Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1goh9i

I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U.S. CMV

The ASPCA (whose efforts toward aiding dogs and cats I support) posted a link to this article on Facebook: http://blog.aspca.org/content/day-horse-aspca-takes-federal-action-americas-horses The comments on the FB post were mostly along the lines of "disgusting" etc. I highly doubt every person expressing that sentiment is a vegetarian. Why do people single out horses as being untouchable, but have no problem with current animal slaughtering for meat? ------ EDIT 8:55PM CST Thanks for the engaging discussion. I certainly have a better understanding of the opposing rationale, but have yet to find reason to CMV. To clarify a few points I see recurring in your rebuttals: 1. I understand and agree with all of the ways in which horses are useful/enjoyable to man while living. I don't understand how so many see this as a reason to not breed horses for meat. I don't mean that ALL horses HAVE to be killed and eaten, for Pete's sake. People who want to can still keep horses for pleasure, work, riding, whatever. Just like we have some fish as pets and others we eat. 2. All of the issues with the safety/medical safety of it, I think, would be resolved it if were legal and able to be regulated, the way all other livestock processes are. Are there places that treat animals inhumanely in their livestock processing? Yes, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You penalize those who do wrong, and don't make generalizations. 3. "Well, AudgieD, why don't we eat cats and dogs then?" Because nobody in the US wants to. Horse meat is becoming an issue because there's a market for it. So, obviously, somebody wants to eat it. 4. "Oh yeah, AudgieD, why don't we just eat humans then?" If you aren't able to make a distinction between the value of human life and animals, you need more help than reddit can offer. Also, put down the bath salts. -------- EDIT 10:15PM CST Time for bed. I'll jump back into the discussion and respond to additional comments after I get to the office in the morning, around 9am. Also, for all those who seem to think it's cold of me to be dismissive of "emotion" as it relates to this topic, I thought it might be worth mentioning that I'm a female. I'm just trying to look at this objectively, as I think we all should.

I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U.S. CMV. The ASPCA (whose efforts toward aiding dogs and cats I support) posted a link to this article on Facebook: http://blog.aspca.org/content/day-horse-aspca-takes-federal-action-americas-horses The comments on the FB post were mostly along the lines of "disgusting" etc. I highly doubt every person expressing that sentiment is a vegetarian. Why do people single out horses as being untouchable, but have no problem with current animal slaughtering for meat? ------ EDIT 8:55PM CST Thanks for the engaging discussion. I certainly have a better understanding of the opposing rationale, but have yet to find reason to CMV. To clarify a few points I see recurring in your rebuttals: 1. I understand and agree with all of the ways in which horses are useful/enjoyable to man while living. I don't understand how so many see this as a reason to not breed horses for meat. I don't mean that ALL horses HAVE to be killed and eaten, for Pete's sake. People who want to can still keep horses for pleasure, work, riding, whatever. Just like we have some fish as pets and others we eat. 2. All of the issues with the safety/medical safety of it, I think, would be resolved it if were legal and able to be regulated, the way all other livestock processes are. Are there places that treat animals inhumanely in their livestock processing? Yes, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You penalize those who do wrong, and don't make generalizations. 3. "Well, AudgieD, why don't we eat cats and dogs then?" Because nobody in the US wants to. Horse meat is becoming an issue because there's a market for it. So, obviously, somebody wants to eat it. 4. "Oh yeah, AudgieD, why don't we just eat humans then?" If you aren't able to make a distinction between the value of human life and animals, you need more help than reddit can offer. Also, put down the bath salts. -------- EDIT 10:15PM CST Time for bed. I'll jump back into the discussion and respond to additional comments after I get to the office in the morning, around 9am. Also, for all those who seem to think it's cold of me to be dismissive of "emotion" as it relates to this topic, I thought it might be worth mentioning that I'm a female. I'm just trying to look at this objectively, as I think we all should.

t3_2j5u6d

CMV: Advertising a state run lottery is an immoral act.

This is specific to the USA. But I die a little bit every time I see a lottery commercial. I find it despicable, but nobody else seems bothered by it. First off, the government bans (with few exceptions, but clearly it isn't legal across the board) gambling. Presumably this is to protect the citizens from gambling. But if gambling is such a dangerous thing, then why do they allow you to gamble via the lottery? I know that they make money off the lottery, but if you have a duty to protect citizens from gambling, you shouldn't offer an option. And to preempt any discussions about how the money the govt gets can be used to help needy people - the people who play the lottery are on average much poorer. Since govt takes 50%, the lottery is essentially a tax on poor people, so it doesn't help needy people. But perhaps you could say "well people will gamble no matter what, so we'll offer them the least evil way, and then money can be used for good". But if that's your justification for a lottery, then you still should never ever advertise it. Because by doing that, you are making people who wouldn't otherwise waste their money, gamble it away. So in my opinion advertising a lottery is very unethical. CMV! For the record, I think the govt should just legalize gambling entirely. Not sure if anybody would misinterpret what I'm saying, but maybe that will help clarify some things... _____ > *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: Advertising a state run lottery is an immoral act. This is specific to the USA. But I die a little bit every time I see a lottery commercial. I find it despicable, but nobody else seems bothered by it. First off, the government bans (with few exceptions, but clearly it isn't legal across the board) gambling. Presumably this is to protect the citizens from gambling. But if gambling is such a dangerous thing, then why do they allow you to gamble via the lottery? I know that they make money off the lottery, but if you have a duty to protect citizens from gambling, you shouldn't offer an option. And to preempt any discussions about how the money the govt gets can be used to help needy people - the people who play the lottery are on average much poorer. Since govt takes 50%, the lottery is essentially a tax on poor people, so it doesn't help needy people. But perhaps you could say "well people will gamble no matter what, so we'll offer them the least evil way, and then money can be used for good". But if that's your justification for a lottery, then you still should never ever advertise it. Because by doing that, you are making people who wouldn't otherwise waste their money, gamble it away. So in my opinion advertising a lottery is very unethical. CMV! For the record, I think the govt should just legalize gambling entirely. Not sure if anybody would misinterpret what I'm saying, but maybe that will help clarify some things...

t3_64ftc0

CMV: We should kill all of the pandas

I feel like the only reason that pandas still exist is because they are "cute." They serve no utilitarian purpose in their environment, they are almost impossible to breed because they have a very specific mating routine, and they sink millions of dollars of our money every year. Under the rules of evolution, they would not be alive without human intervention. Plus, there are many threatened/endangered species that are cheaper to help, more useful to their environment, and/or are in direr need than the pandas are. Their only flaw is that they aren't "cute" enough. Is there an actual reason to keep them around? CMV. Edit: Thanks for the discussion. My new stance is that we shouldn't kill the pandas, but it is useless to continue to keep them in captivity.

CMV: We should kill all of the pandas. I feel like the only reason that pandas still exist is because they are "cute." They serve no utilitarian purpose in their environment, they are almost impossible to breed because they have a very specific mating routine, and they sink millions of dollars of our money every year. Under the rules of evolution, they would not be alive without human intervention. Plus, there are many threatened/endangered species that are cheaper to help, more useful to their environment, and/or are in direr need than the pandas are. Their only flaw is that they aren't "cute" enough. Is there an actual reason to keep them around? CMV. Edit: Thanks for the discussion. My new stance is that we shouldn't kill the pandas, but it is useless to continue to keep them in captivity.

t3_6zpoac

CMV: Faster than light travel may be possible.

Scientific consensus seems to be that nothing can ever go faster than the speed of light under any circumstances. But if we go back a few hundred years, scientific consensus would have been that humans will never fly, organ transplants are impossible, nothing can live at the bottom of the ocean, and all sorts of other things we take as given now. Is there really no possible way, in any dimension, in this huge giant universe, that faster than light travel might be possible someday, somewhere, for someone/something?

CMV: Faster than light travel may be possible. Scientific consensus seems to be that nothing can ever go faster than the speed of light under any circumstances. But if we go back a few hundred years, scientific consensus would have been that humans will never fly, organ transplants are impossible, nothing can live at the bottom of the ocean, and all sorts of other things we take as given now. Is there really no possible way, in any dimension, in this huge giant universe, that faster than light travel might be possible someday, somewhere, for someone/something?

t3_1ngky9

I believe that people who worship "modern" gods and view deities of ancient religions as fictional are hypocrites. CMV

I see fundamental theists as hypocrites: they often use the fallacious argument of not being able to disprove something to justify a deity when in fact they themselves cannot disprove the existence of any other god. Every single argument they could make for their own faith could be used for any other faith, even ancient ones. Celtic, roman, greek, christian, muslim, hindu, scientology, etc, it's really all the same in the sense that it is all just as absurd. As for the moderate theists, well... I see cherry-pickers as hypocrites: for instance, the agnostic christians who don't believe in the actual textual biblical god and don't believe in hell, but believe in heaven are just arbitrarily deciding what their reality is based on nothing more than what they like and don't like. TL;DR: I see all theists as hypocrites, wether they are radical or not.

I believe that people who worship "modern" gods and view deities of ancient religions as fictional are hypocrites. CMV. I see fundamental theists as hypocrites: they often use the fallacious argument of not being able to disprove something to justify a deity when in fact they themselves cannot disprove the existence of any other god. Every single argument they could make for their own faith could be used for any other faith, even ancient ones. Celtic, roman, greek, christian, muslim, hindu, scientology, etc, it's really all the same in the sense that it is all just as absurd. As for the moderate theists, well... I see cherry-pickers as hypocrites: for instance, the agnostic christians who don't believe in the actual textual biblical god and don't believe in hell, but believe in heaven are just arbitrarily deciding what their reality is based on nothing more than what they like and don't like. TL;DR: I see all theists as hypocrites, wether they are radical or not.

t3_1f4b2l

[Canadian politics] I believe that the Indian Act should be abolished and Aboriginal people should be treated the same as any other Canadian. CMV.

I do not believe the Indian Act is a sufficient long term solution for helping the Aboriginal people. I understand that past governments have made promises, but do not believe that present governments should be bound by the choices made in the past (and it wouldn't be the first time the government has broken a promise). My reasoning is that current generations of Aboriginal do not deserve a special treatment just because some great, great, great grandparent was here first. Further, I don't believe that the way of life on many Aboriginal reserves offer reasonable living conditions and we should not be subsidizing these. I understand that conditions on reserves can be poor, but do not believe that allowing them to persist in their current state, where they are heavily dependent on government assistance, is a long term solution. **Change my view.**

[Canadian politics] I believe that the Indian Act should be abolished and Aboriginal people should be treated the same as any other Canadian. CMV. I do not believe the Indian Act is a sufficient long term solution for helping the Aboriginal people. I understand that past governments have made promises, but do not believe that present governments should be bound by the choices made in the past (and it wouldn't be the first time the government has broken a promise). My reasoning is that current generations of Aboriginal do not deserve a special treatment just because some great, great, great grandparent was here first. Further, I don't believe that the way of life on many Aboriginal reserves offer reasonable living conditions and we should not be subsidizing these. I understand that conditions on reserves can be poor, but do not believe that allowing them to persist in their current state, where they are heavily dependent on government assistance, is a long term solution. **Change my view.**

t3_5zu5lu

CMV: Windows 10 was good for the vast majority of people.

Every time I hear about Windows 10 on Reddit, it is ALWAYS in a negative tone. No matter how minor the issue is, there is people complaining about it. With a little research, it is generally found that this issue exists in Windows 7/8.1 as well, it's just a minor thing that isn't an issue. Whenever I hear about people complaining about the auto-update, they always complain on "the principle of it" - however, I feel as though if everyone's on the same version of an operating system, it is a lot easier to push patches to fix critical 0-day issues. Reddit, what is so bad about Windows 10? _____ > *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: Windows 10 was good for the vast majority of people. Every time I hear about Windows 10 on Reddit, it is ALWAYS in a negative tone. No matter how minor the issue is, there is people complaining about it. With a little research, it is generally found that this issue exists in Windows 7/8.1 as well, it's just a minor thing that isn't an issue. Whenever I hear about people complaining about the auto-update, they always complain on "the principle of it" - however, I feel as though if everyone's on the same version of an operating system, it is a lot easier to push patches to fix critical 0-day issues. Reddit, what is so bad about Windows 10?

t3_23szn5

CMV Askscience, and askscience discussion are useless.

My point isn't that you can't get a correct answer, its that A. You don't always get answers. B. You don't know the credentials of the people answering. and C. Anyone can answer conveluting the answer pool. D. No one cites sources (or this rarely happens.) JUST AN EXAMPLE: Today I got into a bit of an argument with a guy about animal rights, while in reality I'm not "pro-animal rights." My point was on a topic that had said that there may soon be laws against killing certian animals because they are concious. My point was that, ultimately, this was a good thing. That really all of humanity would benifit from complete independance from animal use. I don't really think much of an argument can be made, presuming that science catches up to the points in my origional post, as it assums a signifingatly higher level of technology/understanding of genetics, and really all medicine. After posting on the article an argument ensues; the guy arguing with me slowly convinces me that animals shouldn't be used for testing new drugs and the like or rather that we are at the level of technology that I described, the problem with him changing my mind? He was FOR animal testing, and my origional comment literally had nothing to do with animal testing, his poor reading skills kept leading him to believing that somehow I WAS making the claim, really he made the claim then backed it, predominatly arguing with himself. He kept making exagerated claims about his credentials without evidence. Exagerated claims about how much animals have helped medicine (In reality physics/chemistry has done more for medicine than animal testing ever has.) Now more to the point, he wasn't trolling, he was taking himself seriously: He actually frequently answers on askscience, asksciencediscussion, and askreddit, answering predomintaly science questions. Finally the nail in the coffin in our discussion was when he agreed with literally everything I said, while claiming to be arguing with me. Getting annoyed, I started using his points against his origional set of arguments. Weaponizing his own words against him. Then (presumably) he re-read the entire argument, which caused him to group me and my postion with one that is pro animal rights, because mainly if he didn't do that, cognitive dissonance would have heavily set in on him when I pointed out that he had convinced me of what he assumed I was arguing against. (IE I never argued about animal rights with him, but rather that I was arguing my claims had nothing to do with it, up until my last comment.) TLDR: A person who frequently answers questions on the sciencey parts of reddit didn't understand his own postion. Edit: I may have found a new kind of troll, the confused troll. Somone whom so greatly misunderstands your argument, to the point that they cannot differentiate it from what they think it is, from what it actually is. Essentially unintentionally strawmanning, and having fucktons of emotional attachment to the argument they are trying to make.

CMV Askscience, and askscience discussion are useless. My point isn't that you can't get a correct answer, its that A. You don't always get answers. B. You don't know the credentials of the people answering. and C. Anyone can answer conveluting the answer pool. D. No one cites sources (or this rarely happens.) JUST AN EXAMPLE: Today I got into a bit of an argument with a guy about animal rights, while in reality I'm not "pro-animal rights." My point was on a topic that had said that there may soon be laws against killing certian animals because they are concious. My point was that, ultimately, this was a good thing. That really all of humanity would benifit from complete independance from animal use. I don't really think much of an argument can be made, presuming that science catches up to the points in my origional post, as it assums a signifingatly higher level of technology/understanding of genetics, and really all medicine. After posting on the article an argument ensues; the guy arguing with me slowly convinces me that animals shouldn't be used for testing new drugs and the like or rather that we are at the level of technology that I described, the problem with him changing my mind? He was FOR animal testing, and my origional comment literally had nothing to do with animal testing, his poor reading skills kept leading him to believing that somehow I WAS making the claim, really he made the claim then backed it, predominatly arguing with himself. He kept making exagerated claims about his credentials without evidence. Exagerated claims about how much animals have helped medicine (In reality physics/chemistry has done more for medicine than animal testing ever has.) Now more to the point, he wasn't trolling, he was taking himself seriously: He actually frequently answers on askscience, asksciencediscussion, and askreddit, answering predomintaly science questions. Finally the nail in the coffin in our discussion was when he agreed with literally everything I said, while claiming to be arguing with me. Getting annoyed, I started using his points against his origional set of arguments. Weaponizing his own words against him. Then (presumably) he re-read the entire argument, which caused him to group me and my postion with one that is pro animal rights, because mainly if he didn't do that, cognitive dissonance would have heavily set in on him when I pointed out that he had convinced me of what he assumed I was arguing against. (IE I never argued about animal rights with him, but rather that I was arguing my claims had nothing to do with it, up until my last comment.) TLDR: A person who frequently answers questions on the sciencey parts of reddit didn't understand his own postion. Edit: I may have found a new kind of troll, the confused troll. Somone whom so greatly misunderstands your argument, to the point that they cannot differentiate it from what they think it is, from what it actually is. Essentially unintentionally strawmanning, and having fucktons of emotional attachment to the argument they are trying to make.

t3_1og97o

I believe Rock and Roll is a "dying" genre of music, CMV.

When I speak of "Rock and Roll," I am not referring to Metal, Heavy Metal, or Death Metal, all of which have a very dedicated niche audience. I believe that Rock is fading away, without a trend to carry it. In the 90's there was a rise in Punk and Grunge rock, but no major subgenre has risen to replace them. Alternative Rock was very popular in the last decade, but there haven't really been bands that receive the same mainstream attention as other genres of music. I view Metal as a separate entity from Rock and Roll entirely, due to its style (screaming and intensity). I predominately listen to Hip Hop and feel as though it (and Pop) are replacing Rock and Roll at the forefront of popular music in the 2010's. I respect Rock and the things it has done for the music world as a whole, but I don't think there are any more Rock and Roll legends to come. CMV.

I believe Rock and Roll is a "dying" genre of music, CMV. When I speak of "Rock and Roll," I am not referring to Metal, Heavy Metal, or Death Metal, all of which have a very dedicated niche audience. I believe that Rock is fading away, without a trend to carry it. In the 90's there was a rise in Punk and Grunge rock, but no major subgenre has risen to replace them. Alternative Rock was very popular in the last decade, but there haven't really been bands that receive the same mainstream attention as other genres of music. I view Metal as a separate entity from Rock and Roll entirely, due to its style (screaming and intensity). I predominately listen to Hip Hop and feel as though it (and Pop) are replacing Rock and Roll at the forefront of popular music in the 2010's. I respect Rock and the things it has done for the music world as a whole, but I don't think there are any more Rock and Roll legends to come. CMV.

t3_6p9wis

CMV: Professional medium-long distance races are much more impressive than sprints.

At a professional level, sprinters have to pump the shit out of their muscles for about 10 seconds. While I won't deny that the effort is almost inhumane, medium-long distance runners (800m, 1500m) have to do it for about 2 and 4 minutes. This might sound silly to those who have never done it, but its a **huge** difference. A guy in a 800m will have a bpm of 180+ and be at his optimal speed the entire time. Long distances races have mind games while sprinting is just rushing to the end line. Say a 1500m, when they start, its more relax. As soon as one decide to speed up, the whole group has to follow or they will lose the adrenaline generated by said group. Idealy you want to be the first to speed things up and be the one who set the pace, as the rest will follow. Set it too soon and you *will* fall behind, set it too late and someone else will do it for you. The kick in is always different as the group has to follow at all cost. I belive 800m and 1500m are the hardest one as they take more time, effort and mental presence than sprints. They are harder than anything longer as they are too short to get the endorphines a.k.a. the runners high. CMV

CMV: Professional medium-long distance races are much more impressive than sprints. At a professional level, sprinters have to pump the shit out of their muscles for about 10 seconds. While I won't deny that the effort is almost inhumane, medium-long distance runners (800m, 1500m) have to do it for about 2 and 4 minutes. This might sound silly to those who have never done it, but its a **huge** difference. A guy in a 800m will have a bpm of 180+ and be at his optimal speed the entire time. Long distances races have mind games while sprinting is just rushing to the end line. Say a 1500m, when they start, its more relax. As soon as one decide to speed up, the whole group has to follow or they will lose the adrenaline generated by said group. Idealy you want to be the first to speed things up and be the one who set the pace, as the rest will follow. Set it too soon and you *will* fall behind, set it too late and someone else will do it for you. The kick in is always different as the group has to follow at all cost. I belive 800m and 1500m are the hardest one as they take more time, effort and mental presence than sprints. They are harder than anything longer as they are too short to get the endorphines a.k.a. the runners high. CMV

t3_3g6ozo

CMV: It is absurd that the DTA is only open from 7:30 to 5, given its intended purpose.

For those who don't know, the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) is the government office that oversees benefits like temporary cash assistance and food stamps (SNAP). I recently went to apply for SNAP as I'm serving with Americorps this year while going to school, and our stipend is low enough that anyone without a second job qualifies (and probably some of the people with two jobs do too). I'm working full time and going to school as well (I'll graduate with a BSN in 2 years). In other words, I am the "ideal client" of the DTA; I have a job and a concrete plan for improving my future. I am doing exactly what they say they want me to do. So why is it so much harder for me to get benefit than if I wasn't working at all? The office doesn't open until 7:30. I got there at 7 and still ended up there until 10, at which point I still hadn't had an interview so I had to do that by phone later. It's true that for at least some services you can apply online, but my manager advised me not to do this, saying that usually those who applied online got benefits started around December, while those who applied in person often got them as early as August, when we start service. If you really need the help, getting it in 4 months isn't good enough. I'm pretty lucky in that I would probably be fine if I couldn't get it, but not everyone is in my situation. As it was, it was pretty onerous to make the application, and I didn't have to think about childcare or have a boss who didn't give a shit whether I got benefit. I had it way easier than most people at that office, and it was still much harder because I was working. 3 hours at the office would be no big deal if I hadn't had a job or study to do, but is challenging for anyone trying to improve their future. The DTA should either 1) be open for more hours so that working people can go, 2) allow way more services to be completed QUICKLY online or by phone, or 3) allow registering for specific appointment times so you don't have to wait in line (I only was actually with staff for about 15 minutes, which seemed like a common experience). As it stands, it makes it harder on people working and going to school to not go hungry, which is the exact opposite of what they're supposed to be for--making it easier to get out of poverty.

CMV: It is absurd that the DTA is only open from 7:30 to 5, given its intended purpose. For those who don't know, the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) is the government office that oversees benefits like temporary cash assistance and food stamps (SNAP). I recently went to apply for SNAP as I'm serving with Americorps this year while going to school, and our stipend is low enough that anyone without a second job qualifies (and probably some of the people with two jobs do too). I'm working full time and going to school as well (I'll graduate with a BSN in 2 years). In other words, I am the "ideal client" of the DTA; I have a job and a concrete plan for improving my future. I am doing exactly what they say they want me to do. So why is it so much harder for me to get benefit than if I wasn't working at all? The office doesn't open until 7:30. I got there at 7 and still ended up there until 10, at which point I still hadn't had an interview so I had to do that by phone later. It's true that for at least some services you can apply online, but my manager advised me not to do this, saying that usually those who applied online got benefits started around December, while those who applied in person often got them as early as August, when we start service. If you really need the help, getting it in 4 months isn't good enough. I'm pretty lucky in that I would probably be fine if I couldn't get it, but not everyone is in my situation. As it was, it was pretty onerous to make the application, and I didn't have to think about childcare or have a boss who didn't give a shit whether I got benefit. I had it way easier than most people at that office, and it was still much harder because I was working. 3 hours at the office would be no big deal if I hadn't had a job or study to do, but is challenging for anyone trying to improve their future. The DTA should either 1) be open for more hours so that working people can go, 2) allow way more services to be completed QUICKLY online or by phone, or 3) allow registering for specific appointment times so you don't have to wait in line (I only was actually with staff for about 15 minutes, which seemed like a common experience). As it stands, it makes it harder on people working and going to school to not go hungry, which is the exact opposite of what they're supposed to be for--making it easier to get out of poverty.

t3_2vpyg0

CMV: Savant Isn't as Great of a Producer as Everyone Makes Him Out to Be.

Hey guys, I'm interested to see if the EDM fans of CMV can, well, CMV. Anyway, whenever I see Savant's name anywhere, it's always followed with tons of praise about how he's "The savior of EDM" and "The best producer ever! Way better than Skrillex!!!1!" I don't get it though. I've tried to listen to his stuff, but I just don't like it. One of the common arguments is how he's super versatile and is diverse. But honestly, I think most of his music is cookie cutter electro and dubstep. That's not necessarily bad, but I also feel like his production is lacking too. All the songs I've heard of his that *WEREN'T* cookie cutter, were too incoherent for me to even consider liking. On a side note, he's also kind of a dick. He bad mouthed deadmau5 and Feed Me and claimed he was better than both of them, and called Monstercat a shit label because they turned down his song. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy (I hate fanboys almost as much as the reasonless haters) but I just thought of it as kind of a dick thing to do. Anyway, I want to give Savant the chance everyone seems to think he deserves! ______ > *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: Savant Isn't as Great of a Producer as Everyone Makes Him Out to Be. Hey guys, I'm interested to see if the EDM fans of CMV can, well, CMV. Anyway, whenever I see Savant's name anywhere, it's always followed with tons of praise about how he's "The savior of EDM" and "The best producer ever! Way better than Skrillex!!!1!" I don't get it though. I've tried to listen to his stuff, but I just don't like it. One of the common arguments is how he's super versatile and is diverse. But honestly, I think most of his music is cookie cutter electro and dubstep. That's not necessarily bad, but I also feel like his production is lacking too. All the songs I've heard of his that *WEREN'T* cookie cutter, were too incoherent for me to even consider liking. On a side note, he's also kind of a dick. He bad mouthed deadmau5 and Feed Me and claimed he was better than both of them, and called Monstercat a shit label because they turned down his song. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy (I hate fanboys almost as much as the reasonless haters) but I just thought of it as kind of a dick thing to do. Anyway, I want to give Savant the chance everyone seems to think he deserves! ______ > *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_3mcam3

CMV: Telling people to "educate yourself" is detrimental to any cause

So among many feminist and Social Justice circles, it seems somewhat common for discussions with people who may be unaware or disagree to be told something along the lines of "I don't have time for this, go educate yourself". I feel this is very detrimental to almost any cause for a multitude of reasons. First, it comes off as antagonistic. I very do much feel that when trying to change someone's view you have to be willing to work with them. While being sarcastic and snarky may make you feel good because you've done this spiel a bunch already, they haven't heard it the same amount. It just makes people disinterested in your cause and likely won't go and "educate themselves". Secondly, by telling people to educate themselves, you leave what they discover and the conclusions they come to by themselves. And while ideally this is a great outcome, it's not so great when you are trying to change societal views. You give these people the ability to go and find any source they want, to come to any conclusion you want and you have to ask how likely is it that they are going to get to the outcome you desire? Third, it's quite contrary to any form of activism out there. Activism is designed around changing views, amassing a group of people to help change the world. By delegating the informing process to the individuals and not yourself your not really doing anything of note. You get to feel good because you have the "right view" and don't have to do anything with that knowledge outside of telling people they are wrong. It's back patting instead of actually trying to make change, and the amount of people saying it really puts a hamper on any attempts towards progress. Overall, it's a phrase that makes you feel good, but it's not something that actually helps and is likely to actually make more opponents than any supporters. _____ > *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: Telling people to "educate yourself" is detrimental to any cause. So among many feminist and Social Justice circles, it seems somewhat common for discussions with people who may be unaware or disagree to be told something along the lines of "I don't have time for this, go educate yourself". I feel this is very detrimental to almost any cause for a multitude of reasons. First, it comes off as antagonistic. I very do much feel that when trying to change someone's view you have to be willing to work with them. While being sarcastic and snarky may make you feel good because you've done this spiel a bunch already, they haven't heard it the same amount. It just makes people disinterested in your cause and likely won't go and "educate themselves". Secondly, by telling people to educate themselves, you leave what they discover and the conclusions they come to by themselves. And while ideally this is a great outcome, it's not so great when you are trying to change societal views. You give these people the ability to go and find any source they want, to come to any conclusion you want and you have to ask how likely is it that they are going to get to the outcome you desire? Third, it's quite contrary to any form of activism out there. Activism is designed around changing views, amassing a group of people to help change the world. By delegating the informing process to the individuals and not yourself your not really doing anything of note. You get to feel good because you have the "right view" and don't have to do anything with that knowledge outside of telling people they are wrong. It's back patting instead of actually trying to make change, and the amount of people saying it really puts a hamper on any attempts towards progress. Overall, it's a phrase that makes you feel good, but it's not something that actually helps and is likely to actually make more opponents than any supporters.

t3_1by9pm

I think it should be illegal for police to radar drivers on an interstate highway system. CMV

I believe that the main reason this is done is speed trap drivers into paying money to the county or city in which they are ticketed in. This is not protecting anyone. There should be a speed limit, but it should be loosely enforced. Highways only. I understand speeding is dangerous when you are in a town or a neighborhood, but when you have exit and on ramps clearly dividing the traffic from any obstacle it seems ridiculous.

I think it should be illegal for police to radar drivers on an interstate highway system. CMV. I believe that the main reason this is done is speed trap drivers into paying money to the county or city in which they are ticketed in. This is not protecting anyone. There should be a speed limit, but it should be loosely enforced. Highways only. I understand speeding is dangerous when you are in a town or a neighborhood, but when you have exit and on ramps clearly dividing the traffic from any obstacle it seems ridiculous.

t3_1ewgzj

I believe that the US has neither the right nor responsibility to settle disputes in foreign countries with military action. CMV

We aren't exactly in top condition right now, shouldn't we worry about ourselves before we spend tons of money sending troops into other countries? Won't it completely mess up the culture of other countries if we don't let them grow at their own rate?

I believe that the US has neither the right nor responsibility to settle disputes in foreign countries with military action. CMV. We aren't exactly in top condition right now, shouldn't we worry about ourselves before we spend tons of money sending troops into other countries? Won't it completely mess up the culture of other countries if we don't let them grow at their own rate?

t3_4e65k9

CMV:Popular educators on Youtube that aren't expert on the subject are not actually teaching anything but rather just presenting an sensationalized version on the topic.

I think to educate someone or teach something means that the learner should be able to apply what they have learned to similar situations. However, after watching countless "educational" videos I don't think I can apply any of that "learning." Reading the comment section basically consists of "Wow you just blew my mind" instead of "That was really interesting to learn" Many of these videos present an over sensationalized view on a . For example, VSauce's "You can't touch anything" video, which is just plainly not true (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0TNJrTlbBQ an actual physicist's explanation). As for ASAPScience, they just state facts in an effort to answer some meaningless question. There is nothing wrong with that, it is entertaining but not really educational (at least the way I see it). Some example of good educators include: SmarterEveryDay (If he isn't an expert in the topic he speaks with and expert about it) Brady Haran's channel (for the most part minus some questionable editing), Veritasium (although he is straying) and MinutePhysics. Other Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88 _____ > *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:Popular educators on Youtube that aren't expert on the subject are not actually teaching anything but rather just presenting an sensationalized version on the topic. I think to educate someone or teach something means that the learner should be able to apply what they have learned to similar situations. However, after watching countless "educational" videos I don't think I can apply any of that "learning." Reading the comment section basically consists of "Wow you just blew my mind" instead of "That was really interesting to learn" Many of these videos present an over sensationalized view on a . For example, VSauce's "You can't touch anything" video, which is just plainly not true (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0TNJrTlbBQ an actual physicist's explanation). As for ASAPScience, they just state facts in an effort to answer some meaningless question. There is nothing wrong with that, it is entertaining but not really educational (at least the way I see it). Some example of good educators include: SmarterEveryDay (If he isn't an expert in the topic he speaks with and expert about it) Brady Haran's channel (for the most part minus some questionable editing), Veritasium (although he is straying) and MinutePhysics. Other Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

t3_1jta5q

I don't think the US spying on foreign people is illegal or unconstitutional and is something that every country tries to do since foreign espionage became a thing. CMV

Pretty much since countries have had spy agencies, there has been an effort to collect intelligence on foreign nations and their people. It might be seen as wrong morally, but let's be realistic, no nation is going to unilaterally give up their spying capabilities. The US is just more sophisticated in their intelligence gathering. Would anyone be complaining if we were wiretapping the government of North Korea or the people in the Middle East? Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that the US Constitution applies to US citizens and residents, so the 4th amendment can't be extended to everyone on Earth.

I don't think the US spying on foreign people is illegal or unconstitutional and is something that every country tries to do since foreign espionage became a thing. CMV. Pretty much since countries have had spy agencies, there has been an effort to collect intelligence on foreign nations and their people. It might be seen as wrong morally, but let's be realistic, no nation is going to unilaterally give up their spying capabilities. The US is just more sophisticated in their intelligence gathering. Would anyone be complaining if we were wiretapping the government of North Korea or the people in the Middle East? Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that the US Constitution applies to US citizens and residents, so the 4th amendment can't be extended to everyone on Earth.

t3_1b9hdk

I believe 9/11 was carried out/desired by the US government. CMV.

Probably gonna piss off a lot of people with this, but here goes. I'm not into conspiracy theories in general, and I think people like Alex Jones are paranoid nutbags. But why is it so hard for people to believe that the US government was involved in 9/11? Considering: 1) They had a motive (Halliburton war profits and Dick Cheney's past as CEO, an excuse for perpetual war for the sake of grabbing resources, etc.) 2) Dubious circumstances (alleged warnings, tower 7, eyewitness reports of bombs going off before the first plane hit, the NORAD exercise which prevented them from stopping the hijacked planes, and much more) 3) Similar scenarios have provably been planned before (Operation Northwoods, which was rejected by the Kennedy adminstration) I dont *necessarily* believe the government was actively involved, but I'm pretty sure they at least could have prevented it but chose not to. CMV.

I believe 9/11 was carried out/desired by the US government. CMV. Probably gonna piss off a lot of people with this, but here goes. I'm not into conspiracy theories in general, and I think people like Alex Jones are paranoid nutbags. But why is it so hard for people to believe that the US government was involved in 9/11? Considering: 1) They had a motive (Halliburton war profits and Dick Cheney's past as CEO, an excuse for perpetual war for the sake of grabbing resources, etc.) 2) Dubious circumstances (alleged warnings, tower 7, eyewitness reports of bombs going off before the first plane hit, the NORAD exercise which prevented them from stopping the hijacked planes, and much more) 3) Similar scenarios have provably been planned before (Operation Northwoods, which was rejected by the Kennedy adminstration) I dont *necessarily* believe the government was actively involved, but I'm pretty sure they at least could have prevented it but chose not to. CMV.

t3_1n7a2r

I no longer love Star Wars, I used to be a huge fan but now I think it's become a bastardization of its former glory and just wish it would fade away from our culture into distant memories for better days. CMV

**Context:** I was a child in the 80s and grew up in the hype that become Star Wars, right in the thick of it...but I feel over the years and especially with what we now know to be Episodes I, II & III as well as all the other crap, skewed timelines and bullshit continuity flaws presented by different incarnations of the franchise I feel everything awesome and pure that made it the phenomenon we know and love has been completely destroyed by what is, the marketing cash cow Star Wars has turned into. I used to be a hardcore fan, I watched the original series pretty much weekly, I bought merchandise, put posters on my walls and loved to talk about the series with other fans. Now every time I see a SW cosplayer, I cringe...every time somebody talks about how J J Abrams is going to make some dope ass new Star Wars, I tell myself "So fucking what?, Jedis are lame as pussies and The Force is space bacteria?" How can the damage done be rectified? Don't get me wrong, I think Episodes 7 will probably be a decent movie and I might even enjoy it but if it were up to me, I'd just let sleeping dogs lie. Forgetting the stupidity of the past is impossible for me at this point. The series as a whole is tainted, rolled up into a gimmick and sold to the masses regardless of how bad it is. It's as if the original trilogy was just a fluke because nothing touched by Star Wars has been as good as that... I dunno, maybe having Han back will make things better. Anyway, I know it's taboo to say this, but god, fuck Star Wars already....

I no longer love Star Wars, I used to be a huge fan but now I think it's become a bastardization of its former glory and just wish it would fade away from our culture into distant memories for better days. CMV. **Context:** I was a child in the 80s and grew up in the hype that become Star Wars, right in the thick of it...but I feel over the years and especially with what we now know to be Episodes I, II & III as well as all the other crap, skewed timelines and bullshit continuity flaws presented by different incarnations of the franchise I feel everything awesome and pure that made it the phenomenon we know and love has been completely destroyed by what is, the marketing cash cow Star Wars has turned into. I used to be a hardcore fan, I watched the original series pretty much weekly, I bought merchandise, put posters on my walls and loved to talk about the series with other fans. Now every time I see a SW cosplayer, I cringe...every time somebody talks about how J J Abrams is going to make some dope ass new Star Wars, I tell myself "So fucking what?, Jedis are lame as pussies and The Force is space bacteria?" How can the damage done be rectified? Don't get me wrong, I think Episodes 7 will probably be a decent movie and I might even enjoy it but if it were up to me, I'd just let sleeping dogs lie. Forgetting the stupidity of the past is impossible for me at this point. The series as a whole is tainted, rolled up into a gimmick and sold to the masses regardless of how bad it is. It's as if the original trilogy was just a fluke because nothing touched by Star Wars has been as good as that... I dunno, maybe having Han back will make things better. Anyway, I know it's taboo to say this, but god, fuck Star Wars already....

t3_2xa6lh

CMV:Most science is unreliable, and cannot be brought forward as indisputable, hard evidence in debate.

I believe this for 2 main reasons: 1) science, like religion, and often philosophy, is has always been, and always will be politicised, and sometimes fabricated/swayed for propaganda throughout the years. This includes in more recent years heavily subsidised research ant trials funded by medical companies, in order to gain support for their pharmaceuticals. 2) Science often prides itself on adapting and changing with new evidence. It is a gauge of what we currently believe to be correct. But how do we know at what point our beliefs based on science is correct, and when it will be proved wrong in the future? >In the year 1770, the official age of earth was 70,000 years old. > >In the year 1905, the official age of earth was 2 billion years old. > >In the year 1969, the official age of earth was 3.5 billion years old. > >In the year 2014, the official age of earth is 4.45 billion years old. > >Now looking at the historical dates, you will find an upward trend of about 38 years per minute. > >Now I do understand the argument of science becoming more accurate and/or reliable. But if you look at history, >scientist have been wrong more than 244 time, just in one area. Now the question is, at what point should we start believing scientists about the age of the earth, because the last 244 years has shown that the age of the earth will become even older next year, proving that science was wrong the previous year. Should we expect the official age of the earth in the year 2015 to be 4.47 billion years old? To summarise my point here is a video of [mac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM), making the same point. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Most science is unreliable, and cannot be brought forward as indisputable, hard evidence in debate. I believe this for 2 main reasons: 1) science, like religion, and often philosophy, is has always been, and always will be politicised, and sometimes fabricated/swayed for propaganda throughout the years. This includes in more recent years heavily subsidised research ant trials funded by medical companies, in order to gain support for their pharmaceuticals. 2) Science often prides itself on adapting and changing with new evidence. It is a gauge of what we currently believe to be correct. But how do we know at what point our beliefs based on science is correct, and when it will be proved wrong in the future? >In the year 1770, the official age of earth was 70,000 years old. > >In the year 1905, the official age of earth was 2 billion years old. > >In the year 1969, the official age of earth was 3.5 billion years old. > >In the year 2014, the official age of earth is 4.45 billion years old. > >Now looking at the historical dates, you will find an upward trend of about 38 years per minute. > >Now I do understand the argument of science becoming more accurate and/or reliable. But if you look at history, >scientist have been wrong more than 244 time, just in one area. Now the question is, at what point should we start believing scientists about the age of the earth, because the last 244 years has shown that the age of the earth will become even older next year, proving that science was wrong the previous year. Should we expect the official age of the earth in the year 2015 to be 4.47 billion years old? To summarise my point here is a video of [mac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM), making the same point.

t3_1cywgn

[TCMV] A tool for solving conflict

Hello everyone, I want to share with you something that helped me understand the components of a conflict and how they permutate in a way that bring both parties to an objective understanding of each other's convictions. Before reading this and other ideas by the same author, I had a more "black and white" understanding of truth. I have since changed my view on what makes a viewpoint valid. I hope you find it useful. [Here's the link.](http://www.mortylefkoe.com/a-tool-for-resolving-conflict/#)

[TCMV] A tool for solving conflict. Hello everyone, I want to share with you something that helped me understand the components of a conflict and how they permutate in a way that bring both parties to an objective understanding of each other's convictions. Before reading this and other ideas by the same author, I had a more "black and white" understanding of truth. I have since changed my view on what makes a viewpoint valid. I hope you find it useful. [Here's the link.](http://www.mortylefkoe.com/a-tool-for-resolving-conflict/#)

t3_4932l6

CMV: I think the new Ghostbusters movie is a good thing

1. The way I see it, we've been struggling to get more kids into STEM in the US, in western Europe, and probably the world. More critically, there's a serious gender imbalance. It's talked about in the media, it's talked about on reddit, it's talked about in practially every software, engineering, or laboratory workplace over the last few decades. So if a movie comes out featuring a whole cast of female scientists, that's a huge win. 2. Murray doesn't want to do GB3, so a new cast was necessary anyway. 3. Somebody complained the trailer looks cheesy: Ghostbusters *is* cheesy. It was cheesy in 1984, it was cheesy in 1989, and if it wasn't cheesy now, it wouldn't meet expectations. 4. Somebody else complained about cheap jokes and references: have you even seen Ghostbusters? If there are clever jokes or subtle humor (which is also present in the 1984 and 89 films), you obviously won't see that in the trailer. Let's talk about that women in STEM thing. Girls *seriously* lack in science-type role models today. The daughter of a friend of mine is 10, and she went bananas when Lego released an "astronomy lego" set for their relatively new line of girl-targeted legos. Girls *love* this stuff, but if they don't have access to the same implicit support of their interests and aspirations as the boys do, through the culture as presented by the media, then they're going to lose that interest, and then society loses in general. It would have been great if Matt Damon was a woman in The Martian, because like half the dudes I know already want to go to Mars, but women just don't want to die on a lifeless rock. Ghostbusters 3 isn't going to be a blockbuster instant classic like The Martian, but we'll just have to make do. There's some advantages to GB3 over The Martian, too, because it'll show women working closely together to solve problems with (fictional) science, and these characters can reflect a broader spectrum of personalities and interests than a single person, which hopefully can appeal to a larger group of girls. So all these things went through my mind while watching the trailer, and even though I wasn't doubled over laughing by the end, I was thoroughly impressed and thought Reddit would be thrilled about it. Imagine my surprise when reddit was anything but. Care to explain? _____ > *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 new Ghostbusters movie is a good thing. 1. The way I see it, we've been struggling to get more kids into STEM in the US, in western Europe, and probably the world. More critically, there's a serious gender imbalance. It's talked about in the media, it's talked about on reddit, it's talked about in practially every software, engineering, or laboratory workplace over the last few decades. So if a movie comes out featuring a whole cast of female scientists, that's a huge win. 2. Murray doesn't want to do GB3, so a new cast was necessary anyway. 3. Somebody complained the trailer looks cheesy: Ghostbusters *is* cheesy. It was cheesy in 1984, it was cheesy in 1989, and if it wasn't cheesy now, it wouldn't meet expectations. 4. Somebody else complained about cheap jokes and references: have you even seen Ghostbusters? If there are clever jokes or subtle humor (which is also present in the 1984 and 89 films), you obviously won't see that in the trailer. Let's talk about that women in STEM thing. Girls *seriously* lack in science-type role models today. The daughter of a friend of mine is 10, and she went bananas when Lego released an "astronomy lego" set for their relatively new line of girl-targeted legos. Girls *love* this stuff, but if they don't have access to the same implicit support of their interests and aspirations as the boys do, through the culture as presented by the media, then they're going to lose that interest, and then society loses in general. It would have been great if Matt Damon was a woman in The Martian, because like half the dudes I know already want to go to Mars, but women just don't want to die on a lifeless rock. Ghostbusters 3 isn't going to be a blockbuster instant classic like The Martian, but we'll just have to make do. There's some advantages to GB3 over The Martian, too, because it'll show women working closely together to solve problems with (fictional) science, and these characters can reflect a broader spectrum of personalities and interests than a single person, which hopefully can appeal to a larger group of girls. So all these things went through my mind while watching the trailer, and even though I wasn't doubled over laughing by the end, I was thoroughly impressed and thought Reddit would be thrilled about it. Imagine my surprise when reddit was anything but. Care to explain?

t3_5cueds

CMV: A primary role of government should be to allow vertical movement through an economy

A primary role of government on the economy should be to maintain the structure that allows for the upward mobility of individuals and groups in all aspects of society/economy (think jobs, civic groups, corporations, etc) as well as to maintain sufficient competition within industries. Particularly, government should not help nor hurt any individual/group, but simply maintain the infrastructures that allow people to seek out help. Forms of seeking out help would be education, job search organizations, etc. The government should not give tax breaks to established companies that are already doing well, instead the government should focus providing the opportunity of support to small businesses and remove barriers to entering an industry. With regard to individuals, the government should structure taxes in such a way as to keep in mind that the economy grows with a thriving middle/upper-middle class because they're the ones that start businesses (quite literally creating jobs). A great idea would even be to have government hosted hackathons/startup competitions and other infrastructures that allow entrepreneurs and investors to easily communicate. This is my own moderate mix of liberal and conservative views on the function of government. I often find myself asking these questions in many controversial political topics: 1. Is there really too much government? What could go wrong without those regulations. 2. Is there really too little government? Would adding certain regulations increase or decrease competition? Here are some issues that need an objective analysis of governmental role with my corresponding view: 1. **ISP monopolies** : Fuck Comcast, [let Google Fiber compete with minimal red tape](http://www.netcompetition.org/wp-content/uploads/Google-Kansas-Agreement1.pdf) 2. **Wall Street Bailouts** : There's no such thing as "too big to fail." That simply means the banks need competion. If an entrepreneur takes a risk and fails, that's not my problem to pay for. 3. **Subsidies for big monopolies like Monsanto** : Regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with the use of GMOs in food, the real injustice is that done to the small farmer trying to enter the food industry. Small farmers face high costs of seeds due to patents, which is an example of the government playing too big of a role in creating a large barrier to enter a market. This in turn leads to less competition, which leads to lower quality products to consumers, but worst of all a weakened economy due to the food industry not working optimally. A bit about me: I have a background in Computer Science and I would love any analogies related to my field. I see the economy as an A.I that the government (programmer) tries to guide in the right direction as new inputs are presented. Politically, I always say I'm independent, because I actively try to fish out any bias from the arguments I hear in order to deduce the root cause of any problem. It's better to know one's stance on an issue by issue basis than to know their affiliation to a particular political party. Finally, while I did provide specific examples of issues to point to, I'd prefer to keep the topic about the role of government in general on the economy.

CMV: A primary role of government should be to allow vertical movement through an economy. A primary role of government on the economy should be to maintain the structure that allows for the upward mobility of individuals and groups in all aspects of society/economy (think jobs, civic groups, corporations, etc) as well as to maintain sufficient competition within industries. Particularly, government should not help nor hurt any individual/group, but simply maintain the infrastructures that allow people to seek out help. Forms of seeking out help would be education, job search organizations, etc. The government should not give tax breaks to established companies that are already doing well, instead the government should focus providing the opportunity of support to small businesses and remove barriers to entering an industry. With regard to individuals, the government should structure taxes in such a way as to keep in mind that the economy grows with a thriving middle/upper-middle class because they're the ones that start businesses (quite literally creating jobs). A great idea would even be to have government hosted hackathons/startup competitions and other infrastructures that allow entrepreneurs and investors to easily communicate. This is my own moderate mix of liberal and conservative views on the function of government. I often find myself asking these questions in many controversial political topics: 1. Is there really too much government? What could go wrong without those regulations. 2. Is there really too little government? Would adding certain regulations increase or decrease competition? Here are some issues that need an objective analysis of governmental role with my corresponding view: 1. **ISP monopolies** : Fuck Comcast, [let Google Fiber compete with minimal red tape](http://www.netcompetition.org/wp-content/uploads/Google-Kansas-Agreement1.pdf) 2. **Wall Street Bailouts** : There's no such thing as "too big to fail." That simply means the banks need competion. If an entrepreneur takes a risk and fails, that's not my problem to pay for. 3. **Subsidies for big monopolies like Monsanto** : Regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with the use of GMOs in food, the real injustice is that done to the small farmer trying to enter the food industry. Small farmers face high costs of seeds due to patents, which is an example of the government playing too big of a role in creating a large barrier to enter a market. This in turn leads to less competition, which leads to lower quality products to consumers, but worst of all a weakened economy due to the food industry not working optimally. A bit about me: I have a background in Computer Science and I would love any analogies related to my field. I see the economy as an A.I that the government (programmer) tries to guide in the right direction as new inputs are presented. Politically, I always say I'm independent, because I actively try to fish out any bias from the arguments I hear in order to deduce the root cause of any problem. It's better to know one's stance on an issue by issue basis than to know their affiliation to a particular political party. Finally, while I did provide specific examples of issues to point to, I'd prefer to keep the topic about the role of government in general on the economy.

t3_2x9snj

CMV: I think politicians should be held liable for statements they make.

Let me be a little more specific: If a politician makes a statement that a courtroom could prove he/she knew was false - at the time the statement was made -, he/she should be held liable and subject to legal recourse. To hedge against abuse , that would probably have to be applied to statements made either in an official capacity (while holding office, making statements in that role), or in the context of a campaign for a specific office. Sure, they could probably weasel around the way I've structured it. But I find the principle in general is sound. I've probably bulldozed through a million unintended consequences, so point them out and CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think politicians should be held liable for statements they make. Let me be a little more specific: If a politician makes a statement that a courtroom could prove he/she knew was false - at the time the statement was made -, he/she should be held liable and subject to legal recourse. To hedge against abuse , that would probably have to be applied to statements made either in an official capacity (while holding office, making statements in that role), or in the context of a campaign for a specific office. Sure, they could probably weasel around the way I've structured it. But I find the principle in general is sound. I've probably bulldozed through a million unintended consequences, so point them out and CMV.

t3_29b4r1

CMV: True peace can never exist.

I've personally come to the conclusion that we humans have manufactured a word that is not meant to exist. We think that so long as there is no war, then we live in peace. How can there be peace when our own species cannot understand each other? You speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals. You speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated. **I'm very open to this particular subject because I've not read too much about it.** However, the answer seems to be clear. Power, money, and all that brings the goods of this world will always be the determinant factor, whether or not *true peace* can be achieved. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea to give you guys an idea of what I mean by true peace. **I personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other. I don't mean for them to understand how I feel when I've experienced something they haven't, but rather that not everyone's mentality is the same. When homosexuals are not hated because "they're different", or religious people are not hated because "they're dangerous", or any of the on-going stereotypes to be honest.** Again, I'm very open to this subject and willing to have a proper discussion. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: True peace can never exist. I've personally come to the conclusion that we humans have manufactured a word that is not meant to exist. We think that so long as there is no war, then we live in peace. How can there be peace when our own species cannot understand each other? You speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals. You speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated. **I'm very open to this particular subject because I've not read too much about it.** However, the answer seems to be clear. Power, money, and all that brings the goods of this world will always be the determinant factor, whether or not *true peace* can be achieved. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea to give you guys an idea of what I mean by true peace. **I personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other. I don't mean for them to understand how I feel when I've experienced something they haven't, but rather that not everyone's mentality is the same. When homosexuals are not hated because "they're different", or religious people are not hated because "they're dangerous", or any of the on-going stereotypes to be honest.** Again, I'm very open to this subject and willing to have a proper discussion. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it.

t3_2a01w9

CMV: I don't care how I'm going to feel on my death bed. Change my view.

I came across a post on FB about stuff dying people say they regret on their death bed, and what they would have done differently. I'm of the opinion that elder's wisdom is tremendously undervalued. I have also read a book called: "the 5 things you need to know before you die", based on interviews on elders that were considered happy people by their family and friends. I found valuable advice, most stuff just sounds right and relevant. Still, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the underlying, unexamined assumption behind all this: I should base my decisions, both daily and life-changing, so that I don't have regrets in, lets say, the last week of my life. How relevant is this premise? Even if there seems to be some common theme in what those people say ("live in the moment", "leave no regrets behind", "work less", "keep contact with your friends and family", etc.), I think this only means that this is the kind of thoughts you have at that period of your life. But this is not a randomized control study of behaviors VS level of happiness. Are those advice adapted to my life and time? I also think we romanticize last moments of life: this can be confusing, fearful moments, with a brain not necessarily working to its full cognitive ability... I have always been suspicious of call of authority. As you see, I'm a bit on the fence about this. What do you think? _____ > *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 care how I'm going to feel on my death bed. Change my view. I came across a post on FB about stuff dying people say they regret on their death bed, and what they would have done differently. I'm of the opinion that elder's wisdom is tremendously undervalued. I have also read a book called: "the 5 things you need to know before you die", based on interviews on elders that were considered happy people by their family and friends. I found valuable advice, most stuff just sounds right and relevant. Still, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the underlying, unexamined assumption behind all this: I should base my decisions, both daily and life-changing, so that I don't have regrets in, lets say, the last week of my life. How relevant is this premise? Even if there seems to be some common theme in what those people say ("live in the moment", "leave no regrets behind", "work less", "keep contact with your friends and family", etc.), I think this only means that this is the kind of thoughts you have at that period of your life. But this is not a randomized control study of behaviors VS level of happiness. Are those advice adapted to my life and time? I also think we romanticize last moments of life: this can be confusing, fearful moments, with a brain not necessarily working to its full cognitive ability... I have always been suspicious of call of authority. As you see, I'm a bit on the fence about this. What do you think?

t3_6tw5ts

CMV: There's nothing inherently wrong with 'identity politics'

[Identity politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics#Debates_and_criticism) > also called identitarian politics, refers to political positions based on the **interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.** Identity politics includes the ways in which **people's politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations.** > Examples include social organizations based on age, religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. I personally don't see any problem with identity politics unless I am naively ignoring it as just a talking point used specifically by the right (and left to some degree). I think its natural for people to cluster together into groups with people that have similar affiliations to them. And it makes sense for political parties to pander and seek out support for these people. The point of political parties is to represent the people who support them and make policies on their behalf and best interests. Some examples of identity politics that Democrats seek are: ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people, young people, urbanized areas Some examples of identity politics that Republicans seek are: religious evangelicals, generally wealthy individuals, older white males, military veterans & personnel, gun owners, 'small businesses' and ethnonationalists Both sides are obviously doing it and I don't think its necessarily wrong for political groups to pander for those sorts of people. 'Identity politics' led to the Civil Rights Movement with African Americans, later women, and now more recently LGBT rights. On the right identity politics has been important for groups such as the NRA on gun rights and religious groups on abortion stance. So could someone explain to me in political science terms, not partisan bias on why identity politics has been bad? And if so how do you fix it and what do you replace it with? Again I think there is no reason to deny that both sides do it for morally good or [bankrupt reasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy), just explain why the cons outweighs the pros in this instance. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's nothing inherently wrong with 'identity politics'. [Identity politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics#Debates_and_criticism) > also called identitarian politics, refers to political positions based on the **interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.** Identity politics includes the ways in which **people's politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations.** > Examples include social organizations based on age, religion, social class or caste, culture, dialect, disability, education, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, generation, occupation, profession, race, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, settlement, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status. I personally don't see any problem with identity politics unless I am naively ignoring it as just a talking point used specifically by the right (and left to some degree). I think its natural for people to cluster together into groups with people that have similar affiliations to them. And it makes sense for political parties to pander and seek out support for these people. The point of political parties is to represent the people who support them and make policies on their behalf and best interests. Some examples of identity politics that Democrats seek are: ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people, young people, urbanized areas Some examples of identity politics that Republicans seek are: religious evangelicals, generally wealthy individuals, older white males, military veterans & personnel, gun owners, 'small businesses' and ethnonationalists Both sides are obviously doing it and I don't think its necessarily wrong for political groups to pander for those sorts of people. 'Identity politics' led to the Civil Rights Movement with African Americans, later women, and now more recently LGBT rights. On the right identity politics has been important for groups such as the NRA on gun rights and religious groups on abortion stance. So could someone explain to me in political science terms, not partisan bias on why identity politics has been bad? And if so how do you fix it and what do you replace it with? Again I think there is no reason to deny that both sides do it for morally good or [bankrupt reasons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy), just explain why the cons outweighs the pros in this instance.

t3_1jn157

Fat People Should Pay More to take Mass Transportation. CMV.

EDIT: My mind is changed about public transportation (e.g. the subway and public buses), but I still don't think there's a remotely compelling argument for it on commercial mass transportation (e.g. airlines and commercial buses). If the cost of taking mass transportation is associated with taking up space on a certain vehicle, then fat people should pay more. I'm tired of sitting on four-hour bus rides next to some big fat load whose fat legs rolls squish out from under the middle arm rest and impede on my space and act entitled to this extra space because they are fat. If a fat person is going to take up more space, they should pay for it. It's bad enough that on the NYC subway during peak activity hours when people are just struggling to cram on the train and you have one giant fat person taking up room that two normal people could have fit in. I really don't see how it's fair for fat people to pay the same when they take up more space. CMV.

Fat People Should Pay More to take Mass Transportation. CMV. EDIT: My mind is changed about public transportation (e.g. the subway and public buses), but I still don't think there's a remotely compelling argument for it on commercial mass transportation (e.g. airlines and commercial buses). If the cost of taking mass transportation is associated with taking up space on a certain vehicle, then fat people should pay more. I'm tired of sitting on four-hour bus rides next to some big fat load whose fat legs rolls squish out from under the middle arm rest and impede on my space and act entitled to this extra space because they are fat. If a fat person is going to take up more space, they should pay for it. It's bad enough that on the NYC subway during peak activity hours when people are just struggling to cram on the train and you have one giant fat person taking up room that two normal people could have fit in. I really don't see how it's fair for fat people to pay the same when they take up more space. CMV.

t3_1brl8e

I think people who hate on fedora wearers are the ones with the problem. CMV.

I should mention I do not wear a fedora myself. However, when I read fedora-bashing comments on Reddit, to me, the vitriol that comes across is kind of scary. Is it really that intimidating to these people that someone who might be a little socially awkward would want to use an accessory to help boost their confidence? I suspect the loudest anti-fedora protestors to be the ones that most wish the freedom to don one themselves without fear of harsh judgement. I understand that, perhaps years later, the fedora crowd might look back and cringe a little at the way they approached their appearance. But I also think that looking back on one's own awkwardness is a nice healthy way to validate one's own personal growth, and that you need to commit mistakes in all ways of living in order to move on to something greater. It is often true that people who take chances are ridiculed for their failures in the present, but if they keep sticking with it, eventually find their own unique way to surpass, or at least become accepted by, the status-quo crowd who mocked them. Very few people are born with an innate sense of style, and even fewer can look back on a 20 year old picture and think "yeah this outfit would still look good today." So who is anyone to mock anyone else's sense of style, when eventually it's going to all look like brown and orange striped 70's style wide lapels and powdered blue ruffle shirts anyway? I will say that I have had a beard for many years, and for a very long time I did not properly trim it. I really, really wish someone had come along and told me not to shave directly along my jaw line. I wound up figuring that out on my own. So I understand the benefit of good ADVICE. Good advice would be to help a fedoran find the CORRECT hat. Or to offer fashion advice in other ways. Whenever I see people just losing their shit over the fashion accessories some total stranger is wearing, I just think that life is too short to start fuming over the way other people choose to look when they venture into the outside world. This just comes up so often on reddit (and I'm sorry to add to the phenomenon here), I'm thinking maybe I'm missing something, and that I too should be personally offended by the way someone else dresses. I am willing to change my view if I hear a good enough argument.

I think people who hate on fedora wearers are the ones with the problem. CMV. I should mention I do not wear a fedora myself. However, when I read fedora-bashing comments on Reddit, to me, the vitriol that comes across is kind of scary. Is it really that intimidating to these people that someone who might be a little socially awkward would want to use an accessory to help boost their confidence? I suspect the loudest anti-fedora protestors to be the ones that most wish the freedom to don one themselves without fear of harsh judgement. I understand that, perhaps years later, the fedora crowd might look back and cringe a little at the way they approached their appearance. But I also think that looking back on one's own awkwardness is a nice healthy way to validate one's own personal growth, and that you need to commit mistakes in all ways of living in order to move on to something greater. It is often true that people who take chances are ridiculed for their failures in the present, but if they keep sticking with it, eventually find their own unique way to surpass, or at least become accepted by, the status-quo crowd who mocked them. Very few people are born with an innate sense of style, and even fewer can look back on a 20 year old picture and think "yeah this outfit would still look good today." So who is anyone to mock anyone else's sense of style, when eventually it's going to all look like brown and orange striped 70's style wide lapels and powdered blue ruffle shirts anyway? I will say that I have had a beard for many years, and for a very long time I did not properly trim it. I really, really wish someone had come along and told me not to shave directly along my jaw line. I wound up figuring that out on my own. So I understand the benefit of good ADVICE. Good advice would be to help a fedoran find the CORRECT hat. Or to offer fashion advice in other ways. Whenever I see people just losing their shit over the fashion accessories some total stranger is wearing, I just think that life is too short to start fuming over the way other people choose to look when they venture into the outside world. This just comes up so often on reddit (and I'm sorry to add to the phenomenon here), I'm thinking maybe I'm missing something, and that I too should be personally offended by the way someone else dresses. I am willing to change my view if I hear a good enough argument.

t3_2aklm2

CMV: sex should be treated as just an activity that people do, like fishing or watching a movie.

Listed for easier rebuttal and addressing: 1. Putting a big amount of value on sex by seeing it as something to only do with one person can create tension later on in a relationship due to sexual incompatibility. 2. It is an integral part of a relationship, so by lessening the value on sex can allow people to explore this part of a relationship. 3. By treating it as just another activity to enjoy, it allows relationships to be built on other things such as trust, communication, emotional intimacy, etc. I personally believe that putting sex on a pedestal is potentially harmful to society and people in relationships. Thus, we should reduce the value of sex in society. CMV!

CMV: sex should be treated as just an activity that people do, like fishing or watching a movie. Listed for easier rebuttal and addressing: 1. Putting a big amount of value on sex by seeing it as something to only do with one person can create tension later on in a relationship due to sexual incompatibility. 2. It is an integral part of a relationship, so by lessening the value on sex can allow people to explore this part of a relationship. 3. By treating it as just another activity to enjoy, it allows relationships to be built on other things such as trust, communication, emotional intimacy, etc. I personally believe that putting sex on a pedestal is potentially harmful to society and people in relationships. Thus, we should reduce the value of sex in society. CMV!

t3_2s1f6o

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, January 03, 2015 - Friday, January 09, 2015

Totals: 7 days, 119 posts, 9,636 comments. Included in this report: The top 119 posts, and 9,041 of the top comments, by 2,371 distinct authors. No posts were gilded, but 3 comments were gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |869|/u/SimplyHere|[CMV: Students who receive no financial aid from their parents should be able to declare independent on their FAFSA.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r6cz6/cmv_students_who_receive_no_financial_aid_from/)| |797|/u/GetCapeFly|[CMV: School hours should be 9am to 5pm to match office hours in order to facilitate working parents.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rqvf8/cmv_school_hours_should_be_9am_to_5pm_to_match/)| |717|/u/Cofficular|[CMV: We the people of all countries should ALWAYS be allowed to record police officers and public officials (In Germany we are NOT!!)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rieng/cmv_we_the_people_of_all_countries_should_always/)| |637|/u/cognitiveThizzonance|[CMV: Explaining causation is not "blaming" the victim, and it's a worthwhile endeavor.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rnfn0/cmv_explaining_causation_is_not_blaming_the/)| |609|/u/runescapethug|[CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rd7mg/cmv_america_is_a_better_place_because_of_the_55/)| |568|/u/FearlessClone|[CMV: Religion is still in society because it is taught and forced into children's brains.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rfea1/cmv_religion_is_still_in_society_because_it_is/)| |534|/u/InsaneTeaparty|[CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rawgb/cmv_i_believe_that_regularly_browsing_4chan_will/)| |443|/u/Dudugs|[CMV: Saying the game isn't worth paying for isn't an excuse for pirating videogames](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rv2z3/cmv_saying_the_game_isnt_worth_paying_for_isnt_an/)| |441|/u/shekib82|[CMV: I believe a world government is a good thing](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r862l/cmv_i_believe_a_world_government_is_a_good_thing/)| |216|/u/einmaliger|[CMV: Driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rk7my/cmv_driving_a_car_is_insanely_risky_and_probably/)| |174|/u/GaveUpOnLyfe|[CMV: I'm scared shitless over automation and the disappearance of jobs](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rekvc/cmv_im_scared_shitless_over_automation_and_the/)| |133|/u/Bookworm12k|[CMV: The pledge of allegiance should be removed from public schools in the US because it violates both freedom *of* and freedom *from* religion.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rtxcw/cmv_the_pledge_of_allegiance_should_be_removed/)| |121|/u/Telochi|[CMV: There is no productive reason to have, "Under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance and, "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2romiq/cmv_there_is_no_productive_reason_to_have_under/)| |108|/u/garnteller|[[MOD POST] Genderless January](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r8cmq/mod_post_genderless_january/)| |102|/u/rideo_mortem|[CMV: The pharmaceutical industry should be subject to the Hippocratic oath.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ruf3h/cmv_the_pharmaceutical_industry_should_be_subject/)| |102|/u/MordorsFinest|[CMV: The U.S. drinking age, and other laws that are disrespected by the majority, should no longer be enforced and changed](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rf32u/cmv_the_us_drinking_age_and_other_laws_that_are/)| |101|/u/Sohcahtoa82|[CMV: Cloth car seats are better than leather](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rd3qe/cmv_cloth_car_seats_are_better_than_leather/)| |73|/u/Seventh_______|[CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkzen/cmv_eugenics_isnt_all_that_bad_and_we_dont_even/)| |68|/u/leopold_s|[CMV: I think the idea of a life after death is far more frightening than simply ceasing to exist](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ri1zm/cmv_i_think_the_idea_of_a_life_after_death_is_far/)| |64|/u/1millionbucks|[CMV: Irony aside, most people that post in CMV are uneducated, and changing their view on one point won't solve this overall problem](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkjr3/cmv_irony_aside_most_people_that_post_in_cmv_are/)| |61|/u/Cleverpenguins|[CMV: Wedding ceremonies are a waste of time money, and energy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rb4j5/cmv_wedding_ceremonies_are_a_waste_of_time_money/)| |60|/u/Cranyx|[CMV: In the Cold War between The US and The Soviet Union, the United States were the good guys.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rvt8f/cmv_in_the_cold_war_between_the_us_and_the_soviet/)| |52|/u/LittleWhiteTab|[CMV: Charlie Hebdo is a morally-repulsive, fundamentally racist paper that preys on middle class fear in France (and now abroad), and does not deserve the outpouring of support it is receiving.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rrwft/cmv_charlie_hebdo_is_a_morallyrepulsive/)| |50|/u/ke7ofi|[CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rexe3/cmv_emts_sar_firefighters_police_etc_should/)| |37|/u/debatingaccount|[CMV: It is ok to hate a religion so long as you do not hate its followers](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rpcgr/cmv_it_is_ok_to_hate_a_religion_so_long_as_you_do/)| |34|/u/CallMeDoc24|[CMV: Prerequisites for courses should be replaced by a "(strongly) suggested background"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkf8n/cmv_prerequisites_for_courses_should_be_replaced/)| |34|/u/mybromarcusaurelius|[CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rgs7o/cmv_assuming_there_is_no_afterlife_then_life_is/)| |33|/u/DirtyStanBoozie|[CMV: Pugs](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rspje/cmv_pugs/)| |33|/u/Dim_Innuendo|[CMV: Almost every college football Bowl Game should be eliminated](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2regf2/cmv_almost_every_college_football_bowl_game/)| |32|/u/RazzzerBlade|[CMV: Philosophy has no tangible value as an academic field of study.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rmy6e/cmv_philosophy_has_no_tangible_value_as_an/)| |29|/u/ChagSC|[CMV: Captions translating Arabic into English need to have "Allahu Akbar" displayed as "God is Greater" or "God is [the] Greatest".](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rosbp/cmv_captions_translating_arabic_into_english_need/)| |27|/u/nn123654|[CMV: Minimum Wages Should Automatically Adjust Based on a Price Index](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rhve5/cmv_minimum_wages_should_automatically_adjust/)| |27|/u/sniperman357|[CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rc3p3/cmvpatriotism_is_the_belief_that_being_born_on/)| |26|/u/Dalanzadgad|[CMV:"Brave New World" was not Dystopian Fiction, and even had a happy ending](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ra6a1/cmvbrave_new_world_was_not_dystopian_fiction_and/)| |25|/u/abXcv|[CMV: Dynastic Wealth Should Not Be Allowed](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rqija/cmv_dynastic_wealth_should_not_be_allowed/)| |23|/u/Curious_Miner|[CMV: Colonel Quaritch from "Avatar" was right.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r7f0g/cmv_colonel_quaritch_from_avatar_was_right/)| |22|/u/Helicase21|[CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rcrkd/cmv_veganism_and_vegetarianism_are_not_the_best/)| |21|/u/CaptainNapoleon|[CMV: I think that drone strikes and other similar types of operations like with bin Laden are futile and illegal](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rh0xo/cmv_i_think_that_drone_strikes_and_other_similar/)| |20|/u/theGIRTHQUAKE|[CMV: Printing an image of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is not "standing up for free speech"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rn2em/cmv_printing_an_image_of_the_muslim_prophet/)| |20|/u/alexskc95|[CMV: "What is your favorite X" does not stimulate interesting discussion and shouldn't be allowed on strictly moderated forums/subreddits.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkplw/cmv_what_is_your_favorite_x_does_not_stimulate/)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, January 03, 2015 - Friday, January 09, 2015. Totals: 7 days, 119 posts, 9,636 comments. Included in this report: The top 119 posts, and 9,041 of the top comments, by 2,371 distinct authors. No posts were gilded, but 3 comments were gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |869|/u/SimplyHere|[CMV: Students who receive no financial aid from their parents should be able to declare independent on their FAFSA.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r6cz6/cmv_students_who_receive_no_financial_aid_from/)| |797|/u/GetCapeFly|[CMV: School hours should be 9am to 5pm to match office hours in order to facilitate working parents.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rqvf8/cmv_school_hours_should_be_9am_to_5pm_to_match/)| |717|/u/Cofficular|[CMV: We the people of all countries should ALWAYS be allowed to record police officers and public officials (In Germany we are NOT!!)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rieng/cmv_we_the_people_of_all_countries_should_always/)| |637|/u/cognitiveThizzonance|[CMV: Explaining causation is not "blaming" the victim, and it's a worthwhile endeavor.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rnfn0/cmv_explaining_causation_is_not_blaming_the/)| |609|/u/runescapethug|[CMV: America is a better place because of the 55 million abortions its had](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rd7mg/cmv_america_is_a_better_place_because_of_the_55/)| |568|/u/FearlessClone|[CMV: Religion is still in society because it is taught and forced into children's brains.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rfea1/cmv_religion_is_still_in_society_because_it_is/)| |534|/u/InsaneTeaparty|[CMV: I believe that regularly browsing 4chan will make you into a worse person](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rawgb/cmv_i_believe_that_regularly_browsing_4chan_will/)| |443|/u/Dudugs|[CMV: Saying the game isn't worth paying for isn't an excuse for pirating videogames](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rv2z3/cmv_saying_the_game_isnt_worth_paying_for_isnt_an/)| |441|/u/shekib82|[CMV: I believe a world government is a good thing](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r862l/cmv_i_believe_a_world_government_is_a_good_thing/)| |216|/u/einmaliger|[CMV: Driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rk7my/cmv_driving_a_car_is_insanely_risky_and_probably/)| |174|/u/GaveUpOnLyfe|[CMV: I'm scared shitless over automation and the disappearance of jobs](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rekvc/cmv_im_scared_shitless_over_automation_and_the/)| |133|/u/Bookworm12k|[CMV: The pledge of allegiance should be removed from public schools in the US because it violates both freedom *of* and freedom *from* religion.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rtxcw/cmv_the_pledge_of_allegiance_should_be_removed/)| |121|/u/Telochi|[CMV: There is no productive reason to have, "Under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance and, "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2romiq/cmv_there_is_no_productive_reason_to_have_under/)| |108|/u/garnteller|[[MOD POST] Genderless January](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r8cmq/mod_post_genderless_january/)| |102|/u/rideo_mortem|[CMV: The pharmaceutical industry should be subject to the Hippocratic oath.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ruf3h/cmv_the_pharmaceutical_industry_should_be_subject/)| |102|/u/MordorsFinest|[CMV: The U.S. drinking age, and other laws that are disrespected by the majority, should no longer be enforced and changed](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rf32u/cmv_the_us_drinking_age_and_other_laws_that_are/)| |101|/u/Sohcahtoa82|[CMV: Cloth car seats are better than leather](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rd3qe/cmv_cloth_car_seats_are_better_than_leather/)| |73|/u/Seventh_______|[CMV: Eugenics isn't all that bad... And we don't even have to kill anyone for it](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkzen/cmv_eugenics_isnt_all_that_bad_and_we_dont_even/)| |68|/u/leopold_s|[CMV: I think the idea of a life after death is far more frightening than simply ceasing to exist](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ri1zm/cmv_i_think_the_idea_of_a_life_after_death_is_far/)| |64|/u/1millionbucks|[CMV: Irony aside, most people that post in CMV are uneducated, and changing their view on one point won't solve this overall problem](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkjr3/cmv_irony_aside_most_people_that_post_in_cmv_are/)| |61|/u/Cleverpenguins|[CMV: Wedding ceremonies are a waste of time money, and energy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rb4j5/cmv_wedding_ceremonies_are_a_waste_of_time_money/)| |60|/u/Cranyx|[CMV: In the Cold War between The US and The Soviet Union, the United States were the good guys.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rvt8f/cmv_in_the_cold_war_between_the_us_and_the_soviet/)| |52|/u/LittleWhiteTab|[CMV: Charlie Hebdo is a morally-repulsive, fundamentally racist paper that preys on middle class fear in France (and now abroad), and does not deserve the outpouring of support it is receiving.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rrwft/cmv_charlie_hebdo_is_a_morallyrepulsive/)| |50|/u/ke7ofi|[CMV: EMTs, SAR, firefighters, police, etc. should receive “military discounts”.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rexe3/cmv_emts_sar_firefighters_police_etc_should/)| |37|/u/debatingaccount|[CMV: It is ok to hate a religion so long as you do not hate its followers](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rpcgr/cmv_it_is_ok_to_hate_a_religion_so_long_as_you_do/)| |34|/u/CallMeDoc24|[CMV: Prerequisites for courses should be replaced by a "(strongly) suggested background"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkf8n/cmv_prerequisites_for_courses_should_be_replaced/)| |34|/u/mybromarcusaurelius|[CMV: Assuming there is no afterlife, then life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rgs7o/cmv_assuming_there_is_no_afterlife_then_life_is/)| |33|/u/DirtyStanBoozie|[CMV: Pugs](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rspje/cmv_pugs/)| |33|/u/Dim_Innuendo|[CMV: Almost every college football Bowl Game should be eliminated](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2regf2/cmv_almost_every_college_football_bowl_game/)| |32|/u/RazzzerBlade|[CMV: Philosophy has no tangible value as an academic field of study.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rmy6e/cmv_philosophy_has_no_tangible_value_as_an/)| |29|/u/ChagSC|[CMV: Captions translating Arabic into English need to have "Allahu Akbar" displayed as "God is Greater" or "God is [the] Greatest".](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rosbp/cmv_captions_translating_arabic_into_english_need/)| |27|/u/nn123654|[CMV: Minimum Wages Should Automatically Adjust Based on a Price Index](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rhve5/cmv_minimum_wages_should_automatically_adjust/)| |27|/u/sniperman357|[CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rc3p3/cmvpatriotism_is_the_belief_that_being_born_on/)| |26|/u/Dalanzadgad|[CMV:"Brave New World" was not Dystopian Fiction, and even had a happy ending](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ra6a1/cmvbrave_new_world_was_not_dystopian_fiction_and/)| |25|/u/abXcv|[CMV: Dynastic Wealth Should Not Be Allowed](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rqija/cmv_dynastic_wealth_should_not_be_allowed/)| |23|/u/Curious_Miner|[CMV: Colonel Quaritch from "Avatar" was right.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2r7f0g/cmv_colonel_quaritch_from_avatar_was_right/)| |22|/u/Helicase21|[CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rcrkd/cmv_veganism_and_vegetarianism_are_not_the_best/)| |21|/u/CaptainNapoleon|[CMV: I think that drone strikes and other similar types of operations like with bin Laden are futile and illegal](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rh0xo/cmv_i_think_that_drone_strikes_and_other_similar/)| |20|/u/theGIRTHQUAKE|[CMV: Printing an image of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is not "standing up for free speech"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rn2em/cmv_printing_an_image_of_the_muslim_prophet/)| |20|/u/alexskc95|[CMV: "What is your favorite X" does not stimulate interesting discussion and shouldn't be allowed on strictly moderated forums/subreddits.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rkplw/cmv_what_is_your_favorite_x_does_not_stimulate/)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

t3_2q388d

CMV: I don't have a problem with the U.S. torturing people.

Recently in the news the C.I.A. and Bush administration have been under a lot of heat for torturing prisoners. In the grand scheme of things, what are a few lives compared to the safety of thousands of others. The people they are torturing are a global threat; it's not out of patriotism that I'm trying to justify this for the sake of protecting good old 'murica. I think the main argument against me would be that there's a chance that some of these people may be innocent. But if someone came up to me, and said three other people and I need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it's either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, I would volunteer in a heartbeat. I am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and I'm okay with that because I understand that those are keeping us safe. I think my overall opinion is that it's good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you can't negotiate with and you just have to kill (or torture) them.

CMV: I don't have a problem with the U.S. torturing people. Recently in the news the C.I.A. and Bush administration have been under a lot of heat for torturing prisoners. In the grand scheme of things, what are a few lives compared to the safety of thousands of others. The people they are torturing are a global threat; it's not out of patriotism that I'm trying to justify this for the sake of protecting good old 'murica. I think the main argument against me would be that there's a chance that some of these people may be innocent. But if someone came up to me, and said three other people and I need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it's either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, I would volunteer in a heartbeat. I am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and I'm okay with that because I understand that those are keeping us safe. I think my overall opinion is that it's good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you can't negotiate with and you just have to kill (or torture) them.

t3_1ceeh9

I apparently have an unexamined assumption that tragedy and adversity are necessary to deepen experience of life and create wisdom. CMV

The concept in operation here is [post-traumatic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_growth), which is descriptive of positive life changes after world-shattering events (but the question then becomes, is the permanent change in baseline real or illusory?). I *have* been abused and hold that the experience has forced me to deepen my understanding of myself so as to survive. I have difficulty understanding the perspectives of people who have not had their worldview shattered and rebuilt before. How do they *know* who they are or what they want to do? Can you get deep intellectual inquiry into yourself, the nature of reality, and the nature of identity without psychological pain to motivate it? Ultimately, though, this feels like a piece of [cached](http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/) Deep Wisdom and I have no idea where I got it from.

I apparently have an unexamined assumption that tragedy and adversity are necessary to deepen experience of life and create wisdom. CMV. The concept in operation here is [post-traumatic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_growth), which is descriptive of positive life changes after world-shattering events (but the question then becomes, is the permanent change in baseline real or illusory?). I *have* been abused and hold that the experience has forced me to deepen my understanding of myself so as to survive. I have difficulty understanding the perspectives of people who have not had their worldview shattered and rebuilt before. How do they *know* who they are or what they want to do? Can you get deep intellectual inquiry into yourself, the nature of reality, and the nature of identity without psychological pain to motivate it? Ultimately, though, this feels like a piece of [cached](http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/) Deep Wisdom and I have no idea where I got it from.

t3_2l32ni

CMV: for most people science requires faith

Let me start by saying that I am not at all a religious person and that I am a university student who loves reading and learning about science and about how the world works. I grew up with two very atheistic parents and if anything would consider myself to be a secular humanist. But that's not what this CMV is about. Lately I have been thinking about my understanding of science and the way I know what I know about scientific subjects. Most of my knowledge about science comes from either high school or stuff I read on the internet in my free time. The problem that I saw with this is that I have little to no way of knowing for a fact that what I read is correct. I believe that a vast majority of people who use science as a way of understanding the world do not or can not read, understand and critically analyze the specific data and research that was used to prove that a certain scientific theory is correct. People might understand that the universe was formed by the big bang, that species form through natural selection, that the sun is about 150 million km away or whatever, but since they have not done the research themselves and since a large part of people do not know or understand *why* this is true they don't use proof to back up their way of thinking. Since people do not use proof but still claim that scientific theory x is correct, and since faith means believing something to be true without evidence, we could say that these people use faith as a major factor in their way of viewing the world. The difference is that it's not a religious faith but rather a faith in humanity, in nature and in science. So Reddit, 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 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 most people science requires faith. Let me start by saying that I am not at all a religious person and that I am a university student who loves reading and learning about science and about how the world works. I grew up with two very atheistic parents and if anything would consider myself to be a secular humanist. But that's not what this CMV is about. Lately I have been thinking about my understanding of science and the way I know what I know about scientific subjects. Most of my knowledge about science comes from either high school or stuff I read on the internet in my free time. The problem that I saw with this is that I have little to no way of knowing for a fact that what I read is correct. I believe that a vast majority of people who use science as a way of understanding the world do not or can not read, understand and critically analyze the specific data and research that was used to prove that a certain scientific theory is correct. People might understand that the universe was formed by the big bang, that species form through natural selection, that the sun is about 150 million km away or whatever, but since they have not done the research themselves and since a large part of people do not know or understand *why* this is true they don't use proof to back up their way of thinking. Since people do not use proof but still claim that scientific theory x is correct, and since faith means believing something to be true without evidence, we could say that these people use faith as a major factor in their way of viewing the world. The difference is that it's not a religious faith but rather a faith in humanity, in nature and in science. So Reddit, please CMV.

t3_1eo400

I think that children should be spanked as a form of punishment. CMV

I think that kids these days are highly prone to acting up or getting in trouble because parents these days are too easy on their kids out of fear. I think we're raising a generation that controls us instead of us controlling them.

I think that children should be spanked as a form of punishment. CMV. I think that kids these days are highly prone to acting up or getting in trouble because parents these days are too easy on their kids out of fear. I think we're raising a generation that controls us instead of us controlling them.

t3_3fwvj6

CMV: Society, as a whole, does in fact have a finite amount of caring

On Facebook, reddit, etc. there have been a lot of people posting about Cecil the lion, and then people counterposting about how X amount of children die in Africa every day, or X amount of veterans commit suicide per day, and so forth the point being that people shouldn't care about a dead lion when human beings are hurting. The counter response to this is often "I feel bad for the children as well as the lion, people don't have a finite amount of caring." I feel that while individuals can be moved by more than one thing at a time and even contribute time, money, and energy to more than one cause at a time society as a whole does not. In this context society being the majority of people on social media etc. Remember when people were all up in arms about the Confederate flag, then before than earthquake victims, then before than Edward Snowden, and before that Kony 2012 and so on and so forth? A week or so from now the majority of people won't know or care who Cecil was and they'll be on to the next thing. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to focus on the most impactful issues because society doesn't have the ability to care for more than one thing at a time or for very long. Therefore, we must make the most out of the internet's limited attention span while we have it.

CMV: Society, as a whole, does in fact have a finite amount of caring. On Facebook, reddit, etc. there have been a lot of people posting about Cecil the lion, and then people counterposting about how X amount of children die in Africa every day, or X amount of veterans commit suicide per day, and so forth the point being that people shouldn't care about a dead lion when human beings are hurting. The counter response to this is often "I feel bad for the children as well as the lion, people don't have a finite amount of caring." I feel that while individuals can be moved by more than one thing at a time and even contribute time, money, and energy to more than one cause at a time society as a whole does not. In this context society being the majority of people on social media etc. Remember when people were all up in arms about the Confederate flag, then before than earthquake victims, then before than Edward Snowden, and before that Kony 2012 and so on and so forth? A week or so from now the majority of people won't know or care who Cecil was and they'll be on to the next thing. That's why, in my opinion, it's important to focus on the most impactful issues because society doesn't have the ability to care for more than one thing at a time or for very long. Therefore, we must make the most out of the internet's limited attention span while we have it.

t3_2ixwey

CMV: "No means no, it doesn't mean convince me." Is really just an attempt to absolve yourself of fault from a situation.

"No means no, it doesn't mean convince me." It seems like another phrase brought on by ignorant "feminists" in an attempt to rid themselves of fault from an act of sex (or anything, really) as it places the receiver of the comment in a position such that they feel they are forcing the sayer to do something by discussing said act. It also implies that the sayer has no control over their actions, or that they do, but they shouldn't be held accountable for them since they were "convinced". Please, change my view.

CMV: "No means no, it doesn't mean convince me." Is really just an attempt to absolve yourself of fault from a situation. "No means no, it doesn't mean convince me." It seems like another phrase brought on by ignorant "feminists" in an attempt to rid themselves of fault from an act of sex (or anything, really) as it places the receiver of the comment in a position such that they feel they are forcing the sayer to do something by discussing said act. It also implies that the sayer has no control over their actions, or that they do, but they shouldn't be held accountable for them since they were "convinced". Please, change my view.

t3_2zkcfb

CMV: As an Argentinean, I feel that the country that most threatens world peace is US.

My reasons are in history. Provided by These articles: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/19/why-the-us-is-the-biggest-threat-to-world-peace/ http://rt.com/news/us-biggest-threat-peace-079/ this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frO1T3vZNrA this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions This document (that partially shows direct involvement and encouragement from the US to a conflicted guerilla terrorist state, in which my uncle was killed -as a reason: I have a direct life impact of US' foreign war policy): http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/19760326%20Secretary%20of%20State%20kissinger%20Chariman%20pages%2019-23.pdf Many etcs, All convey the same idea. That United States will not think twice to cease whatever it wants by force. Its method will imply either lying to the population, or shaping their opinion through mass media. By the way, we do not have WMD (if it ever should be raised as a point). People on the street here usually say that we, Latin America, are next: that the US is coming for either our water, or our natural resources, or whatever. And recently, the US has established a military base in Paraguay: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/2012718115122519807.html Please, please, please, change my view. It's not like I'm becoming paranoid, but to be honest, from the outside, I've seen what the US government can do in the middle east, and I don't want latin america to become the next middle east. ________________________________________ Edit 1: Thank you for your help. I still haven't changed my view, but the discussion was very lively. Reddit is such a beautiful a place, where you can discuss what you believe with people willing to take it seriously. Thank you all for your efforts and help. I'll come back later and keep reading you all. Edit 2: Amazing to see how many replies my worries have received. I have read all of them. My view has not changed, but I now appreciate the whole issue in a broader light and at least have enough information to seek out different point of views. I might not be fear ridden altogether, but I can see much more clearly than before many reasons that went way over my head. Thank you very much to everyone for taking the time to answer in earnest and with civility.

CMV: As an Argentinean, I feel that the country that most threatens world peace is US. My reasons are in history. Provided by These articles: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/19/why-the-us-is-the-biggest-threat-to-world-peace/ http://rt.com/news/us-biggest-threat-peace-079/ this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frO1T3vZNrA this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions This document (that partially shows direct involvement and encouragement from the US to a conflicted guerilla terrorist state, in which my uncle was killed -as a reason: I have a direct life impact of US' foreign war policy): http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB185/19760326%20Secretary%20of%20State%20kissinger%20Chariman%20pages%2019-23.pdf Many etcs, All convey the same idea. That United States will not think twice to cease whatever it wants by force. Its method will imply either lying to the population, or shaping their opinion through mass media. By the way, we do not have WMD (if it ever should be raised as a point). People on the street here usually say that we, Latin America, are next: that the US is coming for either our water, or our natural resources, or whatever. And recently, the US has established a military base in Paraguay: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/2012718115122519807.html Please, please, please, change my view. It's not like I'm becoming paranoid, but to be honest, from the outside, I've seen what the US government can do in the middle east, and I don't want latin america to become the next middle east. ________________________________________ Edit 1: Thank you for your help. I still haven't changed my view, but the discussion was very lively. Reddit is such a beautiful a place, where you can discuss what you believe with people willing to take it seriously. Thank you all for your efforts and help. I'll come back later and keep reading you all. Edit 2: Amazing to see how many replies my worries have received. I have read all of them. My view has not changed, but I now appreciate the whole issue in a broader light and at least have enough information to seek out different point of views. I might not be fear ridden altogether, but I can see much more clearly than before many reasons that went way over my head. Thank you very much to everyone for taking the time to answer in earnest and with civility.

t3_4x4btz

CMV: There should be a legal and peaceful way to 'reset' government.

We all know that revolution in inevitable. Every government inherently grows in power and eventually the people rebel...violently. History is full of these events, it's like clockwork. So why didn't our founding fathers include a reset switch in our constitution/bill of rights? Didn't they know that even a democratic government can become corrupt? Sure they put in the three branches that have power over each other but where are the people in this equation? Why don't the people have power over the government itself? Just the people in the government. To CMV, I'd need to see a peaceful democratic way that is currently possible to literally remove all of government from power, even all laws, institutions. Or perhaps an argument on why even a reset switch would still lead to violent revolution eventually.

CMV: There should be a legal and peaceful way to 'reset' government. We all know that revolution in inevitable. Every government inherently grows in power and eventually the people rebel...violently. History is full of these events, it's like clockwork. So why didn't our founding fathers include a reset switch in our constitution/bill of rights? Didn't they know that even a democratic government can become corrupt? Sure they put in the three branches that have power over each other but where are the people in this equation? Why don't the people have power over the government itself? Just the people in the government. To CMV, I'd need to see a peaceful democratic way that is currently possible to literally remove all of government from power, even all laws, institutions. Or perhaps an argument on why even a reset switch would still lead to violent revolution eventually.

t3_4gzxsm

CMV: I Fear Ted Cruz

Guys... I genuinely fear Ted Cruz. Like, I am afraid of him. I am afraid of what he will do to America. Specifically, [I am afraid that he will impose theocracy](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/rafael-cruz-ted-cruz-campaign-god-sign) and with a Republican controlled congress might just do it. He strikes me so much as a real, heartless liar. Has no plans to give health care to any American, help to anyone who is pregnancy by rape, and just basically sees it all as tough luck. I fear that under his government, the nation could probably go to hell and he'd step aside. I fear that he will place Muslim neighborhoods under siege, declare Christianity America's religion, and sideline all others. I even fear what effects he will have on the rest of the world. I fear that he may give Israel the greenlight to invade and occupy surrounding countries, that he will break international law when he has the blood of innocent civilians after carpet bombing on his hands. I fear [he is truly dark and twisted](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ted-cruz%E2%80%99s-dark-twisted-world-why-his-far-right-social-views-are-even-scarier-than-you-think/ar-BBrKHw3)... and even worse I fear that after all that, the Republicans will be too spineless to impeach him. _____ > *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 Fear Ted Cruz. Guys... I genuinely fear Ted Cruz. Like, I am afraid of him. I am afraid of what he will do to America. Specifically, [I am afraid that he will impose theocracy](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/rafael-cruz-ted-cruz-campaign-god-sign) and with a Republican controlled congress might just do it. He strikes me so much as a real, heartless liar. Has no plans to give health care to any American, help to anyone who is pregnancy by rape, and just basically sees it all as tough luck. I fear that under his government, the nation could probably go to hell and he'd step aside. I fear that he will place Muslim neighborhoods under siege, declare Christianity America's religion, and sideline all others. I even fear what effects he will have on the rest of the world. I fear that he may give Israel the greenlight to invade and occupy surrounding countries, that he will break international law when he has the blood of innocent civilians after carpet bombing on his hands. I fear [he is truly dark and twisted](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ted-cruz%E2%80%99s-dark-twisted-world-why-his-far-right-social-views-are-even-scarier-than-you-think/ar-BBrKHw3)... and even worse I fear that after all that, the Republicans will be too spineless to impeach him.

t3_2b1knq

CMV: Most of Weird Al's songs are not parodies and just exploit the popularity of chart hits

This isn't a debate on how funny Weird Al's songs are. Personally I find them hit or miss but after the recent posts about how he always gets permission from the artist "even though he doesn't have to"* and the current daily videos he's releasing it got me thinking. Out of the last four he's released at the time of writing (Tacky, Word Crimes, Foil and Handy) none of them actually seem to have anything to say about the original song or artist. * Tacky is just a song about being tacky and uncool to the tune of Happy. Nothing really to say about it and I can't even think how you mock it. * Word Crimes is just a song about correct grammar and spelling to the tune of Blurred Lines. There might be some grammatical errors in blurred lines but if so they weren't obvious and weren't really addressed directly. There's also so much you could mock about this song. * Foil is just a song about using foil and being paranoid whereas the original song was about rejecting the higher classes and embracing your roots (I think). Not really sure where the connection is. * Handy is just a song about being a handy man and doesn't seem to have anything to do with Iggy Azalea's original. And some of the older ones: * White and Nerdy is about a guy who's (obvs) white and nerdy whereas Ridin' is about an epidemic of racist police. Granted it's probably quite difficult to parody a song dealing with a legitimate social issue but it still doesn't. * The eBay Song is just about buying stuff on eBay and doesn't seem to have anything to do with I Want It That Way and didn't even mock the boy band style. * Amish Paradise is again just a silly song about being Amish and has nothing really to say about Gangsta's Paradise. A major exception to this is Smells Like Nirvana which was pretty much unintelligible and clearly mocked the vocal style of Cobain in that song. There may be a few others that are genuinely parodying the original work/artist but the vast majority of the songs I have heard that are held up as "parodies" are blatantly just not. Also his videos do sometimes mock the style of the video of the original and I'll concede that this is sometimes potentially parody but his actual songs are still mostly not. Now I do have to admit that I haven't listened to his whole discography so if anyone could demonstrate that he does have lots of songs that are genuine parodies that would definitely changemyview. (An aside: It wouldn't surprise me if Weird Al gets permission for his songs because he is very aware of this and knows that they don't fall into the category of fair use.) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Most of Weird Al's songs are not parodies and just exploit the popularity of chart hits. This isn't a debate on how funny Weird Al's songs are. Personally I find them hit or miss but after the recent posts about how he always gets permission from the artist "even though he doesn't have to"* and the current daily videos he's releasing it got me thinking. Out of the last four he's released at the time of writing (Tacky, Word Crimes, Foil and Handy) none of them actually seem to have anything to say about the original song or artist. * Tacky is just a song about being tacky and uncool to the tune of Happy. Nothing really to say about it and I can't even think how you mock it. * Word Crimes is just a song about correct grammar and spelling to the tune of Blurred Lines. There might be some grammatical errors in blurred lines but if so they weren't obvious and weren't really addressed directly. There's also so much you could mock about this song. * Foil is just a song about using foil and being paranoid whereas the original song was about rejecting the higher classes and embracing your roots (I think). Not really sure where the connection is. * Handy is just a song about being a handy man and doesn't seem to have anything to do with Iggy Azalea's original. And some of the older ones: * White and Nerdy is about a guy who's (obvs) white and nerdy whereas Ridin' is about an epidemic of racist police. Granted it's probably quite difficult to parody a song dealing with a legitimate social issue but it still doesn't. * The eBay Song is just about buying stuff on eBay and doesn't seem to have anything to do with I Want It That Way and didn't even mock the boy band style. * Amish Paradise is again just a silly song about being Amish and has nothing really to say about Gangsta's Paradise. A major exception to this is Smells Like Nirvana which was pretty much unintelligible and clearly mocked the vocal style of Cobain in that song. There may be a few others that are genuinely parodying the original work/artist but the vast majority of the songs I have heard that are held up as "parodies" are blatantly just not. Also his videos do sometimes mock the style of the video of the original and I'll concede that this is sometimes potentially parody but his actual songs are still mostly not. Now I do have to admit that I haven't listened to his whole discography so if anyone could demonstrate that he does have lots of songs that are genuine parodies that would definitely changemyview. (An aside: It wouldn't surprise me if Weird Al gets permission for his songs because he is very aware of this and knows that they don't fall into the category of fair use.)

t3_1mru3p

I want to get an iPhone. CMV.

I'm taking the plunge and buying a smart phone (I currently have a Nokia 3410). I'll probably get a 5 or 5c because I'm not made of money. Here's why: * Most of my friends have them and so I'm quite used to the operating system. * I have a mac so my calendar etc. will sync automatically on iCloud. * They're consistently ranked in the top-end of the smart phone range (I don't think much can separate the top of the field, making it hard to choose) * One of my friends bought a Samsung galaxy s3 after having an iphone and it slowed considerably within a year or so (that might have been him being an idiot though). I would want mine to last a good few years. * cf. above point with my other friend's iPhones which have lasted them a long time A few points that have less weighting: * I can't stand Windows so I definitely won't be getting a Windows phone. * I don't like the Android naming convention for their OS (although, Mavericks? Come on Apple, that's rubbish). Arguments for and against are most welcomed. Thanks.

I want to get an iPhone. CMV. I'm taking the plunge and buying a smart phone (I currently have a Nokia 3410). I'll probably get a 5 or 5c because I'm not made of money. Here's why: * Most of my friends have them and so I'm quite used to the operating system. * I have a mac so my calendar etc. will sync automatically on iCloud. * They're consistently ranked in the top-end of the smart phone range (I don't think much can separate the top of the field, making it hard to choose) * One of my friends bought a Samsung galaxy s3 after having an iphone and it slowed considerably within a year or so (that might have been him being an idiot though). I would want mine to last a good few years. * cf. above point with my other friend's iPhones which have lasted them a long time A few points that have less weighting: * I can't stand Windows so I definitely won't be getting a Windows phone. * I don't like the Android naming convention for their OS (although, Mavericks? Come on Apple, that's rubbish). Arguments for and against are most welcomed. Thanks.

t3_2hrrsv

CMV: That we should Legalize Cannabis, Both Medically and Recreationally.

I Personally believe that we should have Legalized Cannabis, Both Medicinally and Recreation-ally. As it stands, Industrial Hemp (Which doesn't cause you to get high) Is lumped together with Cannabis, The Benefits of Legalized Hemp and reasoning to Legalize it can be found [Here](http://hempethics.weebly.com/). As for Medical Cannabis, There are benefits to a massive amount of Severe Medical Impairments, as well as to ease symptoms of Treatments, and to help with Treatments, such as using cannabis to help Triggered Cell Death (Apoptosis) in Cancerous Cells, and to help ease Nausea, etc that is caused by Chemotherapy. As for Recreational Cannabis, Area's that have Medically and Recreation-ally legalized cannabis has had usage by teens lowered (Less teens using) It would Provide thousands of Jobs, if not Ten's of thousands of Jobs. Annually it would prevent Billions of Wasted Tax Dollars, And free officers to keep tighter control of Violent Criminals, and it would also Prevent over 750,000 Arrests per year (88-89% Simple Possession, Meaning a Very, Very Small Amount) Therefor allowing for even better control of Violent and Dangerous Criminals. Alone California could attain more then 1 Billion Dollars of Revenue from Legalized Cannabis, and Nationally we would stand to make nearly or Over 40 Billion Dollars per year. Nobody is Advocating giving it to teens for recreation. Change My View.

CMV: That we should Legalize Cannabis, Both Medically and Recreationally. I Personally believe that we should have Legalized Cannabis, Both Medicinally and Recreation-ally. As it stands, Industrial Hemp (Which doesn't cause you to get high) Is lumped together with Cannabis, The Benefits of Legalized Hemp and reasoning to Legalize it can be found [Here](http://hempethics.weebly.com/). As for Medical Cannabis, There are benefits to a massive amount of Severe Medical Impairments, as well as to ease symptoms of Treatments, and to help with Treatments, such as using cannabis to help Triggered Cell Death (Apoptosis) in Cancerous Cells, and to help ease Nausea, etc that is caused by Chemotherapy. As for Recreational Cannabis, Area's that have Medically and Recreation-ally legalized cannabis has had usage by teens lowered (Less teens using) It would Provide thousands of Jobs, if not Ten's of thousands of Jobs. Annually it would prevent Billions of Wasted Tax Dollars, And free officers to keep tighter control of Violent Criminals, and it would also Prevent over 750,000 Arrests per year (88-89% Simple Possession, Meaning a Very, Very Small Amount) Therefor allowing for even better control of Violent and Dangerous Criminals. Alone California could attain more then 1 Billion Dollars of Revenue from Legalized Cannabis, and Nationally we would stand to make nearly or Over 40 Billion Dollars per year. Nobody is Advocating giving it to teens for recreation. Change My View.

t3_1vw2b0

I believe that if you violently attack anyone for any reason other than to guarantee your physical well being, then you should be arrested. CMV

This is basically my reaction to the Kanye West incident when he assaulted a kid for calling his wife a "Nigger lover." In my opinion, Kanye's actions were completely unjustified. This is however, just a single example of a person using physical abuse as a means of retribution for verbal abuse. Firstly, verbal/emotional assault and physical assault are two very different actions with two very different outcomes. One could simply ignore any verbal abuse. Someone calling you a "Nigger lover" could easily be laughed off or just tuned out regardless of the emotional tension caused by their words. Physical violence however, cannot be simply ignored. Verbal/emotional harassment is verbal/emotional abuse, but the opposite is not always true. I wanted to differentiate this. Calling someone a "Nigger lover" would just be regular verbal abuse, but would not be considered verbal harassment. I perceive verbal abuse usually consists of one-liners, or standard insults, verbal harassment as insulting an individual continuously, even after the person has repeatedly asked you to leave them alone. Following someone, and constantly yelling "nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger" would be considered verbal harassment. Verbal harassment, IMO, should be illegal, and thus considered for civil charges if the harassed person is willing to press charges, however, this still does not justify the use of violence. Verbal threats would be in the same category as verbal harassment. If you fear for your life because someone has threatened to harm you, then you could call the police, and possibly press charges, but this still does not justify the use of violence. If they act on their words, then the use of violent or even lethal force should be legal. Yes, I am very aware of the [Fighting words doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words), and I am not trying to argue the legality of my point. Personally, I think the fighting words doctrine is flawed. Trying to verbally instigate a fight, and actually starting a fight are very different. I believe that people who start fights because of insults, or "fighting words" are emotionally undisciplined, and should be forced to take anger management classes if they ever react with violence because their feelings were hurt.

I believe that if you violently attack anyone for any reason other than to guarantee your physical well being, then you should be arrested. CMV. This is basically my reaction to the Kanye West incident when he assaulted a kid for calling his wife a "Nigger lover." In my opinion, Kanye's actions were completely unjustified. This is however, just a single example of a person using physical abuse as a means of retribution for verbal abuse. Firstly, verbal/emotional assault and physical assault are two very different actions with two very different outcomes. One could simply ignore any verbal abuse. Someone calling you a "Nigger lover" could easily be laughed off or just tuned out regardless of the emotional tension caused by their words. Physical violence however, cannot be simply ignored. Verbal/emotional harassment is verbal/emotional abuse, but the opposite is not always true. I wanted to differentiate this. Calling someone a "Nigger lover" would just be regular verbal abuse, but would not be considered verbal harassment. I perceive verbal abuse usually consists of one-liners, or standard insults, verbal harassment as insulting an individual continuously, even after the person has repeatedly asked you to leave them alone. Following someone, and constantly yelling "nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger" would be considered verbal harassment. Verbal harassment, IMO, should be illegal, and thus considered for civil charges if the harassed person is willing to press charges, however, this still does not justify the use of violence. Verbal threats would be in the same category as verbal harassment. If you fear for your life because someone has threatened to harm you, then you could call the police, and possibly press charges, but this still does not justify the use of violence. If they act on their words, then the use of violent or even lethal force should be legal. Yes, I am very aware of the [Fighting words doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words), and I am not trying to argue the legality of my point. Personally, I think the fighting words doctrine is flawed. Trying to verbally instigate a fight, and actually starting a fight are very different. I believe that people who start fights because of insults, or "fighting words" are emotionally undisciplined, and should be forced to take anger management classes if they ever react with violence because their feelings were hurt.

t3_1mml9g

I don't think black-only fraternities should exist, and if they are allowed to, white-only fraternities should be allowed to as well. CMV

At my school there are many "historically black" fraternities that have 100% black membership. I think adding members on the basis of race is discriminatory and a bad idea for both (non-existent) white fraternities and black fraternities. However, if black fraternities are allowed to discriminate, white fraternities should be able to exist as well. Most arguments I've seen against this mention that white people make up the majority. This is true, but people who's parent's make less than $100k per year make up the majority. Should there be fraternities that only allow members with rich parents who make over $100k per year? Should we allow fraternities to exist that only allow brown haired students in? Another argument I hear is that blacks are disadvantaged. The factors that effect how disadvantaged you are are your intelligence and socio-economic status. Unfortunately many blacks are of lower socio-economic status, but there are many whites in the same situation. I wouldn't have a problem with creating a frat for low income students, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. To me a fraternity is about brotherhood and making connections. If you are in a frat that only accepts one race then you are implying that you like being friends with one race more than another and that you don't want to make connects with people of similar interest as much as you do members of your race.

I don't think black-only fraternities should exist, and if they are allowed to, white-only fraternities should be allowed to as well. CMV. At my school there are many "historically black" fraternities that have 100% black membership. I think adding members on the basis of race is discriminatory and a bad idea for both (non-existent) white fraternities and black fraternities. However, if black fraternities are allowed to discriminate, white fraternities should be able to exist as well. Most arguments I've seen against this mention that white people make up the majority. This is true, but people who's parent's make less than $100k per year make up the majority. Should there be fraternities that only allow members with rich parents who make over $100k per year? Should we allow fraternities to exist that only allow brown haired students in? Another argument I hear is that blacks are disadvantaged. The factors that effect how disadvantaged you are are your intelligence and socio-economic status. Unfortunately many blacks are of lower socio-economic status, but there are many whites in the same situation. I wouldn't have a problem with creating a frat for low income students, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. To me a fraternity is about brotherhood and making connections. If you are in a frat that only accepts one race then you are implying that you like being friends with one race more than another and that you don't want to make connects with people of similar interest as much as you do members of your race.

t3_45ug0l

CMV: Relationships are pointless unless there's guarantee of continuity

I'll elaborated my opinion: people who found a significant other (SO), no matter at what age, which ended up spending their lives together out of genuine love are the only exception to my opinion. By guarantee of continuity, I mean going into a relationship knowing it'll last 'forever'. If one is in a relationship with their SO and they are truly both happy and blissful, why would they want to end it at some point? People fall out of love, have arguments, circumstances and such to make them discontinue a relationship; what's the point to them then, if this large uncertainty exists? If a couple are happy right now, but they know that at some point in the future they have to go their separate ways due to a job opportunity for example, why shouldn't they break up the instance this eventuality pops up? Surely as humans we'd rather avoid the emotional pain of developing chemistry and bonds which could never be replaced just to lose them later on? In summary, why would one agree to be in a relationship (that they judge to the best of their ability to be positive/pleasurable/good) if it is to almost surely end before one of the partners' life is spent happily together? I'm in one right now and I'm happier than I've ever been, but this thought implemented in my mind. 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: Relationships are pointless unless there's guarantee of continuity. I'll elaborated my opinion: people who found a significant other (SO), no matter at what age, which ended up spending their lives together out of genuine love are the only exception to my opinion. By guarantee of continuity, I mean going into a relationship knowing it'll last 'forever'. If one is in a relationship with their SO and they are truly both happy and blissful, why would they want to end it at some point? People fall out of love, have arguments, circumstances and such to make them discontinue a relationship; what's the point to them then, if this large uncertainty exists? If a couple are happy right now, but they know that at some point in the future they have to go their separate ways due to a job opportunity for example, why shouldn't they break up the instance this eventuality pops up? Surely as humans we'd rather avoid the emotional pain of developing chemistry and bonds which could never be replaced just to lose them later on? In summary, why would one agree to be in a relationship (that they judge to the best of their ability to be positive/pleasurable/good) if it is to almost surely end before one of the partners' life is spent happily together? I'm in one right now and I'm happier than I've ever been, but this thought implemented in my mind. Change my view?

t3_1t13bw

I believe almost all women fantasize about being with black men. CMV

I honestly believe all women have at some point in their lives, sexual fantasies about being with a black guy. The stereotypical notion that black guys are a lot bigger and the fact that it is still seen as somewhat taboo (along with the contrasting skin color). I believe that even though some women would neverr admit to it- almost all women have fantasized about being with a black guy. The increasing number of cuckold/black on white amateur porn along with personal witnessing, makes me think this is true. I also think that a large large majority of white young women in their sexual prime want to/have experimented with black men. CMV EDIT: In the first world

I believe almost all women fantasize about being with black men. CMV. I honestly believe all women have at some point in their lives, sexual fantasies about being with a black guy. The stereotypical notion that black guys are a lot bigger and the fact that it is still seen as somewhat taboo (along with the contrasting skin color). I believe that even though some women would neverr admit to it- almost all women have fantasized about being with a black guy. The increasing number of cuckold/black on white amateur porn along with personal witnessing, makes me think this is true. I also think that a large large majority of white young women in their sexual prime want to/have experimented with black men. CMV EDIT: In the first world

t3_2dg5mx

CMV: I purposefully do not return my shopping cart to the shopping cart gathering area at supermarkets because shopping carts scattered throughout parking lots create demand for jobs at supermarkets.

Many people feel that it is their duty as a shopper to return the shopping cart that they just used at the supermarket to the shopping cart area, and consider it rude to leave the cart in the middle of the parking lot next to your car. However, I believe that not only is it more convenient for the shopper to leave the cart he or she just used next to his or her car, but it also creates demand for "Courtesy Clerk" jobs at the supermarket. The job of a Courtesy Clerk, taken from the Vons supermarket chain website, is "Provides superior customer service. Greets customers, bag groceries, helps customers out to their cars and collects empty carts for return to the store. Other duties include sanitation, price checks, stocking of bags at the checkstands, cleaning of spills and returning merchandise to the shelf." So there are four main duties listed in that job description (Greet, bag, help customers, collect carts), and five secondary duties ("other duties include..."). Going off of this, we can divide a Courtesy Clerk's shift into five chunks: the main four duties, and all of the secondary duties combined into the fifth chunk. This means that **for every 6 hour shift**, one hour is spent on each chunk, so **one hour and 12 minutes is spent collecting empty carts from the parking lot.** This is consistent with my anecdotal evidence: I asked my friend who used to be a Courtesy Clerk how much time he spent per shift collecting carts, and he said at least one full hour out of every shift (split up throughout the shift). If there are three shifts per market, at six hours a shift, and two Courtesy Clerks working per shift, that's a total of 3 x 6 x 2 = 36 man-hours. And 1/5th of that is spent on collecting carts, so that's 7.2 man-hours collecting carts, which is just more than one shift. So at least one shift per day is scheduled per supermarket purely because of the demand for somebody to collect and return shopping carts. In this capitalist society, we all need jobs. Job creation is important. I would rather save time and enjoy the convenience of leaving my shopping cart in the parking lot, while creating demand for jobs, than return it, which would cause the supermarket to start cutting shifts if everybody did the same. Final disclaimer: when leaving your shopping cart next to your car in the parking lot, one must be sure to hook the wheel on a planter edge so that the cart won't roll in the wind or on the slanted pavement and damage or scratch other vehicles. Also, one should place the cart between parking spots, and not in the middle of a parking spot so that a car cannot fit there. These factors are usually easy to perform, and do not prevent one from being able to leave his or her cart next to his or her car in the parking lot. _____ > *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 purposefully do not return my shopping cart to the shopping cart gathering area at supermarkets because shopping carts scattered throughout parking lots create demand for jobs at supermarkets. Many people feel that it is their duty as a shopper to return the shopping cart that they just used at the supermarket to the shopping cart area, and consider it rude to leave the cart in the middle of the parking lot next to your car. However, I believe that not only is it more convenient for the shopper to leave the cart he or she just used next to his or her car, but it also creates demand for "Courtesy Clerk" jobs at the supermarket. The job of a Courtesy Clerk, taken from the Vons supermarket chain website, is "Provides superior customer service. Greets customers, bag groceries, helps customers out to their cars and collects empty carts for return to the store. Other duties include sanitation, price checks, stocking of bags at the checkstands, cleaning of spills and returning merchandise to the shelf." So there are four main duties listed in that job description (Greet, bag, help customers, collect carts), and five secondary duties ("other duties include..."). Going off of this, we can divide a Courtesy Clerk's shift into five chunks: the main four duties, and all of the secondary duties combined into the fifth chunk. This means that **for every 6 hour shift**, one hour is spent on each chunk, so **one hour and 12 minutes is spent collecting empty carts from the parking lot.** This is consistent with my anecdotal evidence: I asked my friend who used to be a Courtesy Clerk how much time he spent per shift collecting carts, and he said at least one full hour out of every shift (split up throughout the shift). If there are three shifts per market, at six hours a shift, and two Courtesy Clerks working per shift, that's a total of 3 x 6 x 2 = 36 man-hours. And 1/5th of that is spent on collecting carts, so that's 7.2 man-hours collecting carts, which is just more than one shift. So at least one shift per day is scheduled per supermarket purely because of the demand for somebody to collect and return shopping carts. In this capitalist society, we all need jobs. Job creation is important. I would rather save time and enjoy the convenience of leaving my shopping cart in the parking lot, while creating demand for jobs, than return it, which would cause the supermarket to start cutting shifts if everybody did the same. Final disclaimer: when leaving your shopping cart next to your car in the parking lot, one must be sure to hook the wheel on a planter edge so that the cart won't roll in the wind or on the slanted pavement and damage or scratch other vehicles. Also, one should place the cart between parking spots, and not in the middle of a parking spot so that a car cannot fit there. These factors are usually easy to perform, and do not prevent one from being able to leave his or her cart next to his or her car in the parking lot.

t3_1q5xp9

I believe League of Legends is a legitimate sport. CMV

I believe that the gaming has grown to the point where it should be considered socially as a sport(the us government approved of it already) . Professional league of legends players put in as much time as "real" sport athletes, and requires communication and cooperation of a team to achieve their goal. Thousands of people tune in everyday to watch sports like basketball and football, and the same can be said about LoL (during the season). With the google definition of sport, it reads *an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.* League of Legends requires is less physical demanding than a real sport, but still requires people to be aware, attentive, and fit physically and mentally. Players must be able to achieve multiple actions per second, which is a skill that is developed and perfected. Well anyways, CMV, all my friends think I'm weird. I'm open to ideas still.

I believe League of Legends is a legitimate sport. CMV. I believe that the gaming has grown to the point where it should be considered socially as a sport(the us government approved of it already) . Professional league of legends players put in as much time as "real" sport athletes, and requires communication and cooperation of a team to achieve their goal. Thousands of people tune in everyday to watch sports like basketball and football, and the same can be said about LoL (during the season). With the google definition of sport, it reads *an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.* League of Legends requires is less physical demanding than a real sport, but still requires people to be aware, attentive, and fit physically and mentally. Players must be able to achieve multiple actions per second, which is a skill that is developed and perfected. Well anyways, CMV, all my friends think I'm weird. I'm open to ideas still.

t3_6bt8uv

CMV I've thought that in going through the act of changing your gender, you are just conforming to the gender standards that people with similar viewpoints work so hard to fight against

I understand that I don't know everyone's situation and I'm open to most things. I'm also not actively against transgender people and think they should have fewer rights. This just boggles me. I just feel like if you think that because you feel like society typically says that is how the opposite gender is supposed to feel, why do you have to qualify those as characteristics of that gender and feel the need to switch? Why not just do whatever the fuck you want in the body you were given? I'm not against LGB, crossdressing or anything of the sort. I think that going that extra step and making gender more than just biological and having to classify who you are with that title. I just feel like making this big step is also taking two steps back in the form of removing stereotypes of certain genders. Thanks so much.

CMV I've thought that in going through the act of changing your gender, you are just conforming to the gender standards that people with similar viewpoints work so hard to fight against. I understand that I don't know everyone's situation and I'm open to most things. I'm also not actively against transgender people and think they should have fewer rights. This just boggles me. I just feel like if you think that because you feel like society typically says that is how the opposite gender is supposed to feel, why do you have to qualify those as characteristics of that gender and feel the need to switch? Why not just do whatever the fuck you want in the body you were given? I'm not against LGB, crossdressing or anything of the sort. I think that going that extra step and making gender more than just biological and having to classify who you are with that title. I just feel like making this big step is also taking two steps back in the form of removing stereotypes of certain genders. Thanks so much.

t3_2a2ngv

CMV: I'm a white native America and I owe nothing to American Indigenous people nor are they entitled to anything beyond what I am entitled to.

If they are to receive benefits from the land their tribes(families) own, then so be it. I have no disagreements that the Indigenous peoples of the US(where I am referring to) were screwed over many years ago. The indigenous peoples of today are born into our society as I was and should not be treated any differently than I am. They are not entitled to anything that I am not entitled to from society as a whole. I did not steal their land. They are not entitled to the land I live on just because their ancestors owned it two hundred years ago. Their ancestors are long dead and my European ancestors that robbed them are long dead. We are the prevailing society and they can either assimilate or keep to themselves. I do not owe them anything. Maybe many people here don't face this issue regularly, but I live in an area where there are quite a few reservations in the area. There is a lot of non-Indigenous hate from them and general nationalism coming out of them for their tribes. Regardless of their ancestry, I believe they are American like I am. I am a native American. I was born here, my parents were born here, and their parents were born here.

CMV: I'm a white native America and I owe nothing to American Indigenous people nor are they entitled to anything beyond what I am entitled to. If they are to receive benefits from the land their tribes(families) own, then so be it. I have no disagreements that the Indigenous peoples of the US(where I am referring to) were screwed over many years ago. The indigenous peoples of today are born into our society as I was and should not be treated any differently than I am. They are not entitled to anything that I am not entitled to from society as a whole. I did not steal their land. They are not entitled to the land I live on just because their ancestors owned it two hundred years ago. Their ancestors are long dead and my European ancestors that robbed them are long dead. We are the prevailing society and they can either assimilate or keep to themselves. I do not owe them anything. Maybe many people here don't face this issue regularly, but I live in an area where there are quite a few reservations in the area. There is a lot of non-Indigenous hate from them and general nationalism coming out of them for their tribes. Regardless of their ancestry, I believe they are American like I am. I am a native American. I was born here, my parents were born here, and their parents were born here.

t3_31pkxt

CMV: Dark Souls is not a good game.

It is unnecessarily difficult and feels extremely cheap for the sake of being difficult and cheap. It does little to explain itself as far as what items you must have in order to fight certain enemies, where you're supposed to go, why you're supposed to go, and what the hell is going on in the world you're in. People tell me that I'm too used to having my hand held by other games and I disagree because even though Dark Souls does teach you about your limits and goals, albeit vague, cryptic, or sparse the explanation, the penalty for learning is crushing. So crushing that I found myself spending 15 minutes getting back to the place where I died only to be killed by another "lesson" soon after. And what did I have to show for the progress I *did* make? Nothing. My understanding of it's popularity is that it's a call back to the days when games were unforgiving, and I get that. However, those older unforgiving games were as unrewarding as Dark Souls, I get the feeling that they wouldn't have been as popular as they were. Maybe I'm wrong, since that's all people had to play back then. I actually really want to like this game, but every time I play it I feel like an ant under a magnifying glass.

CMV: Dark Souls is not a good game. It is unnecessarily difficult and feels extremely cheap for the sake of being difficult and cheap. It does little to explain itself as far as what items you must have in order to fight certain enemies, where you're supposed to go, why you're supposed to go, and what the hell is going on in the world you're in. People tell me that I'm too used to having my hand held by other games and I disagree because even though Dark Souls does teach you about your limits and goals, albeit vague, cryptic, or sparse the explanation, the penalty for learning is crushing. So crushing that I found myself spending 15 minutes getting back to the place where I died only to be killed by another "lesson" soon after. And what did I have to show for the progress I *did* make? Nothing. My understanding of it's popularity is that it's a call back to the days when games were unforgiving, and I get that. However, those older unforgiving games were as unrewarding as Dark Souls, I get the feeling that they wouldn't have been as popular as they were. Maybe I'm wrong, since that's all people had to play back then. I actually really want to like this game, but every time I play it I feel like an ant under a magnifying glass.

t3_6yp87t

CMV: Money to me is a renewable source so I just spend it knowing I'll get paid again so it'll come back

I'm a freshman in college and I've seem to have an unchangeable view at the moment. I give a certain percentage of my checks to my mother to help with my college tuition, but with the leftover money I seem to not be able to save it. My view on money is I see it like water, we know there's always water so we always drink it without rationing it, hence I use my money without rationing my use because I know I'll get paid again hence getting "more water." I'm always tempted to spend it on food, clothes, etc because I know I'll get paid again but I want to break the habit of spending. I want to just view money differently because I just see it as renewable source, I tried the process where you act like you're spending your hours instead of money but it didn't work for my spending habit because "I'll still work" any suggestions will be considered, thanks!

CMV: Money to me is a renewable source so I just spend it knowing I'll get paid again so it'll come back. I'm a freshman in college and I've seem to have an unchangeable view at the moment. I give a certain percentage of my checks to my mother to help with my college tuition, but with the leftover money I seem to not be able to save it. My view on money is I see it like water, we know there's always water so we always drink it without rationing it, hence I use my money without rationing my use because I know I'll get paid again hence getting "more water." I'm always tempted to spend it on food, clothes, etc because I know I'll get paid again but I want to break the habit of spending. I want to just view money differently because I just see it as renewable source, I tried the process where you act like you're spending your hours instead of money but it didn't work for my spending habit because "I'll still work" any suggestions will be considered, thanks!

t3_658cwc

CMV: United removing the doctor from the flight was wrong, but not racist.

I've seen a lot of justified outrage over this incident, but I'm baffled by the outcry of racism over this. Surely there were not many Asian people on-board, but a statistical anomaly doesn't seem like sufficient reason to pull the race card. I've seen people claim that the other 3 passengers asked to leave were also Asian. I've seen claims that the doctor was with his wife, who was also Asian. I've also seen claims that the doctor was alone. Can anyone tell me who ALL of the passengers were who were asked to leave? Can anyone tell me if any Asians were not asked to leave? I'm looking for any clarification as to why people think this is racist.

CMV: United removing the doctor from the flight was wrong, but not racist. I've seen a lot of justified outrage over this incident, but I'm baffled by the outcry of racism over this. Surely there were not many Asian people on-board, but a statistical anomaly doesn't seem like sufficient reason to pull the race card. I've seen people claim that the other 3 passengers asked to leave were also Asian. I've seen claims that the doctor was with his wife, who was also Asian. I've also seen claims that the doctor was alone. Can anyone tell me who ALL of the passengers were who were asked to leave? Can anyone tell me if any Asians were not asked to leave? I'm looking for any clarification as to why people think this is racist.

t3_1jderv

The House is voting to de-fund PPACA/ObamaCare for the 40th time. I think this is a waste of time. CMV.

It's not that I like the health care law. I think it has a ton of problems. I also understand the law pretty well--I'm a health insurance broker. I just think that no matter what the House passes, the Senate will ignore. So why are they wasting their time doing this over and over? Rather than trying to throw out the whole thing, which isn't going to work, why not put forth some changes that will actually fix the problems? (I would say the same thing with the Democrats--they aren't putting out any bills to fix it, either--all they did was delay the 50+ mandate). CMV.

The House is voting to de-fund PPACA/ObamaCare for the 40th time. I think this is a waste of time. CMV. It's not that I like the health care law. I think it has a ton of problems. I also understand the law pretty well--I'm a health insurance broker. I just think that no matter what the House passes, the Senate will ignore. So why are they wasting their time doing this over and over? Rather than trying to throw out the whole thing, which isn't going to work, why not put forth some changes that will actually fix the problems? (I would say the same thing with the Democrats--they aren't putting out any bills to fix it, either--all they did was delay the 50+ mandate). CMV.

t3_1tqttm

I believe vegans and vegetarians who choose their diets for ethical reasons rather than simple taste or health reasons are irrational and misinformed. CMV.

First off, let me say that I fully understand the health benefits of both of these lifestyles. I also fully understand that some people just don't like meat. I have no question challenging either of those stances. My confusion occurs where people say, "it's wrong to kill animals, so I won't eat them" or "animal suffering is just as bad as human suffering. You wouldn't consume things that a human wrongly suffered to make, so why would you eat meat and animal products?" In response to the first view, the norm today is not that one goes out to kill an animal and eat it. Rather, you go to the supermarket, buy it, cook it, eat it. One person saying, "no, I won't buy that" isn't enough to affect the demand. As a result, the same number of animals will be killed and that person's vegetarianism or veganism will make no difference. And that's just the counter to that argument from a pragmatic standpoint. On an ethical level, I don't buy at all that it's wrong to kill animals. Assuming we eliminate religion from the argument (another reason for either of these diets that I have no problem understanding), humans are essentially nothing more than the highest cognitively functioning animals. We're not going to feed a lion "meat" made of soy protein and nobody has a problem with them mauling an antelope. The counter to that would be, but lions can only eat meat. Fine, replace lions with any omnivorous animal that could survive solely on plants. Again, nobody has a problem with that animal killing and eating another animal. I understand animals don't have the capacity to reason like we do (although evidence points to even that being debatable), but nobody claims that because I have the ability to feed a homeless man that I have a duty to do the same. With regards to the argument from the stance of suffering, I think it's unsound. Nike is one of the most popular brands of shoes in the world. A lot of Nike shoes are made by humans who wrongly suffer. I'm not condoning this fact, but it is a fact. Assuming it was sound though, I don't buy that dying equates to suffering. If someone walks up to me and puts a bullet in my brainstem, I haven't felt pain nor have I suffered. I'm just dead. Now, one could say that the suffering occurs in the way certain farms raise animals for slaughter. Even if I grant that, that doesn't preclude all meat and animal products. There are plenty of farms that humanely raise animals for slaughter and for certain products like milk and such. With all this in mind, CMV. Edit: A lot of you guys have made some great points. I think my issue is that, while I now understand better that being vegetarian or vegan is morally commendable, I still don't (and doubt I ever will) believe it's morally obligatory. Given that I don't think it's morally obligatory, I don't necessarily feel compelled to become vegetarian or vegan because it's not a cause I care enough about (I know I made mention of the homeless man and not being obligated to help, but for those of you who are curious, I think the global poor are far more deserving of attention than the treatment of animals and of you're curious, I recommend Thomas Pogge's book, *Politics as Usual*). Far be it from me to tell you how you should feel about it though. I won't have time to respond to all the questions you guys might have for me, but all of your points are well taken. As a generalization, I no longer believe vegans and vegetarians who choose their diets for ethical reasons are irrational and ill informed. Thanks!

I believe vegans and vegetarians who choose their diets for ethical reasons rather than simple taste or health reasons are irrational and misinformed. CMV. First off, let me say that I fully understand the health benefits of both of these lifestyles. I also fully understand that some people just don't like meat. I have no question challenging either of those stances. My confusion occurs where people say, "it's wrong to kill animals, so I won't eat them" or "animal suffering is just as bad as human suffering. You wouldn't consume things that a human wrongly suffered to make, so why would you eat meat and animal products?" In response to the first view, the norm today is not that one goes out to kill an animal and eat it. Rather, you go to the supermarket, buy it, cook it, eat it. One person saying, "no, I won't buy that" isn't enough to affect the demand. As a result, the same number of animals will be killed and that person's vegetarianism or veganism will make no difference. And that's just the counter to that argument from a pragmatic standpoint. On an ethical level, I don't buy at all that it's wrong to kill animals. Assuming we eliminate religion from the argument (another reason for either of these diets that I have no problem understanding), humans are essentially nothing more than the highest cognitively functioning animals. We're not going to feed a lion "meat" made of soy protein and nobody has a problem with them mauling an antelope. The counter to that would be, but lions can only eat meat. Fine, replace lions with any omnivorous animal that could survive solely on plants. Again, nobody has a problem with that animal killing and eating another animal. I understand animals don't have the capacity to reason like we do (although evidence points to even that being debatable), but nobody claims that because I have the ability to feed a homeless man that I have a duty to do the same. With regards to the argument from the stance of suffering, I think it's unsound. Nike is one of the most popular brands of shoes in the world. A lot of Nike shoes are made by humans who wrongly suffer. I'm not condoning this fact, but it is a fact. Assuming it was sound though, I don't buy that dying equates to suffering. If someone walks up to me and puts a bullet in my brainstem, I haven't felt pain nor have I suffered. I'm just dead. Now, one could say that the suffering occurs in the way certain farms raise animals for slaughter. Even if I grant that, that doesn't preclude all meat and animal products. There are plenty of farms that humanely raise animals for slaughter and for certain products like milk and such. With all this in mind, CMV. Edit: A lot of you guys have made some great points. I think my issue is that, while I now understand better that being vegetarian or vegan is morally commendable, I still don't (and doubt I ever will) believe it's morally obligatory. Given that I don't think it's morally obligatory, I don't necessarily feel compelled to become vegetarian or vegan because it's not a cause I care enough about (I know I made mention of the homeless man and not being obligated to help, but for those of you who are curious, I think the global poor are far more deserving of attention than the treatment of animals and of you're curious, I recommend Thomas Pogge's book, *Politics as Usual*). Far be it from me to tell you how you should feel about it though. I won't have time to respond to all the questions you guys might have for me, but all of your points are well taken. As a generalization, I no longer believe vegans and vegetarians who choose their diets for ethical reasons are irrational and ill informed. Thanks!

t3_4by3zc

CMV: School is the most important way to spend one's 20's.

Provided: you're smart and responsible. You study on the cheap, work hard and pick a major that's in demand. Even if you took a break from college and are going back. Even if you're going the slow route because you have to work for a living. Even if you have to be broke or live with your parents in your 20's. Having a practical college degree at age 30 is better than anything you could have been doing. There's not a whole lot in your 20's that you'll be missing out on. * Partying / drugs ; Been there, done that. Pretty empty pursuit. And even with college + work, you can still do it in moderation. Just once a month instead of 2-3 times a week. * Lots of sex ; Men particularly are pressured into believing they need to get as much girls as they can before the turn 30. Granted, a lot of people won't have sex with someone who isn't independent with their own place. But, who cares. Find a monogamous partner who also is prioritizing their degree and they'll totally understand. * Movies / video games ; You can do that when you get older. You can still do those in college. Just only consume the most essential ones instead of watching/playing everything that comes out. * Gymming ; You can still be slim and relatively fit in college/work. But is it really essential to spend 10-15 hours a week to be a meathead? p90x would would work for most. * Luxuries ; A nice car, nice house, nice furniture, expensive clothes, bottles of wine are nice, but they're not essential. There's diminishing gains and beyond a moderate level of luxury, it's just a waste. Also, I'd rather keep my functional car now and be able to buy a really nice car (if even I want to... who cares) than to get a Camaro now. * Having kids ; Personal preference, I know. But I think life is better for them if they have a parent with enough money and life experience to support them. * Hobbies ; magic the gathering, stamp collecting, and all that. It's fun, but I wouldn't call them "living out youre 20s" * Sports ; intrumurals instead of committed leagues. * Social events ; Can still be done on occasion with Meetup groups and such. I've been to bars a lot. Waste of time. * Artistic endeavors ; as a musician, it daunts me having less time to work on projects. but, who says i can't just work on 5 minute rough demos while I have school and then record the full version of the songs on spring/winter break? * Amazing life experiences ; skydiving only takes a few hours to do all in total. as does bungee jumping, parasailing and whatever. * Traveling ; yeah, this is probably the only thing I'd really give up. I'll probably go on a traveling binge after college and before I have kids I guess what I'm trying to say is that most "living up your 20's stuff" can either be done in moderation, done when youre older or isn't worth doing. Time passes anyway. 4 years goes in a blink. You can either make college happen in a blink or let your life pass by. I'm enrolling this summer. _____ > *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: School is the most important way to spend one's 20's. Provided: you're smart and responsible. You study on the cheap, work hard and pick a major that's in demand. Even if you took a break from college and are going back. Even if you're going the slow route because you have to work for a living. Even if you have to be broke or live with your parents in your 20's. Having a practical college degree at age 30 is better than anything you could have been doing. There's not a whole lot in your 20's that you'll be missing out on. * Partying / drugs ; Been there, done that. Pretty empty pursuit. And even with college + work, you can still do it in moderation. Just once a month instead of 2-3 times a week. * Lots of sex ; Men particularly are pressured into believing they need to get as much girls as they can before the turn 30. Granted, a lot of people won't have sex with someone who isn't independent with their own place. But, who cares. Find a monogamous partner who also is prioritizing their degree and they'll totally understand. * Movies / video games ; You can do that when you get older. You can still do those in college. Just only consume the most essential ones instead of watching/playing everything that comes out. * Gymming ; You can still be slim and relatively fit in college/work. But is it really essential to spend 10-15 hours a week to be a meathead? p90x would would work for most. * Luxuries ; A nice car, nice house, nice furniture, expensive clothes, bottles of wine are nice, but they're not essential. There's diminishing gains and beyond a moderate level of luxury, it's just a waste. Also, I'd rather keep my functional car now and be able to buy a really nice car (if even I want to... who cares) than to get a Camaro now. * Having kids ; Personal preference, I know. But I think life is better for them if they have a parent with enough money and life experience to support them. * Hobbies ; magic the gathering, stamp collecting, and all that. It's fun, but I wouldn't call them "living out youre 20s" * Sports ; intrumurals instead of committed leagues. * Social events ; Can still be done on occasion with Meetup groups and such. I've been to bars a lot. Waste of time. * Artistic endeavors ; as a musician, it daunts me having less time to work on projects. but, who says i can't just work on 5 minute rough demos while I have school and then record the full version of the songs on spring/winter break? * Amazing life experiences ; skydiving only takes a few hours to do all in total. as does bungee jumping, parasailing and whatever. * Traveling ; yeah, this is probably the only thing I'd really give up. I'll probably go on a traveling binge after college and before I have kids I guess what I'm trying to say is that most "living up your 20's stuff" can either be done in moderation, done when youre older or isn't worth doing. Time passes anyway. 4 years goes in a blink. You can either make college happen in a blink or let your life pass by. I'm enrolling this summer.

t3_1q74jp

I believe that "fat bashing" is an extension of class warfare. CMV

I am going to specifically refer to the US, as it is the culture I've been reared in, but in many other nations this is the case as well. We live in a society where it is now easier to get higher calorie food than lower calorie food. People can buy a cheeseburger from McDonalds for 1 dollar, but to buy a salad it costs 8 dollars. This is a difference in magnitude that significantly affects the lives of many people in the bottom 40% of the income bracket. For the first time in human history, the poorest of us are the ones who are getting fat. Rich people can afford healthy food, lap-band surgeries, personal trainers, and an assortment of other costly but effective changes to their lives that make them thinner. **Being thin has become a sign of being in the elite class of today's society.** Obviously there are still many poor people who do not have enough access to food period, even in the richest nations in the world. Perhaps the bottom 3% do not have enough food to eat, but the next 37% do, and the food that they have access to is food that makes them fat. Whenever I hear someone say how "they can't stand fat people" all I can think of is how lucky they are to be in a financial position where they are able to make that judgment, and where they are able to have a choice as to what size they are.

I believe that "fat bashing" is an extension of class warfare. CMV. I am going to specifically refer to the US, as it is the culture I've been reared in, but in many other nations this is the case as well. We live in a society where it is now easier to get higher calorie food than lower calorie food. People can buy a cheeseburger from McDonalds for 1 dollar, but to buy a salad it costs 8 dollars. This is a difference in magnitude that significantly affects the lives of many people in the bottom 40% of the income bracket. For the first time in human history, the poorest of us are the ones who are getting fat. Rich people can afford healthy food, lap-band surgeries, personal trainers, and an assortment of other costly but effective changes to their lives that make them thinner. **Being thin has become a sign of being in the elite class of today's society.** Obviously there are still many poor people who do not have enough access to food period, even in the richest nations in the world. Perhaps the bottom 3% do not have enough food to eat, but the next 37% do, and the food that they have access to is food that makes them fat. Whenever I hear someone say how "they can't stand fat people" all I can think of is how lucky they are to be in a financial position where they are able to make that judgment, and where they are able to have a choice as to what size they are.

t3_3lreg1

CMV: I believe that all arguments against gay marriage come from religious beliefs.

I've only ever heard arguments against same-sex marriage because of religious convictions. I believe if this is the only source of friction to the idea, that it should be legal because we cannot have religion mandating our laws. Just to be clear, I am for same-sex marriage, and I am also for the separation of church and state. I just don't think there's a valid enough reason to not allow same-sex marriage other than for religious beliefs.

CMV: I believe that all arguments against gay marriage come from religious beliefs. I've only ever heard arguments against same-sex marriage because of religious convictions. I believe if this is the only source of friction to the idea, that it should be legal because we cannot have religion mandating our laws. Just to be clear, I am for same-sex marriage, and I am also for the separation of church and state. I just don't think there's a valid enough reason to not allow same-sex marriage other than for religious beliefs.

t3_2ss8dx

CMV: I don't think extroversion and introversion are accurate representations of human behavior.

Most definitions of these terms describe people who gain recuperative "energy" from either being in social situations or being alone. They cover both extremes in human behavior. I think neither is healthy, and both are ways that people try to make their behavior appear more acceptable. Extroverts who never spend time alone usually are trying to keep busy to prevent the need to deal with certain matters. Introverts stay in their shells and qualify that decision by saying they are one of many. Their fear of breaking out of their shell keeps them from realizing that they would gain recuperative "energy" from the other method as well. As someone who has at times qualified as both definitions, I found myself looking for a third "middle" definition. Sometimes its called an omnivert or ambivert. Someone who gets energy from being with others AND by themselves. Looking into that more, I realized that it probably was not true. None of it is. These are all attempts to rationalize a phenomenon (human behavior) that is chaotic and vacillatory and cannot be grouped into a single category. I think keeping these definitions doesn't allow people to deal with issues that they may have. It may hold people back from feeling happier or more successful. At the same time, I understand that there was a reason the word "introversion" is used. There is a negative social stigma attached to spending time alone. That doesn't make sense. I think it is healthy to spend time with yourself occasionally; however, spending too much time alone can be problematic. The perfect scenario is a balance of spending time with others and spending time alone. I think one of the most common things I've heard from "fellow" introverts is that extroverts don't understand how much energy it takes to go out with friends or something. As someone who has felt somewhat like that for most of my life, I can only relate it to practicing a skill. If you practice once every month or so, things won't get much easier. It's only with regular practice that things get simpler. That's on a long term scale. You can see the same thing in shorter time scales as well. Getting to a social event and starting to talk to people and mingle is hard. But its like gathering momentum. As long as you keep putting yourself out there it will seem simple for most of the night. But if you keep going and stopping, you'll feel that same pressure every time. I've known several people that define themselves as extroverts. People that are always on the move, who can strike up a conversation with literally anyone, make friends in a snap, and quickly adapt to any social situation. It seems like magic sometimes. I admit a certain part of this has to do with the person's own skills and personality. But that was developed over a long period of time (usually their childhood) where they have perpetually put themselves "out there." At the same time, I often find they hate spending time alone. They claim to get "bored." These people seem unable to enjoy time alone with themselves. That's not good either. Bottom line, I don't think extroversion and introversion are accurate descriptions of healthy human behavior, and I think they are used to qualify unhealthy behavior.

CMV: I don't think extroversion and introversion are accurate representations of human behavior. Most definitions of these terms describe people who gain recuperative "energy" from either being in social situations or being alone. They cover both extremes in human behavior. I think neither is healthy, and both are ways that people try to make their behavior appear more acceptable. Extroverts who never spend time alone usually are trying to keep busy to prevent the need to deal with certain matters. Introverts stay in their shells and qualify that decision by saying they are one of many. Their fear of breaking out of their shell keeps them from realizing that they would gain recuperative "energy" from the other method as well. As someone who has at times qualified as both definitions, I found myself looking for a third "middle" definition. Sometimes its called an omnivert or ambivert. Someone who gets energy from being with others AND by themselves. Looking into that more, I realized that it probably was not true. None of it is. These are all attempts to rationalize a phenomenon (human behavior) that is chaotic and vacillatory and cannot be grouped into a single category. I think keeping these definitions doesn't allow people to deal with issues that they may have. It may hold people back from feeling happier or more successful. At the same time, I understand that there was a reason the word "introversion" is used. There is a negative social stigma attached to spending time alone. That doesn't make sense. I think it is healthy to spend time with yourself occasionally; however, spending too much time alone can be problematic. The perfect scenario is a balance of spending time with others and spending time alone. I think one of the most common things I've heard from "fellow" introverts is that extroverts don't understand how much energy it takes to go out with friends or something. As someone who has felt somewhat like that for most of my life, I can only relate it to practicing a skill. If you practice once every month or so, things won't get much easier. It's only with regular practice that things get simpler. That's on a long term scale. You can see the same thing in shorter time scales as well. Getting to a social event and starting to talk to people and mingle is hard. But its like gathering momentum. As long as you keep putting yourself out there it will seem simple for most of the night. But if you keep going and stopping, you'll feel that same pressure every time. I've known several people that define themselves as extroverts. People that are always on the move, who can strike up a conversation with literally anyone, make friends in a snap, and quickly adapt to any social situation. It seems like magic sometimes. I admit a certain part of this has to do with the person's own skills and personality. But that was developed over a long period of time (usually their childhood) where they have perpetually put themselves "out there." At the same time, I often find they hate spending time alone. They claim to get "bored." These people seem unable to enjoy time alone with themselves. That's not good either. Bottom line, I don't think extroversion and introversion are accurate descriptions of healthy human behavior, and I think they are used to qualify unhealthy behavior.

t3_3u6oux

CMV:It is not wrong for the media to treat white people rioting more nonchalantly than it does black people because when black people riot it IS scarier.

Alright, now that I've pissed off a lot of people with the title I hope some of you at least hear me out... Whenever something happens that results in large-scale rioting and property damage by African Americans, the words used by the media are different than the words they use when white people riot or cause property damage. This 3min clip is the most recent example I can find but there have been many similar criticisms of the media over the past two years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGJMgCn0fQs I believe that when white people riot and cause property damage, their anger, or whatever reason brought about the actions, is fleeting. It isn't real. The rioters will be over the "sports team loss" or the "drunken frat party" as soon as they sober up and the moment is over. But when black people riot, what is behind the rioting is anger and resentment over ~300 years of racism, discrimination, unequal/unfair treatment by the legal system and law enforcement, etc, etc. And that kind of anger and resentment doesn't ever go away. And that anger and resentment, combined with a large-scale protest or riot, is more likely to lead to the injury or death of a person who wasn't involved in the rioting to begin with. And THAT makes those situations scarier. If I just happened to turn a corner in some random Canadian town and walked into a riot where a whole bunch of white hockey fans had turned over some cars and were setting them on fire, I'm pretty sure I could just keep on walking and no one would pay me any attention. I believe this would be also be the case if I was black. However, if I happened upon the same situation after a black person was shot by a white cop, I would genuinely fear for my life because we've seen innocent people severely injured or killed in the process of those riots/protests. I'd like to believe that it was as simple as blaming the media for a double standard. But the emotions and the history that lie behind the riots matter. And those are rightfully treated differently. Please 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:It is not wrong for the media to treat white people rioting more nonchalantly than it does black people because when black people riot it IS scarier. Alright, now that I've pissed off a lot of people with the title I hope some of you at least hear me out... Whenever something happens that results in large-scale rioting and property damage by African Americans, the words used by the media are different than the words they use when white people riot or cause property damage. This 3min clip is the most recent example I can find but there have been many similar criticisms of the media over the past two years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGJMgCn0fQs I believe that when white people riot and cause property damage, their anger, or whatever reason brought about the actions, is fleeting. It isn't real. The rioters will be over the "sports team loss" or the "drunken frat party" as soon as they sober up and the moment is over. But when black people riot, what is behind the rioting is anger and resentment over ~300 years of racism, discrimination, unequal/unfair treatment by the legal system and law enforcement, etc, etc. And that kind of anger and resentment doesn't ever go away. And that anger and resentment, combined with a large-scale protest or riot, is more likely to lead to the injury or death of a person who wasn't involved in the rioting to begin with. And THAT makes those situations scarier. If I just happened to turn a corner in some random Canadian town and walked into a riot where a whole bunch of white hockey fans had turned over some cars and were setting them on fire, I'm pretty sure I could just keep on walking and no one would pay me any attention. I believe this would be also be the case if I was black. However, if I happened upon the same situation after a black person was shot by a white cop, I would genuinely fear for my life because we've seen innocent people severely injured or killed in the process of those riots/protests. I'd like to believe that it was as simple as blaming the media for a double standard. But the emotions and the history that lie behind the riots matter. And those are rightfully treated differently. Please change my view.

t3_6vzfic

CMV: Not raising the debt limit is a chicken shit way of taking a stand.

You can't pass bills all year to please constituents or even just fund projects you believe in, then make a stand against spending when the bill comes due. If you want to be fiscally responsible, you have to vote against expensive bills all year long. You are going to upset some constituents, lobbyists, business, PACS, etc. when you don't vote for the bills they want passed. I get that this it the best way to look good. Pass all the bills to please people, who vote for you or donate to you, then make a stand in October to make yourself look fiscally conservative, but that isn't the way it works. To my mind that is similar to us charging everything on our credit cards then saying you can't pay your credit card bill when it becomes due. Please don't tell me about the fiscal conservatives who call for this all year. I know they are there. But obviously, if congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling to pay for what they voted to spend, at least some congresspeople flipped on this.

CMV: Not raising the debt limit is a chicken shit way of taking a stand. You can't pass bills all year to please constituents or even just fund projects you believe in, then make a stand against spending when the bill comes due. If you want to be fiscally responsible, you have to vote against expensive bills all year long. You are going to upset some constituents, lobbyists, business, PACS, etc. when you don't vote for the bills they want passed. I get that this it the best way to look good. Pass all the bills to please people, who vote for you or donate to you, then make a stand in October to make yourself look fiscally conservative, but that isn't the way it works. To my mind that is similar to us charging everything on our credit cards then saying you can't pay your credit card bill when it becomes due. Please don't tell me about the fiscal conservatives who call for this all year. I know they are there. But obviously, if congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling to pay for what they voted to spend, at least some congresspeople flipped on this.

t3_27kblg

CMV: The last Game of Thrones episode was incredibly overrated.

(Spoilers for season 4) So most people who watched Game of Thrones last sunday loved the last episode, especially the end. For me, though, it was one of the weakest, especially as far as translating the story from page to screen. I feel like the biggest draw about last night seems to be the gore, which is really a shame because the fight in the books is a much more emotionally drawn out experience. Instead they went for a fast and flashy fight with a gruesome ending that mostly played on shock value as the main payoff. The actual fight should have been at least as good as the end of it. Also, this is more of a side note, but I feel like the fight should've been larger-scale, if that makes any sense. Like in the books there were at least a thousand people watching (the Mountain cuts one of them in half at one point) and you actually get the feeling that there's a lot at stake. Here it was just an audience of 30 people who barely reacted aside from the occasional "oh!". A bit underwhelming IMO, but again, not as important. 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 last Game of Thrones episode was incredibly overrated. (Spoilers for season 4) So most people who watched Game of Thrones last sunday loved the last episode, especially the end. For me, though, it was one of the weakest, especially as far as translating the story from page to screen. I feel like the biggest draw about last night seems to be the gore, which is really a shame because the fight in the books is a much more emotionally drawn out experience. Instead they went for a fast and flashy fight with a gruesome ending that mostly played on shock value as the main payoff. The actual fight should have been at least as good as the end of it. Also, this is more of a side note, but I feel like the fight should've been larger-scale, if that makes any sense. Like in the books there were at least a thousand people watching (the Mountain cuts one of them in half at one point) and you actually get the feeling that there's a lot at stake. Here it was just an audience of 30 people who barely reacted aside from the occasional "oh!". A bit underwhelming IMO, but again, not as important. CMV

t3_1iaasb

[CMV] I believe most of the people complaining about the Zimmerman case are just hopping on the bandwagon.

This may come off as pretentious and dickish, so I'm sorry. It seems like nearly every post on a social networking site is : "WOW I'M SO MAD. RACISM IS STILL ALIVE BECAUSE A BLACK KID WAS SHOT! INJUSTICE! DISHONOR ON YOU! DISHONOR ON YOUR FAMILY! DISHONOR ON YOUR COW!" People complaining. I realize this is 100% opinion but I think that there wasn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was guilty. I also believe top that this is the reason most people are including pictures of this sweet little kid like [This] (http://cdn.necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Trayvon-Martin.jpg) when they refuse to post ones like [This](http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/trayvon-martin-finger.jpg) Which leads me to believe that they have biased opinions based that he's a child/black and have done very little research. (Just for disclosure the second picture doesn't make this situation any more rational, that was just my example of bias)

[CMV] I believe most of the people complaining about the Zimmerman case are just hopping on the bandwagon. This may come off as pretentious and dickish, so I'm sorry. It seems like nearly every post on a social networking site is : "WOW I'M SO MAD. RACISM IS STILL ALIVE BECAUSE A BLACK KID WAS SHOT! INJUSTICE! DISHONOR ON YOU! DISHONOR ON YOUR FAMILY! DISHONOR ON YOUR COW!" People complaining. I realize this is 100% opinion but I think that there wasn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was guilty. I also believe top that this is the reason most people are including pictures of this sweet little kid like [This] (http://cdn.necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Trayvon-Martin.jpg) when they refuse to post ones like [This](http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/trayvon-martin-finger.jpg) Which leads me to believe that they have biased opinions based that he's a child/black and have done very little research. (Just for disclosure the second picture doesn't make this situation any more rational, that was just my example of bias)

t3_2bhy5s

CMV: People need to stop being fans of college sports.

Ok, first a couple caveats. I have never been a sports fan and I find obsessing over sports ridiculous. Not mearly watching a game, but the obsession of them. But that is not what this CMV is about, I just think its important and fair to be clear where I'm coming from. What this CMV is stemming from is that I watched a documentary last night, "Schooled, the Price of College Sports". If you want a more in depth understanding you can watch it or I'll just give the very brief summary (as I understood it). One side says players should be compensated for the "work" they do. The other side says it is essentially extra-curricular activities and they are students merely taking part in activities while at college and that paying them would ruin college sports. Now, this was a pretty slanted documentary but I was still able to appreciate the perspective from both sides. On one hand the reality is that college sports players are part of a big business that makes lots of money. On the other hand school should exist for learning not creating a big, profit making businesses centered around sports. My view is this: The problem is not the coaches or the schools making money and not paying the students, afterall they all just have a job and are trying to be paid as best that they can. Fine, I have no issues with that. On the other hand those students are making a LOT of money for other people and not seeing a dime for it. What the problem really is to me is that people should stop supporting the entire system altogether. Paying $50, $60, $100 or more... If you want sports entertainment you should go pay professional sports entertainment. The only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they're attending school. The moment the populace starts being willing to pay them vast sums of money and pay such a mind to star college athletes, they have become the problem. Leave the students alone to learn and do what they want to do on the side while they're there. I say the fans are the only solution to the problem because both the NCAA and the Student-athletes are right in what they say. The fact is, there just shouldn't be that much money being generated for college sports and the only reason there is, is because fans are obsessive and willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to them. I believe fans are wrong to do this and should stop and that if you're a fan of college sports, a paying fan of college sports, that you should stop contributing to a problem that can only be solved by you ceasing to provide them so much ridiculous money. _____ > *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: People need to stop being fans of college sports. Ok, first a couple caveats. I have never been a sports fan and I find obsessing over sports ridiculous. Not mearly watching a game, but the obsession of them. But that is not what this CMV is about, I just think its important and fair to be clear where I'm coming from. What this CMV is stemming from is that I watched a documentary last night, "Schooled, the Price of College Sports". If you want a more in depth understanding you can watch it or I'll just give the very brief summary (as I understood it). One side says players should be compensated for the "work" they do. The other side says it is essentially extra-curricular activities and they are students merely taking part in activities while at college and that paying them would ruin college sports. Now, this was a pretty slanted documentary but I was still able to appreciate the perspective from both sides. On one hand the reality is that college sports players are part of a big business that makes lots of money. On the other hand school should exist for learning not creating a big, profit making businesses centered around sports. My view is this: The problem is not the coaches or the schools making money and not paying the students, afterall they all just have a job and are trying to be paid as best that they can. Fine, I have no issues with that. On the other hand those students are making a LOT of money for other people and not seeing a dime for it. What the problem really is to me is that people should stop supporting the entire system altogether. Paying $50, $60, $100 or more... If you want sports entertainment you should go pay professional sports entertainment. The only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they're attending school. The moment the populace starts being willing to pay them vast sums of money and pay such a mind to star college athletes, they have become the problem. Leave the students alone to learn and do what they want to do on the side while they're there. I say the fans are the only solution to the problem because both the NCAA and the Student-athletes are right in what they say. The fact is, there just shouldn't be that much money being generated for college sports and the only reason there is, is because fans are obsessive and willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to them. I believe fans are wrong to do this and should stop and that if you're a fan of college sports, a paying fan of college sports, that you should stop contributing to a problem that can only be solved by you ceasing to provide them so much ridiculous money.

t3_29qeeu

CMV: I think the recent USA World Cup fandom had (barely) anything to do with soccer, and everything to do with Nationalism/Patriotism. And I find that worrisome.

Watching sports, IMHO, should be more about a love of the game than it should be about broader nationalistic views. I truly feel that other countries, while similarly patriotic, *also* enjoy watching soccer. But in the US, no one gives a shit about soccer the other four years between World Cups. It's derided as "not a good sport," youth programs receive way less attention than football, basketball, or baseball, and the MLB is pretty much the most poorly attended national sport their is. I don't even know if they show it on TV. Sure, this may have to do more with advertisers and TV networks, but that makes it *worse*. That means that American's may be watching games that they might not even like, save for the fact that it helps big media companies get rich. You can sell way more ad space during a 3 hour football game (with about 30 minutes of game play) versus a game of soccer which is 90 minutes with only 3 ad breaks. Baseball has 168 games per year which again suits advertisers very well. As a soccer player, I went out to a few bars to watch the games, and I was absolutely stunned at the turnout. The place was packed! But for what? The US's team never had a chance; they suck. If the fans had been supporting soccer for the past few decades by watching MLS, going to games, and spending money there, maybe the MLS would've attracted better talent, better youth players who would rise up, give us an actually competitive team, etc. The fact that any American can think you can just have a great team once every 4 years is pathetic. So what do you think? Thanks CMV'ers! _____ > *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 recent USA World Cup fandom had (barely) anything to do with soccer, and everything to do with Nationalism/Patriotism. And I find that worrisome. Watching sports, IMHO, should be more about a love of the game than it should be about broader nationalistic views. I truly feel that other countries, while similarly patriotic, *also* enjoy watching soccer. But in the US, no one gives a shit about soccer the other four years between World Cups. It's derided as "not a good sport," youth programs receive way less attention than football, basketball, or baseball, and the MLB is pretty much the most poorly attended national sport their is. I don't even know if they show it on TV. Sure, this may have to do more with advertisers and TV networks, but that makes it *worse*. That means that American's may be watching games that they might not even like, save for the fact that it helps big media companies get rich. You can sell way more ad space during a 3 hour football game (with about 30 minutes of game play) versus a game of soccer which is 90 minutes with only 3 ad breaks. Baseball has 168 games per year which again suits advertisers very well. As a soccer player, I went out to a few bars to watch the games, and I was absolutely stunned at the turnout. The place was packed! But for what? The US's team never had a chance; they suck. If the fans had been supporting soccer for the past few decades by watching MLS, going to games, and spending money there, maybe the MLS would've attracted better talent, better youth players who would rise up, give us an actually competitive team, etc. The fact that any American can think you can just have a great team once every 4 years is pathetic. So what do you think? Thanks CMV'ers!

t3_2etqul

CMV: Sexual orientation is not completely predetermined, and culture can be a large influence

I don't believe having a non-traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but I take issue with the idea that non-traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 100% of cases, as is commonly claimed today. I believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic. I have two general reasons for this belief. First, I have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight. I feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the "new thing" or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay. My second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient Greece. If homosexuality (or pedofilia) is entirely based on biology, shouldn't the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies? CMV Edit: I know that Pedophilia and homosexuality/bisexuality are not the same thing. I only included pedophilia in the post because it formed an important part of the culture of my main example, ancient Greece. For those posting that I have something against homosexuality because I included pedophilia in the question, like I already said in the original post, I don't. _____ > *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: Sexual orientation is not completely predetermined, and culture can be a large influence. I don't believe having a non-traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but I take issue with the idea that non-traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 100% of cases, as is commonly claimed today. I believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic. I have two general reasons for this belief. First, I have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight. I feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the "new thing" or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay. My second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient Greece. If homosexuality (or pedofilia) is entirely based on biology, shouldn't the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies? CMV Edit: I know that Pedophilia and homosexuality/bisexuality are not the same thing. I only included pedophilia in the post because it formed an important part of the culture of my main example, ancient Greece. For those posting that I have something against homosexuality because I included pedophilia in the question, like I already said in the original post, I don't.

t3_43mek5

CMV: There shouldn't be "buffer zones" around abortion clinics, and anyone should feel free to stand outside of the clinic and shout about their opinion on abortion.

I am personally one hundred per cent for anyone getting an abortion, for any reason, at any time (Don't like the sex of your baby? Get an abortion. Bored and want an abortion? Go for it). But I don't think religious groups, or anyone for that matter, should be barred from protesting directly outside of any abortion clinic. Anyone who is getting an abortion in North America is already aware that many religious people think that the abortee is going to hell. If a reminder of that will make you change your mind about your abortion, then perhaps you shouldn't be getting one. Besides, I highly doubt that anyone is convinced to not get an abortion out of fear of going to hell, or out of fear of hatred by a religious community that they are not a part of. I don't consider the yelling of protesters harassment either, unless it threatens something other than eternal damnation or the, incorrect, idea that the individual is a murderer. You would have to take those consequences seriously to think that those statements were threats, and if you're walking into the clinic you clearly don't. If they threaten harm to the abortee then its breaking laws on harassment, so no need to bar protesting. As for the safety of the employees at the clinic, I believe laws against harassment cover them for any egregious actions from the protesters as well. They must sign up to their job at the clinic knowing that the protesters are a part of the gig. You can protest a politician, a judge, etc. on the same grounds. They don't get to argue that the protesting is detrimental to their health, if they can't handle it they need to find another career. **EDIT:** Yes, you have a right to get a medical procedure without harassment. **You are not getting a medical procedure until you're in the clinic.** Should abortion protesters be banned from anywhere someone might be considering an abortion? No, that would be ridiculous. Also, if you are being harassed and/or assaulted by an abortion protest call the police-- **there are already laws against that.** A buffer is not necessary to stop either of these things. **EDIT #2:** This is change my view guys, you don't need to downvote me when you don't agree, that won't change my mind. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There shouldn't be "buffer zones" around abortion clinics, and anyone should feel free to stand outside of the clinic and shout about their opinion on abortion. I am personally one hundred per cent for anyone getting an abortion, for any reason, at any time (Don't like the sex of your baby? Get an abortion. Bored and want an abortion? Go for it). But I don't think religious groups, or anyone for that matter, should be barred from protesting directly outside of any abortion clinic. Anyone who is getting an abortion in North America is already aware that many religious people think that the abortee is going to hell. If a reminder of that will make you change your mind about your abortion, then perhaps you shouldn't be getting one. Besides, I highly doubt that anyone is convinced to not get an abortion out of fear of going to hell, or out of fear of hatred by a religious community that they are not a part of. I don't consider the yelling of protesters harassment either, unless it threatens something other than eternal damnation or the, incorrect, idea that the individual is a murderer. You would have to take those consequences seriously to think that those statements were threats, and if you're walking into the clinic you clearly don't. If they threaten harm to the abortee then its breaking laws on harassment, so no need to bar protesting. As for the safety of the employees at the clinic, I believe laws against harassment cover them for any egregious actions from the protesters as well. They must sign up to their job at the clinic knowing that the protesters are a part of the gig. You can protest a politician, a judge, etc. on the same grounds. They don't get to argue that the protesting is detrimental to their health, if they can't handle it they need to find another career. **EDIT:** Yes, you have a right to get a medical procedure without harassment. **You are not getting a medical procedure until you're in the clinic.** Should abortion protesters be banned from anywhere someone might be considering an abortion? No, that would be ridiculous. Also, if you are being harassed and/or assaulted by an abortion protest call the police-- **there are already laws against that.** A buffer is not necessary to stop either of these things. **EDIT #2:** This is change my view guys, you don't need to downvote me when you don't agree, that won't change my mind.

t3_33mw5l

CMV: I don't think "slut" and "whore" should no longer be exclusively pejorative terms.

If you aren't aware, there is an Avengers: Age of Ultron interview with Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner that they called Black Widow a "slut" and a "whore" when asked the question about Black Widow. While I consider myself as feminist and somehow understand why so many people are upset about this, I don't find this very offensive personally to me because I felt like the terms "slut" and "whore" should not be exclusively pejorative terms. I think it should be on the same level as the word "bitch". Bitch is a pejorative term for a female but it can be used as an empowering word for a strong woman. In fact, many women take pride on using the word bitch. Without making slut and whore pejorative terms, slut and whore means someone who enjoys sex liberally. That doesn't sound too bad at all to be honest. Sex is good as long it's safe. I want to see your feedback about this and to see if I am not the only one who thinks the same. But I am open to change my view.

CMV: I don't think "slut" and "whore" should no longer be exclusively pejorative terms. If you aren't aware, there is an Avengers: Age of Ultron interview with Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner that they called Black Widow a "slut" and a "whore" when asked the question about Black Widow. While I consider myself as feminist and somehow understand why so many people are upset about this, I don't find this very offensive personally to me because I felt like the terms "slut" and "whore" should not be exclusively pejorative terms. I think it should be on the same level as the word "bitch". Bitch is a pejorative term for a female but it can be used as an empowering word for a strong woman. In fact, many women take pride on using the word bitch. Without making slut and whore pejorative terms, slut and whore means someone who enjoys sex liberally. That doesn't sound too bad at all to be honest. Sex is good as long it's safe. I want to see your feedback about this and to see if I am not the only one who thinks the same. But I am open to change my view.

t3_26eoe2

CMV: Starfleet officers are inept and overly reliant on badly designed technology.

First off, I love (and hate) Star Trek. I've probably seen every episode of TNG, Voyager, and a lot of DS9. Recently I've been rewatching Voyager since it's been on Netflix and almost every episode I find myself arguing in my head about how scientifically inaccurate the things they do are. Still, I watch and enjoy the show. Keeping things consistent, we're not worried here about accuracy and how things would function in the real world (Star Trek is *far* from hard science fiction). What we're concerned with is the fact that nearly every Starfleet officer is inept, wholly incapable of doing their jobs effectively, and seemingly make no attempt to correct flaws with their technology that are regularly exploited. **SOME EXAMPLES:** Security officers especially have no concept of combat tactics. Most firefights consist of people standing in plain view of the enemy and roughly aiming in their direction with a phaser. They do not wear armor. They do not commonly carry more powerful weapons. Engineering officers usually have a few set tools that do all the work for them, which usually consists of pointing their sonic screwdriver at the problem area and letting it fix itself. If one tool doesn't work, they seem to almost haphazardly move to another one and hope it does better. Science officers - holy - are utterly useless. Nearly every event that occurs receives no further explanation than that it is a "subspace distortion" - no further explanations. The breadth of their capabilities to battle these distortions commonly involves inverting some function ("Reverse the shield polarity!"), modifying the deflector dish to do questionable things ("Modify the deflector to produce a resonance burst!"), or just outright fail to manage their own ship systems that apparently have extremely easy-to-override security measures ("I can't close the cargo bay doors - I've been locked out of the system!"). As for the technology itself just being bad: Sensors commonly don't pick up threats until they are minutes or seconds away. Transporters malfunction, are easily disabled, or just plain refuse to work due to shields, atmospheric disturbances, or shields. Shields themselves are disabled in a hit or two (unless it's Starfleet hitting *them*) and can be ignored completely if you happen to have the right frequency set on your phasers. It blows people's minds when the enemy has shields that function differently than this. And so on... To make matters worse, they don't correct these ongoing issues either. Though days/weeks may pass between each episode, the fact that one or all of the above things seem to happen, you'd think they'd take measures to correct them. Increase security, physically and digitally (in the computer systems). Create countermeasures. Erect forcefields. Use actual cameras, motion detectors, etc., as opposed to a single guard (or no guards) and a computer AI that doesn't bother to tell you something weird is going on until you ask. **Edit:** I'm moderately convinced by the argument that each episode only focuses on things happen that are interesting/bad, wherein there may be many events occurring between two consecutive episodes where everything just goes great. If everything goes smoothly, that makes boring television.

CMV: Starfleet officers are inept and overly reliant on badly designed technology. First off, I love (and hate) Star Trek. I've probably seen every episode of TNG, Voyager, and a lot of DS9. Recently I've been rewatching Voyager since it's been on Netflix and almost every episode I find myself arguing in my head about how scientifically inaccurate the things they do are. Still, I watch and enjoy the show. Keeping things consistent, we're not worried here about accuracy and how things would function in the real world (Star Trek is *far* from hard science fiction). What we're concerned with is the fact that nearly every Starfleet officer is inept, wholly incapable of doing their jobs effectively, and seemingly make no attempt to correct flaws with their technology that are regularly exploited. **SOME EXAMPLES:** Security officers especially have no concept of combat tactics. Most firefights consist of people standing in plain view of the enemy and roughly aiming in their direction with a phaser. They do not wear armor. They do not commonly carry more powerful weapons. Engineering officers usually have a few set tools that do all the work for them, which usually consists of pointing their sonic screwdriver at the problem area and letting it fix itself. If one tool doesn't work, they seem to almost haphazardly move to another one and hope it does better. Science officers - holy - are utterly useless. Nearly every event that occurs receives no further explanation than that it is a "subspace distortion" - no further explanations. The breadth of their capabilities to battle these distortions commonly involves inverting some function ("Reverse the shield polarity!"), modifying the deflector dish to do questionable things ("Modify the deflector to produce a resonance burst!"), or just outright fail to manage their own ship systems that apparently have extremely easy-to-override security measures ("I can't close the cargo bay doors - I've been locked out of the system!"). As for the technology itself just being bad: Sensors commonly don't pick up threats until they are minutes or seconds away. Transporters malfunction, are easily disabled, or just plain refuse to work due to shields, atmospheric disturbances, or shields. Shields themselves are disabled in a hit or two (unless it's Starfleet hitting *them*) and can be ignored completely if you happen to have the right frequency set on your phasers. It blows people's minds when the enemy has shields that function differently than this. And so on... To make matters worse, they don't correct these ongoing issues either. Though days/weeks may pass between each episode, the fact that one or all of the above things seem to happen, you'd think they'd take measures to correct them. Increase security, physically and digitally (in the computer systems). Create countermeasures. Erect forcefields. Use actual cameras, motion detectors, etc., as opposed to a single guard (or no guards) and a computer AI that doesn't bother to tell you something weird is going on until you ask. **Edit:** I'm moderately convinced by the argument that each episode only focuses on things happen that are interesting/bad, wherein there may be many events occurring between two consecutive episodes where everything just goes great. If everything goes smoothly, that makes boring television.

t3_68zqi5

CMV: There are only two genders.

It is a common opinion in the Left nowadays to say that there are more than two genders. I want to know where this is coming from. More than 99% of people identify as their biological gender and even the less than 1% of people who are trans still identify as one of the binary genders, just the opposite of what their biological sex is. I am aware of intersex people, but I think that again they are a small percentage of people and I think most intersex people fit mostly into one of the two biological sexes but with a single disfigurement, and the vast majority of intersex people identify themselves as one of the two binary genders. I think non-binary people are just being trendy and they are not really trans because they don't experience dysphoria and laws that group them in with actual transgender people are misguided. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There are only two genders. It is a common opinion in the Left nowadays to say that there are more than two genders. I want to know where this is coming from. More than 99% of people identify as their biological gender and even the less than 1% of people who are trans still identify as one of the binary genders, just the opposite of what their biological sex is. I am aware of intersex people, but I think that again they are a small percentage of people and I think most intersex people fit mostly into one of the two biological sexes but with a single disfigurement, and the vast majority of intersex people identify themselves as one of the two binary genders. I think non-binary people are just being trendy and they are not really trans because they don't experience dysphoria and laws that group them in with actual transgender people are misguided.

t3_1pthtb

Snitches should be killed. CMV

This view comes from some of my core beliefs: 1. There is no such thing as "deserving." Regardless of good intentions, if someone is a danger to society it makes sense to remove them. If someone is an asset to society, they should not be harmed regardless of bad intentions. 2. Incarceration for a long period of time is a fate far worse than death. This is why I think they should be killed rather than imprisoned. Also, to set the police on someone who has not engaged in activities harmful to others amounts to inflicting suffering onto another human being that is worse than if you were to murder them. 3. People who deal a certain set of recreational drugs including marijuana, but especially LSD and other psychedelics either make the world a better place, or don't make it a significantly worse place. So basically, I feel that snitches are a danger to society. I'm talking mostly about the "self righteous" kind of snitches, who turn people into the police on purpose because they think the person is doing something morally wrong. However, the cowardly kind of snitches aren't cool either, unless they follow certain procedures which I outline below. Snitches are danger to society, because they are way that people who I consider to be innocent can be condemned to a horrible fate which I consider to be far worse than death. This is a danger in the same way that an explosive device left is a public place is a danger. It's something that can unnecessarily inflict harm on members of society, and it is important to get rid of dangerous things. There are exceptions. For example, I think that it is ok to call the cops on someone in order to protect yourself from legal trouble. If you have a roommate who sells drugs, and you're afraid of getting in trouble yourself, you should ask them to keep their drugs out of your room, and inform them that you will call the police in order to protect yourself. Only if they refuse is it ok to turn them in. In this case, they're not going to jail for selling drugs, but for putting the people around them at risk of being sent to jail. Also, I realize that this policy does not make sense in practice. I will ignore any arguments like "well who's supposed to kill them?" or "who decides which people are snitches." **I'm only here to have a moral argument.** Thank you for reading. If there are any flaws in my argument, please, change my view.

Snitches should be killed. CMV. This view comes from some of my core beliefs: 1. There is no such thing as "deserving." Regardless of good intentions, if someone is a danger to society it makes sense to remove them. If someone is an asset to society, they should not be harmed regardless of bad intentions. 2. Incarceration for a long period of time is a fate far worse than death. This is why I think they should be killed rather than imprisoned. Also, to set the police on someone who has not engaged in activities harmful to others amounts to inflicting suffering onto another human being that is worse than if you were to murder them. 3. People who deal a certain set of recreational drugs including marijuana, but especially LSD and other psychedelics either make the world a better place, or don't make it a significantly worse place. So basically, I feel that snitches are a danger to society. I'm talking mostly about the "self righteous" kind of snitches, who turn people into the police on purpose because they think the person is doing something morally wrong. However, the cowardly kind of snitches aren't cool either, unless they follow certain procedures which I outline below. Snitches are danger to society, because they are way that people who I consider to be innocent can be condemned to a horrible fate which I consider to be far worse than death. This is a danger in the same way that an explosive device left is a public place is a danger. It's something that can unnecessarily inflict harm on members of society, and it is important to get rid of dangerous things. There are exceptions. For example, I think that it is ok to call the cops on someone in order to protect yourself from legal trouble. If you have a roommate who sells drugs, and you're afraid of getting in trouble yourself, you should ask them to keep their drugs out of your room, and inform them that you will call the police in order to protect yourself. Only if they refuse is it ok to turn them in. In this case, they're not going to jail for selling drugs, but for putting the people around them at risk of being sent to jail. Also, I realize that this policy does not make sense in practice. I will ignore any arguments like "well who's supposed to kill them?" or "who decides which people are snitches." **I'm only here to have a moral argument.** Thank you for reading. If there are any flaws in my argument, please, change my view.

t3_5rz9ld

CMV: I see no problem with using rabbits as coyote bait.

So, something I learned how to do as a kid was how to use a rabbit as coyote bait. You would take a live rabbit out to an open area where coyotes were a problem, you take a pocket knife to its abdomen as if you were going to gut it, but instead you let it scream to death. While this is happening, you walk back about 50 yards and wait for something to check it out. I fail to see how this is any worse than what those coyotes did to animals. Having done this most likely saved more animals than what was lost, so I see doing this as a net benefit. So, change my view. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I see no problem with using rabbits as coyote bait. So, something I learned how to do as a kid was how to use a rabbit as coyote bait. You would take a live rabbit out to an open area where coyotes were a problem, you take a pocket knife to its abdomen as if you were going to gut it, but instead you let it scream to death. While this is happening, you walk back about 50 yards and wait for something to check it out. I fail to see how this is any worse than what those coyotes did to animals. Having done this most likely saved more animals than what was lost, so I see doing this as a net benefit. So, change my view.

t3_1jj5cr

I believe that backing up all your data to an online cloud service is a bad idea. CMV

Ok so this "view" is a bit different than most posts here. It's not so much a philosophy I hold, just something I don't fully trust but I want to! I love the idea of backing up my computer to an online server such as crashplan, but I can't help but be a little bit paranoid that it's not 100% safe. Especially with all the NSA news at the minute, it just seems like nothing can be really safe. I'm a musician and I make my living off of writing songs, the thought that someone out there could steal my material or even just listen to products that I don't want in the public domain absolutely terrifies me. I recently had trouble restoring from a time machine backup though after upgrading my hard drive and the online backup solution sounds so good. I just can't quite bring myself to trust it. Could someone more knowledgeable than me on this kind of stuff please change my view?!! **EDIT:** Wow. Posted this last night and woke up to some really good answers! Thanks guys! I have to go out now but I'll try to reply to them all as soon as I can. One quick note, my NSA comment seemed to have been misread. I don't mean that the NSA cares about my data. I don't think anyone wants to steal my songs either, I'm just saying that a lot of people are completely shocked by the amount of info the NSA have had access to and are storing. Now if a company as massive as that was able to obtain so much information over so many years and only *now* people are finding out about it, it wouldn't surprise me if companies like Crash Plan were also making copies of everyone's data and either storing it for themselves or maybe even sharing it with others. I know it's a bit of a paranoid view, but can anyone address that?

I believe that backing up all your data to an online cloud service is a bad idea. CMV. Ok so this "view" is a bit different than most posts here. It's not so much a philosophy I hold, just something I don't fully trust but I want to! I love the idea of backing up my computer to an online server such as crashplan, but I can't help but be a little bit paranoid that it's not 100% safe. Especially with all the NSA news at the minute, it just seems like nothing can be really safe. I'm a musician and I make my living off of writing songs, the thought that someone out there could steal my material or even just listen to products that I don't want in the public domain absolutely terrifies me. I recently had trouble restoring from a time machine backup though after upgrading my hard drive and the online backup solution sounds so good. I just can't quite bring myself to trust it. Could someone more knowledgeable than me on this kind of stuff please change my view?!! **EDIT:** Wow. Posted this last night and woke up to some really good answers! Thanks guys! I have to go out now but I'll try to reply to them all as soon as I can. One quick note, my NSA comment seemed to have been misread. I don't mean that the NSA cares about my data. I don't think anyone wants to steal my songs either, I'm just saying that a lot of people are completely shocked by the amount of info the NSA have had access to and are storing. Now if a company as massive as that was able to obtain so much information over so many years and only *now* people are finding out about it, it wouldn't surprise me if companies like Crash Plan were also making copies of everyone's data and either storing it for themselves or maybe even sharing it with others. I know it's a bit of a paranoid view, but can anyone address that?

t3_1ekx1p

I don't think it is wrong to tazer this woman who may have died from injuries from being tazed CMV

[Story](http://tdn.com/news/local/former-cowlitz-county-jail-inmate-dies-at-vancouver-hospital/article_1c77b156-bf11-11e2-b521-0019bb2963f4.html) tl;dr - Known drug user with needles is tazered while running from cop. May have died from injury from fall. Nurse who helped her later was stabbed by a needle. NOTE: I'm sad she died but it wasn't intentional and she made bad choices that led to it.

I don't think it is wrong to tazer this woman who may have died from injuries from being tazed CMV. [Story](http://tdn.com/news/local/former-cowlitz-county-jail-inmate-dies-at-vancouver-hospital/article_1c77b156-bf11-11e2-b521-0019bb2963f4.html) tl;dr - Known drug user with needles is tazered while running from cop. May have died from injury from fall. Nurse who helped her later was stabbed by a needle. NOTE: I'm sad she died but it wasn't intentional and she made bad choices that led to it.

t3_1jziql

I think GMOs are pretty awesome. CMV.

Where to start... Well first, they can feed a growing population. With GMOs we can grow food in harsher climates, grow more food with then, and make foods stronger against pests and other dangers. Since our worlds population is growing, these advancements could feed these nations. There also havent been any data finding GMOs are dangerous to people. Blind taste tests say they taste just as good as organic foods, nuritional value is the same as or better than organic foods. Finally, GMOs are cheaper. I like noy having to spend as much money on them, it puts less strain on me. It also allows farmers to gain more money because they can produce more with less work. Thats fantastic to me, it really benefits the economy.

I think GMOs are pretty awesome. CMV. Where to start... Well first, they can feed a growing population. With GMOs we can grow food in harsher climates, grow more food with then, and make foods stronger against pests and other dangers. Since our worlds population is growing, these advancements could feed these nations. There also havent been any data finding GMOs are dangerous to people. Blind taste tests say they taste just as good as organic foods, nuritional value is the same as or better than organic foods. Finally, GMOs are cheaper. I like noy having to spend as much money on them, it puts less strain on me. It also allows farmers to gain more money because they can produce more with less work. Thats fantastic to me, it really benefits the economy.

t3_47xfnb

CMV: Porn in America is not exploitative of women and the people who think it is are generally sexist

I notice a lot around Reddit and on many editorial news sites that porn is seen as exploitative and unethical. However, none of the criticisms seem to be driven by logic but instead by sexist ideas that women are lesser than men and can't make decisions for themselves. Women in the US porn industry are not exploited and are protected legally from it. In order to do anything, actors have to sign contracts and willfully consent to any scene that they are in. They can back out at any time due to the fact that not having consent is fundamentally rape. No body is 'forced' to work and shoot porno, they do it because they want to. There are about 200 million jobs in America and porn doesn't even make up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them. Women can do a plethora of things for work and porn is actually pretty hard to get into compared to other jobs (not a pun). Porn is a lot like the film industry yet no one argues women are exploited during big blockbuster film shoots. I have yet to find anyone who argues porn exploits men. Women should be able to shoot porn if they want and that's their choice. They can back out at anytime just like any other job. I'll try to respond to the comments I get on this post. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Porn in America is not exploitative of women and the people who think it is are generally sexist. I notice a lot around Reddit and on many editorial news sites that porn is seen as exploitative and unethical. However, none of the criticisms seem to be driven by logic but instead by sexist ideas that women are lesser than men and can't make decisions for themselves. Women in the US porn industry are not exploited and are protected legally from it. In order to do anything, actors have to sign contracts and willfully consent to any scene that they are in. They can back out at any time due to the fact that not having consent is fundamentally rape. No body is 'forced' to work and shoot porno, they do it because they want to. There are about 200 million jobs in America and porn doesn't even make up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them. Women can do a plethora of things for work and porn is actually pretty hard to get into compared to other jobs (not a pun). Porn is a lot like the film industry yet no one argues women are exploited during big blockbuster film shoots. I have yet to find anyone who argues porn exploits men. Women should be able to shoot porn if they want and that's their choice. They can back out at anytime just like any other job. I'll try to respond to the comments I get on this post.

t3_306jm9

CMV: Most people use the word "humbled" to mean the opposite of what it actually means, and should stop immediately.

It is not uncommon to hear in sports press conferences of a player whose team is Super Bowl-bound, playoff-bound, or otherwise enjoying great success that they are "humbled" for the opportunity to play at that level. Or a winning candidate from an election to be "humbled" by the turnout in their favor. The problem is, when they say that, what they are really feeling is great pride and sense of accomplishment, which is decisively not humility. "Humbled" often goes hand-in-hand with "Humiliated", which is the opposite of what most people who describe themselves as "humbled" have gone through. If someone wants to say "Although I am experiencing great success, I am still humble", that is ok. However, even that can be a problem as people describing themselves as humble very often imply that that is some great characteristic about themselves, defeating the word (the ironic phrase "I'm probably the most humble person on Earth" comes to mind). The only other context someone might describe themselves as "humbled" would be if they actually *were* properly humbled; e.g. they lost their house, car, and job and had to actually humble themselves by resorting to begging or a less dignified job, thus becoming "humbled". Outside of that context, I believe every usage of a person describing themselves as being "humbled" by some opportunity to be not only inaccurate, but polar opposite to what is meant by the word. This degrades the meaning of the word, and turns it into what is now an effectively useless proxy to say that one is proud of their accomplishments but wishes to remain coy about it. 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: Most people use the word "humbled" to mean the opposite of what it actually means, and should stop immediately. It is not uncommon to hear in sports press conferences of a player whose team is Super Bowl-bound, playoff-bound, or otherwise enjoying great success that they are "humbled" for the opportunity to play at that level. Or a winning candidate from an election to be "humbled" by the turnout in their favor. The problem is, when they say that, what they are really feeling is great pride and sense of accomplishment, which is decisively not humility. "Humbled" often goes hand-in-hand with "Humiliated", which is the opposite of what most people who describe themselves as "humbled" have gone through. If someone wants to say "Although I am experiencing great success, I am still humble", that is ok. However, even that can be a problem as people describing themselves as humble very often imply that that is some great characteristic about themselves, defeating the word (the ironic phrase "I'm probably the most humble person on Earth" comes to mind). The only other context someone might describe themselves as "humbled" would be if they actually *were* properly humbled; e.g. they lost their house, car, and job and had to actually humble themselves by resorting to begging or a less dignified job, thus becoming "humbled". Outside of that context, I believe every usage of a person describing themselves as being "humbled" by some opportunity to be not only inaccurate, but polar opposite to what is meant by the word. This degrades the meaning of the word, and turns it into what is now an effectively useless proxy to say that one is proud of their accomplishments but wishes to remain coy about it. CMV!

t3_1wgoy9

I think for professional, educated and ambitious twenty-somethings, the balance of discrimination is not necessary against female nowadays. CMV

Living in a major international city and in my twenties, I am no longer convinced that my female peers are, all things considered and evened out, the disadvantaged group anymore. Yes there are some areas these educated sophisticated and capable young ladies have it worse than us guys but consider this : Recently I was room hunting, close to half of the ads explicitly or, after going for a visit, implicitly prefer females, for no reason other than the supposed idea than guys are messier ( I will happily dispute that , professional guys at least will not have 1000 bottles scattered in the bathroom ) Interns. I fortunately had been through that phrase, but I can guarantee you even in the traditional male dominated arena of politics and international organizations, the softer female touch (I suppose) is now allowing the incoming class to be also disproportionately female. Educational attainment , % of female in law medicine MBAs , now all have female majorities. And yet somehow, and I know you girls here will disapprove, but yet we guys are still somehow supposed to be the girls' "marrying up" scheme. The have it both way mentality ( selective application of equality and traditional gender role) is not prevalent but not uncommon among my female cohort, thus putting pressure on us guys through the dating market. You may say there is still no female US president; under-representation of women in the boardroom and etc, but I would argue that, in terms of the individual welfare of our age group, these stats are as inconsequential and

I think for professional, educated and ambitious twenty-somethings, the balance of discrimination is not necessary against female nowadays. CMV. Living in a major international city and in my twenties, I am no longer convinced that my female peers are, all things considered and evened out, the disadvantaged group anymore. Yes there are some areas these educated sophisticated and capable young ladies have it worse than us guys but consider this : Recently I was room hunting, close to half of the ads explicitly or, after going for a visit, implicitly prefer females, for no reason other than the supposed idea than guys are messier ( I will happily dispute that , professional guys at least will not have 1000 bottles scattered in the bathroom ) Interns. I fortunately had been through that phrase, but I can guarantee you even in the traditional male dominated arena of politics and international organizations, the softer female touch (I suppose) is now allowing the incoming class to be also disproportionately female. Educational attainment , % of female in law medicine MBAs , now all have female majorities. And yet somehow, and I know you girls here will disapprove, but yet we guys are still somehow supposed to be the girls' "marrying up" scheme. The have it both way mentality ( selective application of equality and traditional gender role) is not prevalent but not uncommon among my female cohort, thus putting pressure on us guys through the dating market. You may say there is still no female US president; under-representation of women in the boardroom and etc, but I would argue that, in terms of the individual welfare of our age group, these stats are as inconsequential and

t3_1mr8id

I can't see any appealing aspects of Korean culture. CMV.

First off: I've never been to South Korea, but I've interacted with plenty of Koreans, usually around the 19-25 age bracket because I teach English. My girlfriend is Korean-Japanese and I have spent a couple of months living with her parents in Japan who are 2nd generation Japanese and talk about Korean culture a lot. So far my impression of Korean culture is: * overwhelmingly patriarchal/sexist/macho * work-obsessed (I've heard an anecdote of a sick employee in hospital being visited by their boss and forced to come back to work) * extremely strict, both in family life and at work * racist (plenty of anti-black sentiment in particular) * uncaring to strangers who are suffering (e.g. homeless people or neighbours suffering from domestic violence) * brutal (heard lots of stories of horrible corporal punishment at school including one where the teacher used a baseball bat to hit students - and this was in the last 5 years!) * unwelcoming to foreigners (heard of foreigners being spat on in the street) * unskeptical of quackery like the belief in [fan death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death) And lastly, after listening to people who've spent a year or more there, I noticed all of them say they wouldn't particularly like to live there and that it was "like Japan with all the good parts removed". Now, all of these things are not supposed to be "reasons why Korea sucks". I'm not claiming them to be an objective account of Korean culture. I just feel this way because of all the anecdotes I've heard, which have only ever been negative. I want to hear some positive ones. So: can anyone out there give me some reasons to LIKE Korean culture? Please keep in mind I mean the culture and not individual people – I've already met plenty of Koreans I really liked.

I can't see any appealing aspects of Korean culture. CMV. First off: I've never been to South Korea, but I've interacted with plenty of Koreans, usually around the 19-25 age bracket because I teach English. My girlfriend is Korean-Japanese and I have spent a couple of months living with her parents in Japan who are 2nd generation Japanese and talk about Korean culture a lot. So far my impression of Korean culture is: * overwhelmingly patriarchal/sexist/macho * work-obsessed (I've heard an anecdote of a sick employee in hospital being visited by their boss and forced to come back to work) * extremely strict, both in family life and at work * racist (plenty of anti-black sentiment in particular) * uncaring to strangers who are suffering (e.g. homeless people or neighbours suffering from domestic violence) * brutal (heard lots of stories of horrible corporal punishment at school including one where the teacher used a baseball bat to hit students - and this was in the last 5 years!) * unwelcoming to foreigners (heard of foreigners being spat on in the street) * unskeptical of quackery like the belief in [fan death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death) And lastly, after listening to people who've spent a year or more there, I noticed all of them say they wouldn't particularly like to live there and that it was "like Japan with all the good parts removed". Now, all of these things are not supposed to be "reasons why Korea sucks". I'm not claiming them to be an objective account of Korean culture. I just feel this way because of all the anecdotes I've heard, which have only ever been negative. I want to hear some positive ones. So: can anyone out there give me some reasons to LIKE Korean culture? Please keep in mind I mean the culture and not individual people – I've already met plenty of Koreans I really liked.

t3_2dcqa0

CMV: The number 61 is the most aesthetically unpleasing two digit number in Arabic notation.

All representations have aesthetic value to some degree. Some representations are more valuable than others for various reasons. A Picasso has more aesthetic value than a pie chart used at a mid-level sales meeting. It looks better. Written numbers have some sort of aesthetic value as well. One stands below the rest, 61. Perhaps it's the contrast between the wideness of the "6" and the slender build of the "1", but for some reason 81, 91, 19, and 16 do not stand out in terms of ugliness. The number 61 is particularly garish on sports uniforms. It's telling that in the history of the NBA, only two players [have worn the number on their uniform](http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/numbers.cgi?number=61&year=). It's rare in MLB as well as only [nine current major leaguers have worn it during the current season](http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/numbers.cgi?number=61&year=0). Furthermore, a grand total of [28 players have worn it in the NHL since 1950](http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/numbers.cgi?number=61&year=). Despite the relative popularity for NFL players, only one person to have worn 61 has a chance at the Hall of Fame, Nate Newton. Is there some aesthetic value to 61 that I'm missing? Am I crazy for being somewhat repulsed that the new centerfielder for my Detroit Tigers wears 61? _____ > *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 number 61 is the most aesthetically unpleasing two digit number in Arabic notation. All representations have aesthetic value to some degree. Some representations are more valuable than others for various reasons. A Picasso has more aesthetic value than a pie chart used at a mid-level sales meeting. It looks better. Written numbers have some sort of aesthetic value as well. One stands below the rest, 61. Perhaps it's the contrast between the wideness of the "6" and the slender build of the "1", but for some reason 81, 91, 19, and 16 do not stand out in terms of ugliness. The number 61 is particularly garish on sports uniforms. It's telling that in the history of the NBA, only two players [have worn the number on their uniform](http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/numbers.cgi?number=61&year=). It's rare in MLB as well as only [nine current major leaguers have worn it during the current season](http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/numbers.cgi?number=61&year=0). Furthermore, a grand total of [28 players have worn it in the NHL since 1950](http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv/numbers.cgi?number=61&year=). Despite the relative popularity for NFL players, only one person to have worn 61 has a chance at the Hall of Fame, Nate Newton. Is there some aesthetic value to 61 that I'm missing? Am I crazy for being somewhat repulsed that the new centerfielder for my Detroit Tigers wears 61?

t3_199pwd

I believe lowering the very idea of a legal drinking age is ridiculous. CMV

**Whoops** typo in the title. Ignore the word "lowering" please. ______________ I want to have a reason to believe in this legal concept, but the more I learn about psychology and sociology, the more I am convinced that the existence and strict enforcement of a legal drinking age only serves to exacerbate the problems of alcoholism and alcohol-related tragedies. The drinking age explicitly ties alcohol with maturity, so teenagers feel like a big deal when they drink. The fact that it's illegal makes it that much more tempting. The illegality necessitates that they drink in isolation from parents and others who could supervise their wild behavior, which is obviously going to happen because they have no idea how to handle their liquor. All of that to say, the drinking age does more harm than good. CMV, y'all. (Note: Straw man arguments about 7 year olds chugging vodka will be ignored.)

I believe lowering the very idea of a legal drinking age is ridiculous. CMV. **Whoops** typo in the title. Ignore the word "lowering" please. ______________ I want to have a reason to believe in this legal concept, but the more I learn about psychology and sociology, the more I am convinced that the existence and strict enforcement of a legal drinking age only serves to exacerbate the problems of alcoholism and alcohol-related tragedies. The drinking age explicitly ties alcohol with maturity, so teenagers feel like a big deal when they drink. The fact that it's illegal makes it that much more tempting. The illegality necessitates that they drink in isolation from parents and others who could supervise their wild behavior, which is obviously going to happen because they have no idea how to handle their liquor. All of that to say, the drinking age does more harm than good. CMV, y'all. (Note: Straw man arguments about 7 year olds chugging vodka will be ignored.)

t3_1tqedo

Given our society's rules, slut shaming is completely acceptable. CMV

I see this tired argument every single day: "If a guy has sex with a lot of girls he's a god among men, but if a girl has sex with a lot of guys she's a hoe!" Well no shit. Know why? It's because girls *themselves* perpetuate the archaic stereotype of being pure, non-sexual beings in public, never asking guys out, never admitting their feelings for another guy, etc. (And yes I know, just like with every generalization there are exceptions.) So why are there girls that complain about slut shaming when they themselves are the cause of it? You can't stop slut shaming without restructuring society as a whole from the ground up. Unless girls magically become as open about their sexuality as guys are, slut shaming will be a thing forever. Women/girls will always be devalued for having lots of sex while guys who do the same will be praised and looked up to. You can't be mad at a guy for slut shaming a girl if promiscuous girls *are* deviant in our society.

Given our society's rules, slut shaming is completely acceptable. CMV. I see this tired argument every single day: "If a guy has sex with a lot of girls he's a god among men, but if a girl has sex with a lot of guys she's a hoe!" Well no shit. Know why? It's because girls *themselves* perpetuate the archaic stereotype of being pure, non-sexual beings in public, never asking guys out, never admitting their feelings for another guy, etc. (And yes I know, just like with every generalization there are exceptions.) So why are there girls that complain about slut shaming when they themselves are the cause of it? You can't stop slut shaming without restructuring society as a whole from the ground up. Unless girls magically become as open about their sexuality as guys are, slut shaming will be a thing forever. Women/girls will always be devalued for having lots of sex while guys who do the same will be praised and looked up to. You can't be mad at a guy for slut shaming a girl if promiscuous girls *are* deviant in our society.

t3_1c9xo9

I think NAMbLA is perfectly reasonable. CMV

**EDIT**: My V has been C'd. Continue posting points if you'd like, any new and compelling ones will be responded too. So far, the major points have been: * Children cannot give consent. (/u/subnaree, /u/-GiftHorse-, /u/jerry121212, /u/howbigis1gb) I'm still wavering on that one but I'm leaning towards it now. Obviously it is the most unanimous argument. * The legal system prohibits it. (/u/howbigis1gb) Whether or not one agrees with the legal system's approach to statutory rape would change the argument but I agree with this point * A relationship between an adult and a child is not equal. (/u/-GiftHorse-) This had never occurred to me before. Thanks much! **NOTE** I understand this opinion may very well be offensive. Please do not downvote me. I came to have my opinion changed. NAMbLA, as a whole, simply supports the rights of those in consensual relationships between a man and a young boy. I don't understand why their sexuality should be demonized while others are lauded as being equal and fair (I'm bisexual by the way and fully support LGBT rights). Why do we imprison those who simply try to be sexually fulfilled without committing rape? Why do we have to shame pedophiles for expressing their sexuality in healthy relationships? Or are they not healthy? Why? Are they not truly consensual? I'm not sure myself.

I think NAMbLA is perfectly reasonable. CMV. **EDIT**: My V has been C'd. Continue posting points if you'd like, any new and compelling ones will be responded too. So far, the major points have been: * Children cannot give consent. (/u/subnaree, /u/-GiftHorse-, /u/jerry121212, /u/howbigis1gb) I'm still wavering on that one but I'm leaning towards it now. Obviously it is the most unanimous argument. * The legal system prohibits it. (/u/howbigis1gb) Whether or not one agrees with the legal system's approach to statutory rape would change the argument but I agree with this point * A relationship between an adult and a child is not equal. (/u/-GiftHorse-) This had never occurred to me before. Thanks much! **NOTE** I understand this opinion may very well be offensive. Please do not downvote me. I came to have my opinion changed. NAMbLA, as a whole, simply supports the rights of those in consensual relationships between a man and a young boy. I don't understand why their sexuality should be demonized while others are lauded as being equal and fair (I'm bisexual by the way and fully support LGBT rights). Why do we imprison those who simply try to be sexually fulfilled without committing rape? Why do we have to shame pedophiles for expressing their sexuality in healthy relationships? Or are they not healthy? Why? Are they not truly consensual? I'm not sure myself.

t3_1d3gyx

I believe that death row inmates should be allowed to donate their organs CMV

If you're on deathrow, you have probably done some heinous unforgivable crime. You are sentenced to die, and you really shouldn't have many rights anymore. They've done lots of horrible things, and some of them may want to do one final good deed. Why not allow these people to make one last decision for the better? First of all, I don't think that the state should be allowed to force the prisoners to donate organs. That would create an added incentive to giving people the death sentence. Jurors may even take that into consideration when pondering their verdict. These effects all want to be avoided in case of abuse. There is however the problem that people may try to become organ donors to gain sympathy and show that they've somehow changed. I think that issue can be fixed by only giving them the option to become organ donors a short period before the actual execution, after all sentencing as been done. Of course we wouldn't be able to poison the crap out of their bodies as a form of execution anymore, but I don't think people were particularly attached to that form of execution. I'm sure they can figure out a way to humanely kill someone while preserving their organs. We would also have to make sure that they're disease free and their organs are qualified for donation, but I think doctors have to do that anyway, so I don't think that will be a big issue. All that being said, I think death row inmates should be a given this last chance to do some good if they so choose. The organs could save multiple lives and they would just be going to waste otherwise.

I believe that death row inmates should be allowed to donate their organs CMV. If you're on deathrow, you have probably done some heinous unforgivable crime. You are sentenced to die, and you really shouldn't have many rights anymore. They've done lots of horrible things, and some of them may want to do one final good deed. Why not allow these people to make one last decision for the better? First of all, I don't think that the state should be allowed to force the prisoners to donate organs. That would create an added incentive to giving people the death sentence. Jurors may even take that into consideration when pondering their verdict. These effects all want to be avoided in case of abuse. There is however the problem that people may try to become organ donors to gain sympathy and show that they've somehow changed. I think that issue can be fixed by only giving them the option to become organ donors a short period before the actual execution, after all sentencing as been done. Of course we wouldn't be able to poison the crap out of their bodies as a form of execution anymore, but I don't think people were particularly attached to that form of execution. I'm sure they can figure out a way to humanely kill someone while preserving their organs. We would also have to make sure that they're disease free and their organs are qualified for donation, but I think doctors have to do that anyway, so I don't think that will be a big issue. All that being said, I think death row inmates should be a given this last chance to do some good if they so choose. The organs could save multiple lives and they would just be going to waste otherwise.

t3_2ebonw

CMV: In 2-plate states all cars should have two license plates, even those from 1-plate states

State laws apply to everyone within the territory of the state including visitors. Having two plates makes it easier to identify vehicles for traffic and parking enforcement. Having both front and rear license plates allows identification of vehicles regardless of the direction they are parked. Having a front plate enables identification in cases where the rear plate is obstructed. If your state only requires one plate it is still legal to have two plates. The cost of an extra plate is less than $1 so having only one plate instead of two does not save a significant amount. Fining cars with only one plate for not having two plates is an easy source of revenue for the state. It would also pressure states that only require one plate to switch to requiring two plates. _____ > *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 2-plate states all cars should have two license plates, even those from 1-plate states. State laws apply to everyone within the territory of the state including visitors. Having two plates makes it easier to identify vehicles for traffic and parking enforcement. Having both front and rear license plates allows identification of vehicles regardless of the direction they are parked. Having a front plate enables identification in cases where the rear plate is obstructed. If your state only requires one plate it is still legal to have two plates. The cost of an extra plate is less than $1 so having only one plate instead of two does not save a significant amount. Fining cars with only one plate for not having two plates is an easy source of revenue for the state. It would also pressure states that only require one plate to switch to requiring two plates.

t3_1ofcn0

I don't think that artists are entitled to income from their works. CMV

There is a debate currently going on over royalties paid by Pandora Radio to artists. There is a campaign going on decrying the seemingly low royalty rate for internet radio play, ignoring the fact that terrestrial radio royalties are even lower on a per-listen basis. In fact, Pandora tried to purchase a terrestrial radio station in order to lower the royalty rates they pay for internet streaming. Anyway, I got into a debate with a musician friend of mine on this topic. Her argument was mostly emotional and not really grounded in facts or logic, but the basic premise was "I did all of this work making music, so I should get paid for it." My perspective goes like this: In Pandora's case, they pay out a full half of their gross revenue in royalties. They only very recently even became profitable, and at only a couple percent of their gross revenue. A higher royalty rate would mean that they literally could not exist, and there is no reason to believe that as a publicly-held company that they are not already trying to maximize their revenue in every way possible. The amount of money that Pandora is paying out in royalties is *simply how much money there is available for them to pay out*. The current royalty rate is something like a thousandth of a cent per play. My friend says that artists should get at least a cent per play. The fact that royalty expenses were already half of Pandora's gross revenue and that multiplying them a thousand-fold would eclipse the total revenue of the entire music industry was lost on her. Like I said, emotional and not particularly grounded in facts or logic. Probably the major reason she didn't succeed in the music business, but I digress. Anyway, I'm here about that argument that doing work entitles you to get paid for it. My view is that if you want to get paid for something, you need to view it as a job. Have or develop something that people want to pay for, find those people, get them to agree to pay for it, and then give them what they've agreed to pay for. It's just like applying for a job in any other field. The music business just has a lot of job applicants for very few jobs, the big difference being that people who are still just applicants go around saying that they actually have the job, and are demanding to get paid for it. If you spent a bunch of your own money recording an album, that was your job application, not your job, you're not entitled to make your money back, you still have to find people who are willing to pay you for the product you created. Anyway, in the interest of sustaining our friendship we dropped the topic. But I'm curious about what you think.

I don't think that artists are entitled to income from their works. CMV. There is a debate currently going on over royalties paid by Pandora Radio to artists. There is a campaign going on decrying the seemingly low royalty rate for internet radio play, ignoring the fact that terrestrial radio royalties are even lower on a per-listen basis. In fact, Pandora tried to purchase a terrestrial radio station in order to lower the royalty rates they pay for internet streaming. Anyway, I got into a debate with a musician friend of mine on this topic. Her argument was mostly emotional and not really grounded in facts or logic, but the basic premise was "I did all of this work making music, so I should get paid for it." My perspective goes like this: In Pandora's case, they pay out a full half of their gross revenue in royalties. They only very recently even became profitable, and at only a couple percent of their gross revenue. A higher royalty rate would mean that they literally could not exist, and there is no reason to believe that as a publicly-held company that they are not already trying to maximize their revenue in every way possible. The amount of money that Pandora is paying out in royalties is *simply how much money there is available for them to pay out*. The current royalty rate is something like a thousandth of a cent per play. My friend says that artists should get at least a cent per play. The fact that royalty expenses were already half of Pandora's gross revenue and that multiplying them a thousand-fold would eclipse the total revenue of the entire music industry was lost on her. Like I said, emotional and not particularly grounded in facts or logic. Probably the major reason she didn't succeed in the music business, but I digress. Anyway, I'm here about that argument that doing work entitles you to get paid for it. My view is that if you want to get paid for something, you need to view it as a job. Have or develop something that people want to pay for, find those people, get them to agree to pay for it, and then give them what they've agreed to pay for. It's just like applying for a job in any other field. The music business just has a lot of job applicants for very few jobs, the big difference being that people who are still just applicants go around saying that they actually have the job, and are demanding to get paid for it. If you spent a bunch of your own money recording an album, that was your job application, not your job, you're not entitled to make your money back, you still have to find people who are willing to pay you for the product you created. Anyway, in the interest of sustaining our friendship we dropped the topic. But I'm curious about what you think.

t3_3hbvtf

CMV: There is little reason to use secure mail services like hushmail

I had an urge to switch from gmail to something more secure, something in line of: hushmail. protonmail 4securemail ... Im sure you can google some more. But point being, I believe, such email service will only be useful, if both parties use secure emailing service. If I get commercial mail and reply to them, my info is public. I I send a "secret" email to my dad, who`s using gmail- my info is public. If I write mail to government official, again, contents of my message is available from the other party. So unless I plan to send and receive email between private webmail services, using those services is pointless. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is little reason to use secure mail services like hushmail. I had an urge to switch from gmail to something more secure, something in line of: hushmail. protonmail 4securemail ... Im sure you can google some more. But point being, I believe, such email service will only be useful, if both parties use secure emailing service. If I get commercial mail and reply to them, my info is public. I I send a "secret" email to my dad, who`s using gmail- my info is public. If I write mail to government official, again, contents of my message is available from the other party. So unless I plan to send and receive email between private webmail services, using those services is pointless.

t3_1fe13y

I believe I don't have to wash my hands if I'm careful when I wipe. CMV

I'm a lady and I'm neurotically careful when I wipe after using the bathroom. I grab a little extra tissue, flush the toilet with my shod foot and open the stall door and exit door using a the toilet paper. My hand touches nothing in the bathroom and the process of touching the sink fixtures totally grosses me out. You still have to shut it off! If I would eventually have to use a paper towel or piece of toilet paper to turn off the faucet or open the bathroom door, I don't see the point in washing my hands. I might as well be neurotic and not get piss or shit on my hands when I use the restroom. I get weird looks, but I'm used to it now and don't care.

I believe I don't have to wash my hands if I'm careful when I wipe. CMV. I'm a lady and I'm neurotically careful when I wipe after using the bathroom. I grab a little extra tissue, flush the toilet with my shod foot and open the stall door and exit door using a the toilet paper. My hand touches nothing in the bathroom and the process of touching the sink fixtures totally grosses me out. You still have to shut it off! If I would eventually have to use a paper towel or piece of toilet paper to turn off the faucet or open the bathroom door, I don't see the point in washing my hands. I might as well be neurotic and not get piss or shit on my hands when I use the restroom. I get weird looks, but I'm used to it now and don't care.

t3_2j2kqv

CMV: Religious belief will never entirely disappear from human culture.

I am an atheist, but I have come to accept the view that religious belief, for better or worse, and in one form or another--is here to stay. I think there are probably psychological reasons for this, but I am primarily basing this view on the ground that there is no compelling scientific or philosophical reason that would render supernatural speculation *altogether* unreasonable, i.e., that there is no argument or evidence or experiment that could contradict the *possibility* of some existential string-pulling principle (currently active or not) that is effectively beyond the scope of our knowledge, either in a noumenal sense or otherwise. _____ > *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: Religious belief will never entirely disappear from human culture. I am an atheist, but I have come to accept the view that religious belief, for better or worse, and in one form or another--is here to stay. I think there are probably psychological reasons for this, but I am primarily basing this view on the ground that there is no compelling scientific or philosophical reason that would render supernatural speculation *altogether* unreasonable, i.e., that there is no argument or evidence or experiment that could contradict the *possibility* of some existential string-pulling principle (currently active or not) that is effectively beyond the scope of our knowledge, either in a noumenal sense or otherwise. _____ > *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_29c6om

CMV: Being gay, transgender, or otherkin is a mental disorder and people that claim they are should receive medical attention rather than praise

10 years ago society was not as accepting of gay people as they are now. The gay agenda has shoved their views of "equality" and "justice" down our throats. People that disagree with them are viewed as bigots and will be publicly shamed. I feel as if we are supporting a birth disorder by letting it thrive rather than die out. For example: According to Darwin's survival of the fittest theory, a gay species would not survive. It would be the equivalent of allowing a person with mental disabilities to get married/reproduce. Lastly I think if people are given options to be gay, transgender, or otherkin they wI'll more likely feel a desire to choose something in order to seek attention. Let me explain; A boy has been picked on, lives with his mom because his dad died, and he has a terrible time trying to talk to girls. He might have more feminine characteristics because of living with his mom and because he has a terrible timec Ettinger along with girls and people in general he feels inferior/leftout. So what does he do? He finds a community that accepts him for being different; the Gay community. He is not really gay, but due to the environment he lives in, and the society that accepts the Gay community as a norm, he thinks of himself as being gay. Please do not downvote this post because you so not agree with me. It's something that has been bothering me for a while, I really hope someone can change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Being gay, transgender, or otherkin is a mental disorder and people that claim they are should receive medical attention rather than praise. 10 years ago society was not as accepting of gay people as they are now. The gay agenda has shoved their views of "equality" and "justice" down our throats. People that disagree with them are viewed as bigots and will be publicly shamed. I feel as if we are supporting a birth disorder by letting it thrive rather than die out. For example: According to Darwin's survival of the fittest theory, a gay species would not survive. It would be the equivalent of allowing a person with mental disabilities to get married/reproduce. Lastly I think if people are given options to be gay, transgender, or otherkin they wI'll more likely feel a desire to choose something in order to seek attention. Let me explain; A boy has been picked on, lives with his mom because his dad died, and he has a terrible time trying to talk to girls. He might have more feminine characteristics because of living with his mom and because he has a terrible timec Ettinger along with girls and people in general he feels inferior/leftout. So what does he do? He finds a community that accepts him for being different; the Gay community. He is not really gay, but due to the environment he lives in, and the society that accepts the Gay community as a norm, he thinks of himself as being gay. Please do not downvote this post because you so not agree with me. It's something that has been bothering me for a while, I really hope someone can change my view.

t3_6b85hx

CMV: Opposing intelligent design as a valid scientific theory shouldn't be the same thing as believing every biological feature definitely evolved.

Evolution, on a basic level, is pretty undeniable. The fossil record is good evidence that it occurred, because if a creator chose to place the fossils there in the arrangement they are in, he would have to have been trying to fool us. Nonetheless, there are plenty of features in biology, especially on a biochemical level, which we can't explain sufficiently through evolution. I'm not saying evolution never will explain these; it's highly possible that it will. I'm not saying it makes sense to evoke an intelligent designer, either. I'm just saying that we don't know how they got there. Ask any atheist how these things came about, and the answer will be, "We don't know how they evolved." It's perfectly acceptable not to know something. But if we don't know anything, why do we assume evolution was responsible? How do we know there was NOT an intelligent designer? Or some other natural force that we haven't discovered? I'm not advocating for intelligent design being a real theory or anything of the sort. But I fear that because of the anti-intellectualism of the creationist movement, we've become afraid of even the slightest questioning of any aspect of evolution. We think that the smallest doubt being expressed about whether or not evolution really produced a certain feature is going to shut down all desire for discovery and turn everyone into a dogmatic, mindless drone. Yes, everything in the world probably arose from natural processes, and the same pattern of discovering that what we thought was supernatural actually isn't will more than likely continue. But what's the big deal about someone doubting whether evolution can explain everything? I mean, if scientists can speculate on [whether or not the universe is a computer simulation](http://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html), then what's the problem with bringing up intelligent design? If we can have TV shows about how aliens built the Great Pyramids, why shouldn't we ever see any similar shows about intelligent design? The important thing should be preserving our open-mindedness and our skepticism towards ALL possible causes of features in the world that we don't understand, not making sure that no one ever doubts whether evolution could cause something. The only real problem I see with books like Darwin's Black Box is that they suggest that they are providing real theories that can be substantiated, rather than just interesting speculation. Intelligent design isn't outside the range of speculation. But oh yes, the ancient Greeks assumed that lightning was created by Zeus. Therefore, we should assume that a higher power could never have created anything. But appealing to precedent doesn't prove anything. The fact that we believe that Poseidon doesn't cause earthquakes has nothing to do with the ancient Greeks being wrong about Zeus causing lightning. It has only to do with the evidence for the theory of plate tectonics. Until we have similarly satisfying explanations for complex biochemical features, people shouldn't be expected to make assumptions about what caused them - one way or the other.

CMV: Opposing intelligent design as a valid scientific theory shouldn't be the same thing as believing every biological feature definitely evolved. Evolution, on a basic level, is pretty undeniable. The fossil record is good evidence that it occurred, because if a creator chose to place the fossils there in the arrangement they are in, he would have to have been trying to fool us. Nonetheless, there are plenty of features in biology, especially on a biochemical level, which we can't explain sufficiently through evolution. I'm not saying evolution never will explain these; it's highly possible that it will. I'm not saying it makes sense to evoke an intelligent designer, either. I'm just saying that we don't know how they got there. Ask any atheist how these things came about, and the answer will be, "We don't know how they evolved." It's perfectly acceptable not to know something. But if we don't know anything, why do we assume evolution was responsible? How do we know there was NOT an intelligent designer? Or some other natural force that we haven't discovered? I'm not advocating for intelligent design being a real theory or anything of the sort. But I fear that because of the anti-intellectualism of the creationist movement, we've become afraid of even the slightest questioning of any aspect of evolution. We think that the smallest doubt being expressed about whether or not evolution really produced a certain feature is going to shut down all desire for discovery and turn everyone into a dogmatic, mindless drone. Yes, everything in the world probably arose from natural processes, and the same pattern of discovering that what we thought was supernatural actually isn't will more than likely continue. But what's the big deal about someone doubting whether evolution can explain everything? I mean, if scientists can speculate on [whether or not the universe is a computer simulation](http://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html), then what's the problem with bringing up intelligent design? If we can have TV shows about how aliens built the Great Pyramids, why shouldn't we ever see any similar shows about intelligent design? The important thing should be preserving our open-mindedness and our skepticism towards ALL possible causes of features in the world that we don't understand, not making sure that no one ever doubts whether evolution could cause something. The only real problem I see with books like Darwin's Black Box is that they suggest that they are providing real theories that can be substantiated, rather than just interesting speculation. Intelligent design isn't outside the range of speculation. But oh yes, the ancient Greeks assumed that lightning was created by Zeus. Therefore, we should assume that a higher power could never have created anything. But appealing to precedent doesn't prove anything. The fact that we believe that Poseidon doesn't cause earthquakes has nothing to do with the ancient Greeks being wrong about Zeus causing lightning. It has only to do with the evidence for the theory of plate tectonics. Until we have similarly satisfying explanations for complex biochemical features, people shouldn't be expected to make assumptions about what caused them - one way or the other.

t3_22kyeo

CMV: Man cannot escape from his nature, and if he establishes a social system which is inimical to the requirements of his nature-- a system which forbids him to function as a rational, independent being-- psychological and physical disaster will be the result.

Today, of course, capitalism has largely been abandoned in favor of a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of freedom and statism-- moving steadily in the direction of increasing statism. Today, we are far closer to the "ideal society" of the socialists than when Marx first wrote of the worker's 'alienation'. The problem of 'alienation' is not metaphysical; it is not man's natural fate, never to be escaped--(like some sort of Original Sin doctrine), it is a *disease*. It is not the consequence of capitalism or industrialism or "bigness" --and it cannot be legislated out of existence by the abolition of property rights. The problem of alienation is psychoepistemological: it pertains to how man chooses to use his own consciousness. It is the product of man's revolt against thinking--by which I mean: against reality. TL;DR: our current political system and ideals are hurling us on a crash course to destruction. Does anyone else not see the shortsightedness of such a system, and the lack of humanistic merit?

CMV: Man cannot escape from his nature, and if he establishes a social system which is inimical to the requirements of his nature-- a system which forbids him to function as a rational, independent being-- psychological and physical disaster will be the result. Today, of course, capitalism has largely been abandoned in favor of a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of freedom and statism-- moving steadily in the direction of increasing statism. Today, we are far closer to the "ideal society" of the socialists than when Marx first wrote of the worker's 'alienation'. The problem of 'alienation' is not metaphysical; it is not man's natural fate, never to be escaped--(like some sort of Original Sin doctrine), it is a *disease*. It is not the consequence of capitalism or industrialism or "bigness" --and it cannot be legislated out of existence by the abolition of property rights. The problem of alienation is psychoepistemological: it pertains to how man chooses to use his own consciousness. It is the product of man's revolt against thinking--by which I mean: against reality. TL;DR: our current political system and ideals are hurling us on a crash course to destruction. Does anyone else not see the shortsightedness of such a system, and the lack of humanistic merit?

t3_4qfprz

CMV: Heterosexual Pride Day is perfectly fine.

Right now, people are getting enraged about Heterosexual Pride Day (it's trending on twitter), and I don't see why. People say things like a LGBT Pride day being so that we can celebrate, "our right to exist without prosecution." But for fucks sake, we celebrate Columbus day, which is about a guy who found Central America and destroyed a bunch of villages, we celebrate the birthdays of people who were born 300 years ago that nobody really cares about that much, and we celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, despite them mostly being painting eggs and putting secret things under trees to make people overly suspenseful before they can figure out what it is. Had people not made a big deal about it, it would have passed, nobody would have not even noticed it, and nothing would have changed. With people making a big deal about it, it's going to pass, everybody will notice it, and nothing will change. I will concede that it is kind of bad to have placed it at the end of LGBT Pride month, but still, I don't see any big problem with it just existing. I don't know if it's just me, but can somebody actually explain what the issue is? Edit: I'm not trying to understand that it's unnecessary. I know that. But I want to know why it's a BAD thing, why it definitely shouldn't exist. Edit 2: What a nice, healthy response to this. Thanks, my view has been changed. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Heterosexual Pride Day is perfectly fine. Right now, people are getting enraged about Heterosexual Pride Day (it's trending on twitter), and I don't see why. People say things like a LGBT Pride day being so that we can celebrate, "our right to exist without prosecution." But for fucks sake, we celebrate Columbus day, which is about a guy who found Central America and destroyed a bunch of villages, we celebrate the birthdays of people who were born 300 years ago that nobody really cares about that much, and we celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, despite them mostly being painting eggs and putting secret things under trees to make people overly suspenseful before they can figure out what it is. Had people not made a big deal about it, it would have passed, nobody would have not even noticed it, and nothing would have changed. With people making a big deal about it, it's going to pass, everybody will notice it, and nothing will change. I will concede that it is kind of bad to have placed it at the end of LGBT Pride month, but still, I don't see any big problem with it just existing. I don't know if it's just me, but can somebody actually explain what the issue is? Edit: I'm not trying to understand that it's unnecessary. I know that. But I want to know why it's a BAD thing, why it definitely shouldn't exist. Edit 2: What a nice, healthy response to this. Thanks, my view has been changed.

t3_1e8ej1

I think 3D printers should be regulated CMV

I think 3D printers pose a huge challenge for society. As this technology becomes more and more advanced, the possibilites are going to become endless, possibly to the point where phones, furniture or even money could be printed using one of these machines. If this actually does go unchecked piracy will run even more rampant than it is now which would be seriously detrimental to everyone. Thats why I feel a proposition to lockdown and regulate these machines is the right move. CMV Edit: Please note, I am from Australia and the thread that spawned this trail of thought was over in /r/technology relating to the 3D printable gun. In Australia there has been gun control since 1996 and the thought of having people who can just print a gun and run around with it un checked isn't a good one.

I think 3D printers should be regulated CMV. I think 3D printers pose a huge challenge for society. As this technology becomes more and more advanced, the possibilites are going to become endless, possibly to the point where phones, furniture or even money could be printed using one of these machines. If this actually does go unchecked piracy will run even more rampant than it is now which would be seriously detrimental to everyone. Thats why I feel a proposition to lockdown and regulate these machines is the right move. CMV Edit: Please note, I am from Australia and the thread that spawned this trail of thought was over in /r/technology relating to the 3D printable gun. In Australia there has been gun control since 1996 and the thought of having people who can just print a gun and run around with it un checked isn't a good one.

t3_1u670y

I think that extreme introverts (like myself) shouldn't pursue romantic relationships. CMV

I have no close friends and have no desire to make any. I deleted my Facebook account because I felt it provided no value to me. I would gladly spend 99% of my time completely alone, as I find dealing with other people exhausting. When I'm alone, it feels like a weight has been lifted off of my shoulders. Given this, it seems obvious that I am extremely poorly suited for a romantic relationship. In my opinion, whatever "loneliness" I might feel is due to evolutionary pressures and/or media presenting an idealized view of relationships, rather than a well-reasoned opinion.

I think that extreme introverts (like myself) shouldn't pursue romantic relationships. CMV. I have no close friends and have no desire to make any. I deleted my Facebook account because I felt it provided no value to me. I would gladly spend 99% of my time completely alone, as I find dealing with other people exhausting. When I'm alone, it feels like a weight has been lifted off of my shoulders. Given this, it seems obvious that I am extremely poorly suited for a romantic relationship. In my opinion, whatever "loneliness" I might feel is due to evolutionary pressures and/or media presenting an idealized view of relationships, rather than a well-reasoned opinion.

t3_3w8wvv

CMV: The latest patch for CS:GO shows Valve is trying to make it *less* like other shooters.

So the latest patch to Counter Strike: Global Offensive has caused an absolute shitstorm of controversy. Most people are arguing that the new gun, the R8 Revolver, is far overpowered, the new timings for rounds and C4 are a slight to the competitive scene, and the game feels similar to other shooters like Call of Duty more than ever. Mainly, I just want to start a reasoned conversation about this rather than a knee-jerk, hate-filled reaction. While I agree that the revolver is OP to a huge extent, that can be fixed. Guns have been nerfed (weakened) and bugs have been fixed in the past, so there is no reason that it cannot happen again. To me, this is just AUG week all over again. What I want to focus on is that with this patch, Valve is trying to make the game unlike other shooters, making it more skill based than before. First, let's talk about the revolver. It has 2 firing modes; the first is extremely accurate but the actual shot is delayed by 0.5 seconds, while the other fires rapidly and is super inaccurate. In addition to this, the gun has only 16 bullets, often one-hit kills, and has a relatively long reload time. These facts together mean that this is a weapon that requires thought when using. Yes, a player could run around spray firing it, but they would quickly run out of bullets and likely wouldn't score a kill in the process. Videos of people scoring multiple kills in just a few shots is the exception, not the rule. The revolver shines in the hands of a player who takes their time and aims carefully, using the 0.5 second delay to their advantage by not always firing and thus saving bullets. Next is the timing issue. While the new times were not the most popular among high-profile competitive organizations, I would argue that it forces both sides to play a more tactically intensive game. By lengthening the times for both the round and the C4, T-siders can approach planting and CT-siders can approach defusing with slightly less pressure, allowing them more time to execute a tactical plan rather than just rushing in sloppily. Again, this is evidence that the game is gearing more toward skill and thought, away from dumb luck and spraying. So Reddit (and the CS:GO community), 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 latest patch for CS:GO shows Valve is trying to make it *less* like other shooters. So the latest patch to Counter Strike: Global Offensive has caused an absolute shitstorm of controversy. Most people are arguing that the new gun, the R8 Revolver, is far overpowered, the new timings for rounds and C4 are a slight to the competitive scene, and the game feels similar to other shooters like Call of Duty more than ever. Mainly, I just want to start a reasoned conversation about this rather than a knee-jerk, hate-filled reaction. While I agree that the revolver is OP to a huge extent, that can be fixed. Guns have been nerfed (weakened) and bugs have been fixed in the past, so there is no reason that it cannot happen again. To me, this is just AUG week all over again. What I want to focus on is that with this patch, Valve is trying to make the game unlike other shooters, making it more skill based than before. First, let's talk about the revolver. It has 2 firing modes; the first is extremely accurate but the actual shot is delayed by 0.5 seconds, while the other fires rapidly and is super inaccurate. In addition to this, the gun has only 16 bullets, often one-hit kills, and has a relatively long reload time. These facts together mean that this is a weapon that requires thought when using. Yes, a player could run around spray firing it, but they would quickly run out of bullets and likely wouldn't score a kill in the process. Videos of people scoring multiple kills in just a few shots is the exception, not the rule. The revolver shines in the hands of a player who takes their time and aims carefully, using the 0.5 second delay to their advantage by not always firing and thus saving bullets. Next is the timing issue. While the new times were not the most popular among high-profile competitive organizations, I would argue that it forces both sides to play a more tactically intensive game. By lengthening the times for both the round and the C4, T-siders can approach planting and CT-siders can approach defusing with slightly less pressure, allowing them more time to execute a tactical plan rather than just rushing in sloppily. Again, this is evidence that the game is gearing more toward skill and thought, away from dumb luck and spraying. So Reddit (and the CS:GO community), CMV!

t3_2cl0hp

CMV: Batman is good for Gotham because the police could never deal with super villains as effectively as he does.

There's a hundred legitimate reasons you could say Batman is bad for Gotham, but I don't think any of them account for the super villains. They're simply too smart, too powerful, and often too unorthodox for the police to effectively deal with them. It takes someone of superior ability and freedom to catch these villains. A few arguments I'm anticipating: **Super villains wouldn't exist unless Batman provoked their creation of a secret identity** Perhaps, but I think it's reasonable to say many of them would have at least become criminals, abate less theme oriented. And many, like Mr. Freeze or Hush, had very specific events trigger them and I feel they would probably have done exactly what they did either way. This is all speculation however, my concrete refutation of this point is that there are hundreds of costumed vigilantes in the DC universe and if Batman didn't inspire them to take up a secret identity, someone else would have. Or, super villains from other places would target Gotham because it has no super hero protecting it. **Batman isn't effective, the villains just go to jail and then escape the next night** I've never understood why Batman catches the flack for this one. Batman cannot sentence them to the death penalty. I suppose you could say he ought to be killing them himself, but even just catching the villains over and over is more good than the police are doing, which is nothing. I don't think there's a single comic where the police are able to stop Joker all by themselves. They're helpless against these super villains, Batman is the only thing that can combat them. Even if he doesn't do it efficiently, he still does it to some degree. 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: Batman is good for Gotham because the police could never deal with super villains as effectively as he does. There's a hundred legitimate reasons you could say Batman is bad for Gotham, but I don't think any of them account for the super villains. They're simply too smart, too powerful, and often too unorthodox for the police to effectively deal with them. It takes someone of superior ability and freedom to catch these villains. A few arguments I'm anticipating: **Super villains wouldn't exist unless Batman provoked their creation of a secret identity** Perhaps, but I think it's reasonable to say many of them would have at least become criminals, abate less theme oriented. And many, like Mr. Freeze or Hush, had very specific events trigger them and I feel they would probably have done exactly what they did either way. This is all speculation however, my concrete refutation of this point is that there are hundreds of costumed vigilantes in the DC universe and if Batman didn't inspire them to take up a secret identity, someone else would have. Or, super villains from other places would target Gotham because it has no super hero protecting it. **Batman isn't effective, the villains just go to jail and then escape the next night** I've never understood why Batman catches the flack for this one. Batman cannot sentence them to the death penalty. I suppose you could say he ought to be killing them himself, but even just catching the villains over and over is more good than the police are doing, which is nothing. I don't think there's a single comic where the police are able to stop Joker all by themselves. They're helpless against these super villains, Batman is the only thing that can combat them. Even if he doesn't do it efficiently, he still does it to some degree. 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!*

t3_1qazk6

I don't believe that "white privilege" exists. (at least in the US) Someone please CMV.

I hold the highly unpopular opinion that "white privilege" doesn't exist. I just haven't seen any evidence for it, yet it seems to be brought up a lot in real life and on reddit. I have asked quite a few different people but I've never gotten anything more than a very weak argument purely based on opinion. I'm looking for evidence. I'm looking for someone to give me at least one example of a situation where a white person would have an innate advantage over a minority. It's very easy to find evidence for the other way around. For example, [this list of scholarships](http://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/minority-scholarships/) shows where minorities have a very clear advantage over white people when it comes to financial aid for higher education. It took me 5 seconds on google to find that page. I'm looking for something like this, something you could use as a source in a formal debate. I'm looking for evidence, **NOT OPINION**. I cannot stress this enough, my view will not be changed because you tell me that white privilege exists and I just can't see it. My view will not be changed because you tell me that people just see me as more professional or educated because I'm white, because that has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with the way I present myself. It cannot be something that is attributed to culture, just race. Growing up a gangbanger lifestyle is not a race issue, it's a culture issue. I'm not a racist person, and if there is a situation where I, a white person, would have an innate advantage over a minority purely based on my race, I want to know about it so I can avoid being put into an innately racist position. **EDIT:** I'm getting a lot of replies citing how ethnic sounding names vs white sounding names affect job interviews. This is a cultural issue, the color of someone's skin has nothing to do with their name. I am looking for something that is purely race based. I'm looking for a situation where the color of my skin gives me an innate advantage, not my name, not the way I was raised, not my financial situation, not my education.

I don't believe that "white privilege" exists. (at least in the US) Someone please CMV. I hold the highly unpopular opinion that "white privilege" doesn't exist. I just haven't seen any evidence for it, yet it seems to be brought up a lot in real life and on reddit. I have asked quite a few different people but I've never gotten anything more than a very weak argument purely based on opinion. I'm looking for evidence. I'm looking for someone to give me at least one example of a situation where a white person would have an innate advantage over a minority. It's very easy to find evidence for the other way around. For example, [this list of scholarships](http://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/minority-scholarships/) shows where minorities have a very clear advantage over white people when it comes to financial aid for higher education. It took me 5 seconds on google to find that page. I'm looking for something like this, something you could use as a source in a formal debate. I'm looking for evidence, **NOT OPINION**. I cannot stress this enough, my view will not be changed because you tell me that white privilege exists and I just can't see it. My view will not be changed because you tell me that people just see me as more professional or educated because I'm white, because that has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with the way I present myself. It cannot be something that is attributed to culture, just race. Growing up a gangbanger lifestyle is not a race issue, it's a culture issue. I'm not a racist person, and if there is a situation where I, a white person, would have an innate advantage over a minority purely based on my race, I want to know about it so I can avoid being put into an innately racist position. **EDIT:** I'm getting a lot of replies citing how ethnic sounding names vs white sounding names affect job interviews. This is a cultural issue, the color of someone's skin has nothing to do with their name. I am looking for something that is purely race based. I'm looking for a situation where the color of my skin gives me an innate advantage, not my name, not the way I was raised, not my financial situation, not my education.

t3_49ioil

CMV: Hillary Clinton is more of a lobbyist than a politician

So I've always been confused about what exactly a lobbyist is. I mean I heard what they are, but couldn't put any names or faces to them. To my understanding they are someone who does the "dirty work" so to speak, exchanging money and selling their power and influence to make legislative changes while getting personally rich in the process. They are, to my understanding somewhat like lawyers, who are paid to represent a certain idea, rather than to protect a client or bring justice, making them theoretically even more corrupt than the often bashed lawyers. Hillary Clinton is the first public figure that I have seen who is blatantly making millions upon millions of dollars just giving "speeches" to special interest groups. That to me sounds like what I imagine a lobbyist is doing secretly behind closed doors. I always imagined that this is how lobbyists get rich, by short speaking fee's but really they are selling their influence and popularity. I didn't think that politician could even legally be a lobbyist, as I thought they were supposed to be spending their time working on legislation to help the people of the united states and that would be a conflict of interest. If she makes more money in one half an hour hoorah speech to Goldman Sachs about how blanks shouldn't be "victim blamed" for the wars and carnage they reap, than a minimum wage worker could make working 40 hours a week for over 6 years, how does this not make her more of a lobbyist than a legit politician?? I guess you could change my view by more accurately describing what a lobbyist is, cuz i would love to know.

CMV: Hillary Clinton is more of a lobbyist than a politician. So I've always been confused about what exactly a lobbyist is. I mean I heard what they are, but couldn't put any names or faces to them. To my understanding they are someone who does the "dirty work" so to speak, exchanging money and selling their power and influence to make legislative changes while getting personally rich in the process. They are, to my understanding somewhat like lawyers, who are paid to represent a certain idea, rather than to protect a client or bring justice, making them theoretically even more corrupt than the often bashed lawyers. Hillary Clinton is the first public figure that I have seen who is blatantly making millions upon millions of dollars just giving "speeches" to special interest groups. That to me sounds like what I imagine a lobbyist is doing secretly behind closed doors. I always imagined that this is how lobbyists get rich, by short speaking fee's but really they are selling their influence and popularity. I didn't think that politician could even legally be a lobbyist, as I thought they were supposed to be spending their time working on legislation to help the people of the united states and that would be a conflict of interest. If she makes more money in one half an hour hoorah speech to Goldman Sachs about how blanks shouldn't be "victim blamed" for the wars and carnage they reap, than a minimum wage worker could make working 40 hours a week for over 6 years, how does this not make her more of a lobbyist than a legit politician?? I guess you could change my view by more accurately describing what a lobbyist is, cuz i would love to know.