me i know it's wrong but this is the term they use) "chimp out" [like this girl](http://www.worldstaruncut.com/uncut/87309). But it doesn't end their, there is a whole website dedicated to this phenomena and millions of more videos documenting their behavior including flash mobs that rob stores and beat up innocent people for no reason. There's alot more to say but i guess we'll leave that to the discussion. I must be wrong right? Because a lot of the world view blacks as our equals. But how can I treat them as my equals since they are inherently flawed? And this is based on both observation and evidence. So help me CMV. Edit: ok sorry guys it's been three hours, it toke me more time than expected to set this up. I'll be back tomorrow to reply and answer.

t3_31a2e5

CMV: Owning printed books is ridiculous.

Printed books are kind of the worst. Think about it. Look around your house right now. Where are your books? Likely on a shelf, in a box, or under a bed. Books are clunky, wasteful, and take up more space in your life than they are worth. Whether or not you read them, your average book spends >99.9% of its existence simply existing as glorified piece of clutter. Clutter that was better off remaining a tree. Not only that, printed books cost much more money than electronic / e-reader versions. Unless you read a book *many* times a year, it just doesn't make sense to own it. Would you buy a sweater or a car that you only used once or twice? And even if you love a book and you read it with obsessive devotion, chances are that all of that reading has caused it to start to fall apart and become ruined. No. Enough of this nonsense. Just buy an e-reader, and start living a more sensible life. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Owning printed books is ridiculous. Printed books are kind of the worst. Think about it. Look around your house right now. Where are your books? Likely on a shelf, in a box, or under a bed. Books are clunky, wasteful, and take up more space in your life than they are worth. Whether or not you read them, your average book spends >99.9% of its existence simply existing as glorified piece of clutter. Clutter that was better off remaining a tree. Not only that, printed books cost much more money than electronic / e-reader versions. Unless you read a book *many* times a year, it just doesn't make sense to own it. Would you buy a sweater or a car that you only used once or twice? And even if you love a book and you read it with obsessive devotion, chances are that all of that reading has caused it to start to fall apart and become ruined. No. Enough of this nonsense. Just buy an e-reader, and start living a more sensible life.

t3_4snc2z

CMV: The major league baseball all star game should not be both of the following which it currently is: 1. Fan votes for entry 2. The criteria for home field advantage in the world series

My logic here is fairly straight forward. In MLB, starters in the midsummer classic all-star game are determined by a fan vote. There have however been instances of vote stuffing, (most notably guility being the Kansas City Royals, see [story](http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/royals-fans-force-mlb-to-cancel-65-million-votes-for-the-all-star-game)). If this game had no consequence (criteria 2 was nullified), then this would be fine. The fans would be able to stuff away to see their favorites compete in a meaningless exhibition game. However this *does* matter. The winning league of the **EDIT: all star game** gets home field advantage in the world series. In the past decade, home field advantage has produced a winning percentage of about .542 (source http://m.mlb.com/news/article/84750574/phil-rogers-all-star-game-victory-brings-important-edge-to-world-series/). The article cites that this impacts about 1 in every 8 postseason baseball games. In a 7 game series *that can matter.* Furthermore, the winning league has their ideal roster able to start 4 games if the series goes the distance instead of 3, since in American League Parks the designated hitter is [usually](http://www.trbimg.com/img-577549fd/turbine/la-sp-madison-bumgarner-batting-20160630-snap) employed, while in National League Parks the pitcher hits for himself. [Complications of this outlined here](http://www.electro-mech.com/team-sports/baseball/national-league-vs-american-league-whos-got-a-advantage/). I do not think both can exist. I think that the criteria for home field advantage in the world series should be winning percentage, run differential, runs scored in (...) as a tiebreaker system. 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 major league baseball all star game should not be both of the following which it currently is: 1. Fan votes for entry 2. The criteria for home field advantage in the world series. My logic here is fairly straight forward. In MLB, starters in the midsummer classic all-star game are determined by a fan vote. There have however been instances of vote stuffing, (most notably guility being the Kansas City Royals, see [story](http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/royals-fans-force-mlb-to-cancel-65-million-votes-for-the-all-star-game)). If this game had no consequence (criteria 2 was nullified), then this would be fine. The fans would be able to stuff away to see their favorites compete in a meaningless exhibition game. However this *does* matter. The winning league of the **EDIT: all star game** gets home field advantage in the world series. In the past decade, home field advantage has produced a winning percentage of about .542 (source http://m.mlb.com/news/article/84750574/phil-rogers-all-star-game-victory-brings-important-edge-to-world-series/). The article cites that this impacts about 1 in every 8 postseason baseball games. In a 7 game series *that can matter.* Furthermore, the winning league has their ideal roster able to start 4 games if the series goes the distance instead of 3, since in American League Parks the designated hitter is [usually](http://www.trbimg.com/img-577549fd/turbine/la-sp-madison-bumgarner-batting-20160630-snap) employed, while in National League Parks the pitcher hits for himself. [Complications of this outlined here](http://www.electro-mech.com/team-sports/baseball/national-league-vs-american-league-whos-got-a-advantage/). I do not think both can exist. I think that the criteria for home field advantage in the world series should be winning percentage, run differential, runs scored in (...) as a tiebreaker system. CMV.