Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_49n8ku

CMV: a new automobile's sticker price in a car lot should be its final "out the door" price (minus taxes), and this price should be set by the manufacturer.

EDIT: in many areas I have said "sticker price," when people are telling me I am referring to the "advertised price." Sorry for the confusion. I didn't know there was a difference. I feel that having a sticker price just to "get people in the door," as they say in the car business, is a misleading/deceptive sales tactic. An analogy I typically think of would be if I went to a grocery store to get some pasta. The tag on the shelf says it's $3, when in reality that's just its "get you to the register" price. When you ring up the pasta, now it's actually $4. I can't imagine that if a grocery store did this, they wouldn't be sued for deceptive sales practices. A sticker price should be the car with all the fees included, minus taxes (just as all products are labeled). To go back to my analogy, when you buy the $3 pasta, it's already including the delivery fee, the fee paid to the farmer, the fee paid to the manufacturer, processing fee, etc. With all that included, you come to a price of $3. I can't think of a good reason why a new automobile can't be the same way. The dealer fee, contract fee, etc. should all be included in the sticker price on the lot. Also, I personally believe this price should be set by the manufacturer. The standard options should be set prices, as well. This will lead to a very straight forward deal between the dealer and the buyer. I think that a seller being able to prey on a buyer's weaknesses for extra monetary gain in the transaction is highly immoral. Just because someone is not as good at haggling, doesn't mean they should be charged a different price for the same vehicle as someone else. I think if prices were set by manufacturers, it would lead to honest competition between car companies. They would be forced to compete with each other to give you the best car for the lowest price, instead of you having to compete directly with a dealer. This would cause for a much more honest car market, instead of everyone just throwing out crazy numbers to get people to walk in the door, then use their smart sales tactics to push up the price. I understand anyone has the freedom to walk out and not buy a car, but in today's society, with how far things are spread out in the US, an automobile can be necessary for some people to be able to make a living. It's not as easy as just walking out and going somewhere else, because you'll get the same practices at every dealership you go to.

CMV: a new automobile's sticker price in a car lot should be its final "out the door" price (minus taxes), and this price should be set by the manufacturer. EDIT: in many areas I have said "sticker price," when people are telling me I am referring to the "advertised price." Sorry for the confusion. I didn't know there was a difference. I feel that having a sticker price just to "get people in the door," as they say in the car business, is a misleading/deceptive sales tactic. An analogy I typically think of would be if I went to a grocery store to get some pasta. The tag on the shelf says it's $3, when in reality that's just its "get you to the register" price. When you ring up the pasta, now it's actually $4. I can't imagine that if a grocery store did this, they wouldn't be sued for deceptive sales practices. A sticker price should be the car with all the fees included, minus taxes (just as all products are labeled). To go back to my analogy, when you buy the $3 pasta, it's already including the delivery fee, the fee paid to the farmer, the fee paid to the manufacturer, processing fee, etc. With all that included, you come to a price of $3. I can't think of a good reason why a new automobile can't be the same way. The dealer fee, contract fee, etc. should all be included in the sticker price on the lot. Also, I personally believe this price should be set by the manufacturer. The standard options should be set prices, as well. This will lead to a very straight forward deal between the dealer and the buyer. I think that a seller being able to prey on a buyer's weaknesses for extra monetary gain in the transaction is highly immoral. Just because someone is not as good at haggling, doesn't mean they should be charged a different price for the same vehicle as someone else. I think if prices were set by manufacturers, it would lead to honest competition between car companies. They would be forced to compete with each other to give you the best car for the lowest price, instead of you having to compete directly with a dealer. This would cause for a much more honest car market, instead of everyone just throwing out crazy numbers to get people to walk in the door, then use their smart sales tactics to push up the price. I understand anyone has the freedom to walk out and not buy a car, but in today's society, with how far things are spread out in the US, an automobile can be necessary for some people to be able to make a living. It's not as easy as just walking out and going somewhere else, because you'll get the same practices at every dealership you go to.

t3_39hh80

CMV: In terms of society as a whole, simply recommending to eat healthy/exercise obviously isn't enough to fix our obesity epidemic. Extra costs for being unhealthy or extra benefits for being healthy will need to be created if we want this to change.

I understand on an individual basis, promoting exercise and healthy eating can fix the issue, but obviously those recommendations alone aren't enough to fix our obesity epidemic as a society. It's estimated that obesity related medical issues costs the united states between 147 and 210 billion dollars every year (data from 2006...so probably even more now). Every other time I've mentioned this to anybody, they always come back with the argument, "why do you care? Just take care of your own body and let other people be fat if they want." While that does seem logical, I disagree for a couple reasons: 1.) The billions we spend on this every year could be going towards much more useful things (i.e. actually working to progress society instead of fixing issues that shouldn't exist in the first place). 2.) On a personal level, I truly hope that everyone can live as happy a life as possible. I have never seen someone lose weight and get healthy, while becoming more upset with life along the way. From what I've seen, healthier people are, in general, much happier than unhealthy people. My basic argument is that either extra costs need to be added for things that promote obesity (i.e. extra tax on junk food, etc.), or that extra benefits need to be added for things that promote healthiness (i.e. tax break if you are healthy....especially if we eventually adopt a more socialized healthcare system, etc.). A combination of extra costs and extra benefits would work even better. I am not saying that the tax examples are the best solution, I was just giving examples to help explain what I mean when I say "extra costs" and "extra benefits." Every single person, whether consciously or subconsciously, uses a "costs vs. benefits" analysis to make every decision. As it stands, it's clear that for many people, the benefits of being obese exceed the costs of being obese. I keep seeing more and more ads on t.v. that promote exercise and healthy eating. If you go to the doctor and you are overweight, he will probably say the same thing. There is nothing wrong with both of those recommendations, and I think we should continue promoting healthy lifestyles in this manner. However, this has been the only solution for many many years. This is nothing new to anyone, and it's obvious that it's not working for society as a whole. Our obesity rate continues to rise, regardless of those recommendations. I think a more systemic change needs to be made, such as the examples I mentioned.

CMV: In terms of society as a whole, simply recommending to eat healthy/exercise obviously isn't enough to fix our obesity epidemic. Extra costs for being unhealthy or extra benefits for being healthy will need to be created if we want this to change. I understand on an individual basis, promoting exercise and healthy eating can fix the issue, but obviously those recommendations alone aren't enough to fix our obesity epidemic as a society. It's estimated that obesity related medical issues costs the united states between 147 and 210 billion dollars every year (data from 2006...so probably even more now). Every other time I've mentioned this to anybody, they always come back with the argument, "why do you care? Just take care of your own body and let other people be fat if they want." While that does seem logical, I disagree for a couple reasons: 1.) The billions we spend on this every year could be going towards much more useful things (i.e. actually working to progress society instead of fixing issues that shouldn't exist in the first place). 2.) On a personal level, I truly hope that everyone can live as happy a life as possible. I have never seen someone lose weight and get healthy, while becoming more upset with life along the way. From what I've seen, healthier people are, in general, much happier than unhealthy people. My basic argument is that either extra costs need to be added for things that promote obesity (i.e. extra tax on junk food, etc.), or that extra benefits need to be added for things that promote healthiness (i.e. tax break if you are healthy....especially if we eventually adopt a more socialized healthcare system, etc.). A combination of extra costs and extra benefits would work even better. I am not saying that the tax examples are the best solution, I was just giving examples to help explain what I mean when I say "extra costs" and "extra benefits." Every single person, whether consciously or subconsciously, uses a "costs vs. benefits" analysis to make every decision. As it stands, it's clear that for many people, the benefits of being obese exceed the costs of being obese. I keep seeing more and more ads on t.v. that promote exercise and healthy eating. If you go to the doctor and you are overweight, he will probably say the same thing. There is nothing wrong with both of those recommendations, and I think we should continue promoting healthy lifestyles in this manner. However, this has been the only solution for many many years. This is nothing new to anyone, and it's obvious that it's not working for society as a whole. Our obesity rate continues to rise, regardless of those recommendations. I think a more systemic change needs to be made, such as the examples I mentioned.

t3_2zpuj2

CMV: I don't believe in a benefit system, food and shelter should be provided but not money

I have never been comfortable with the idea of a benefit system, now thankfully I have worked all my life (so far) and have always been able to provide for myself since moving away from my parents house, my mother and father also worked through redundancies and job losses all throughout my child-hood. Obviously you can't just leave people to rot, food should be provided and some kind of housing should be provided, anything on top of that - cigarettes, alcohol, television, all forms of entertainment should be reserved for people who earn an income. I don't think people should be given a choice though, straight up oatmeal, sandwich, meat and 2 veg. Breakfast, lunch and dinner, the healthiest options available but absolutely no financial assistance. This is partly due to knowing people who get on the dole and utterly scrounge every essential thing they need in order to afford more money for booze, fags, dope. I don't think that's right, people who work should be entitled to spend their money on whatever they want - even things like prostitution and drugs. I understand people have a hard time finding jobs but I can't relate too that at all, like I said I've been made redundant, walked out of a job and had contracts run out and I've never had more than 10 days without being in a job since I was 15 (30 now). So yeah, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe in a benefit system, food and shelter should be provided but not money. I have never been comfortable with the idea of a benefit system, now thankfully I have worked all my life (so far) and have always been able to provide for myself since moving away from my parents house, my mother and father also worked through redundancies and job losses all throughout my child-hood. Obviously you can't just leave people to rot, food should be provided and some kind of housing should be provided, anything on top of that - cigarettes, alcohol, television, all forms of entertainment should be reserved for people who earn an income. I don't think people should be given a choice though, straight up oatmeal, sandwich, meat and 2 veg. Breakfast, lunch and dinner, the healthiest options available but absolutely no financial assistance. This is partly due to knowing people who get on the dole and utterly scrounge every essential thing they need in order to afford more money for booze, fags, dope. I don't think that's right, people who work should be entitled to spend their money on whatever they want - even things like prostitution and drugs. I understand people have a hard time finding jobs but I can't relate too that at all, like I said I've been made redundant, walked out of a job and had contracts run out and I've never had more than 10 days without being in a job since I was 15 (30 now). So yeah, change my view.

t3_18p10o

I can't help but think very negatively of girls who have casual sex with several partners, and to mentally label them sluts. CMV

As a heteroseuxal male in my early twenties living in Scandinavia, I can't help but think very little of the women who are around my own age. I am not exactly hypocritical seeing as I don't frequent random sexual encounters myself, yet I will admit I find it worse when a girl is easy, than when a guy is. What causes me to believe these girls are slutty is how they act in clubs and bars, and especially the stories my male piers shares with me: From drunken MMF threesomes including an outwardly sweet innocent girl and a guy she even despises herself, to even the most (former) shy and angelic girl having several one-night-stands with out any limits. Furthermore I find the tales of cheating and general lack of commitment unsettling. I understand that not all girls are like this (at least I imaging so), however I am starting to come to terms with the fact that perhaps the problem isn't how sexually free women are these days, but that in fact I am the one who might be old fashioned and should reevaluate my view. Especially seeing how difficult (impossible) I find it to meet a girl who does not match the above descriptions. CMV

I can't help but think very negatively of girls who have casual sex with several partners, and to mentally label them sluts. CMV. As a heteroseuxal male in my early twenties living in Scandinavia, I can't help but think very little of the women who are around my own age. I am not exactly hypocritical seeing as I don't frequent random sexual encounters myself, yet I will admit I find it worse when a girl is easy, than when a guy is. What causes me to believe these girls are slutty is how they act in clubs and bars, and especially the stories my male piers shares with me: From drunken MMF threesomes including an outwardly sweet innocent girl and a guy she even despises herself, to even the most (former) shy and angelic girl having several one-night-stands with out any limits. Furthermore I find the tales of cheating and general lack of commitment unsettling. I understand that not all girls are like this (at least I imaging so), however I am starting to come to terms with the fact that perhaps the problem isn't how sexually free women are these days, but that in fact I am the one who might be old fashioned and should reevaluate my view. Especially seeing how difficult (impossible) I find it to meet a girl who does not match the above descriptions. CMV

t3_24ht3i

CMV: I'm uncomfortable with dynamic of (male)Dom/(female)Sub BDSM relationships. Help me CMV.

For the record, neither my partner nor I are interested in BDSM sex, nor do I have any serious problems with anyone's sexual preferences - even if they don't appeal to me personally. That said: I have a hard time envisioning a healthy BDSM relationship in which the male is the dominant partner and the female submissive. I feel like these types of arrangements play into pre-existing unhealthy male-female power dichotomies, and exaggerating them through sexuality only exacerbates the problem. In normal, 'vanilla' heterosexual sex - the male is already dominant. The act of penetration, inserting oneself into another person, is an inherently dominant act. Gender-equal couples can approach this critically and accept that the power dichotomy exists and is unavoidable and take steps to mitigate it. However, in a male-Dom configuration, the male is not only performing his dominant role: he is emphasizing and exaggerating it. Is it the case that the Dom role becomes parodic in its over exaggeration and that the parody is a source of equalizing empowerment? The way I see it: female-Dom, male-Sub makes perfect sense. The purpose of non-normative sexuality is to decouple sex from everyday life: to make it a 'sacred space' that is unique (and therefore special) to the couple. A man who is aggressive and dominant in his day-to-day life may feel a great sense of relief from 'laying down his burdens' and being submissive in the bedroom. Likewise, a woman who feels disempowered in broad society can feel empowered in an intimate setting. What doesn't make sense to me is why a woman who is regularly disempowered in her daily life would choose to continue to be disempowered in what should be the safest and most empowering space available. I'm interested from hearing from people women and men who have or are currently in (male)Dom/(female)Sub relationships. For the men, do you believe in the traditional male/dominant female/submissive gender roles, or are you somehow subverting them? For the women, do you feel that your Sub role is challenging society's expectation of your gender, or do you feel empowered by embracing what you see as your role in the male/female dichotomy? Again, I'm not passing (or even withholding) judgement of anyone's sexual preferences. I legitimately don't understand, because I've never had anyone explain it to me. In my sexual relationship, our sexual practices are as equal as I imagine is possible, so a power-dynamic sexual relationship is alien to me. I look forward to having my V C'ed. _____ > *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'm uncomfortable with dynamic of (male)Dom/(female)Sub BDSM relationships. Help me CMV. For the record, neither my partner nor I are interested in BDSM sex, nor do I have any serious problems with anyone's sexual preferences - even if they don't appeal to me personally. That said: I have a hard time envisioning a healthy BDSM relationship in which the male is the dominant partner and the female submissive. I feel like these types of arrangements play into pre-existing unhealthy male-female power dichotomies, and exaggerating them through sexuality only exacerbates the problem. In normal, 'vanilla' heterosexual sex - the male is already dominant. The act of penetration, inserting oneself into another person, is an inherently dominant act. Gender-equal couples can approach this critically and accept that the power dichotomy exists and is unavoidable and take steps to mitigate it. However, in a male-Dom configuration, the male is not only performing his dominant role: he is emphasizing and exaggerating it. Is it the case that the Dom role becomes parodic in its over exaggeration and that the parody is a source of equalizing empowerment? The way I see it: female-Dom, male-Sub makes perfect sense. The purpose of non-normative sexuality is to decouple sex from everyday life: to make it a 'sacred space' that is unique (and therefore special) to the couple. A man who is aggressive and dominant in his day-to-day life may feel a great sense of relief from 'laying down his burdens' and being submissive in the bedroom. Likewise, a woman who feels disempowered in broad society can feel empowered in an intimate setting. What doesn't make sense to me is why a woman who is regularly disempowered in her daily life would choose to continue to be disempowered in what should be the safest and most empowering space available. I'm interested from hearing from people women and men who have or are currently in (male)Dom/(female)Sub relationships. For the men, do you believe in the traditional male/dominant female/submissive gender roles, or are you somehow subverting them? For the women, do you feel that your Sub role is challenging society's expectation of your gender, or do you feel empowered by embracing what you see as your role in the male/female dichotomy? Again, I'm not passing (or even withholding) judgement of anyone's sexual preferences. I legitimately don't understand, because I've never had anyone explain it to me. In my sexual relationship, our sexual practices are as equal as I imagine is possible, so a power-dynamic sexual relationship is alien to me. I look forward to having my V C'ed.

t3_4xoeic

CMV: The superfitiality of our current society starts in the way our educational systems and job market are built

I am very critical about our educational system, at least the system in my country which I believe has the same flaws as the american educational system. I believe school doesn't teach you about important things in life like for example, you don't learn about different political ideologies, how the political system of your country is built, how economics works and how to do your taxes. But most important than that you don't earn social skills. People are instructed from an early age that you need to work hard in school to get a nice job later on and be successful. But what is the point of busting your ass in college, so then you get a job that requires you to work inhumane amount of hours (like 12hours or so a day) and doesn't allow you to take vacations? You'll earn a lot of money (or not because a lot of people are asked to work that and don't receive that much) but you have no time to spend it. You also don't have time to develop meaniful relationships. So the only thing you can do is to either get married and have kids (that is if you find a suitable partner that doesn't mind the fact that you are more commited to your job) or you have to be single all your life and just pursue superfitial relations such as random hookups for sex and friends with benefits. You don't have any time to invest on you, to learn new stuff and most importantly to travel and meet new realities. The way the system is built kills imagination and creativity. Chances are you are so exhausted at the end of the day, you don't have any energy left to think about anything else or for example to study the current state of world affairs and update about world news. So in the current system people are reduced to slaves of their work and don't have any time left to personal development. _____ > *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 superfitiality of our current society starts in the way our educational systems and job market are built. I am very critical about our educational system, at least the system in my country which I believe has the same flaws as the american educational system. I believe school doesn't teach you about important things in life like for example, you don't learn about different political ideologies, how the political system of your country is built, how economics works and how to do your taxes. But most important than that you don't earn social skills. People are instructed from an early age that you need to work hard in school to get a nice job later on and be successful. But what is the point of busting your ass in college, so then you get a job that requires you to work inhumane amount of hours (like 12hours or so a day) and doesn't allow you to take vacations? You'll earn a lot of money (or not because a lot of people are asked to work that and don't receive that much) but you have no time to spend it. You also don't have time to develop meaniful relationships. So the only thing you can do is to either get married and have kids (that is if you find a suitable partner that doesn't mind the fact that you are more commited to your job) or you have to be single all your life and just pursue superfitial relations such as random hookups for sex and friends with benefits. You don't have any time to invest on you, to learn new stuff and most importantly to travel and meet new realities. The way the system is built kills imagination and creativity. Chances are you are so exhausted at the end of the day, you don't have any energy left to think about anything else or for example to study the current state of world affairs and update about world news. So in the current system people are reduced to slaves of their work and don't have any time left to personal development.

t3_2eafy9

CMV: I think Halloween should be moved to the last Saturday in October.

Halloween is becoming a real hassle for schools. There are more and more guidelines to how kids can dress up, some have disallowed it all together. When I was a kid, the one in seven years that Halloween fell on a Saturday was basically the best day of your life. All day trick or treating, enough time to go to parades or parties. The candy lasted until Easter. As an adult it makes going to bars easier. If Halloween falls on a Wednesday do you go out to see the slutty cops and ninjas the Saturday before or after actual Halloween? I know Halloween is All Hallows Eve and is supposed to be the day before All Saint's Day. But it is nowhere close to a religious holiday anymore. Now it's just a day for fun, candy and slutty Catwomen, it belongs on a Saturday. CMV.

CMV: I think Halloween should be moved to the last Saturday in October. Halloween is becoming a real hassle for schools. There are more and more guidelines to how kids can dress up, some have disallowed it all together. When I was a kid, the one in seven years that Halloween fell on a Saturday was basically the best day of your life. All day trick or treating, enough time to go to parades or parties. The candy lasted until Easter. As an adult it makes going to bars easier. If Halloween falls on a Wednesday do you go out to see the slutty cops and ninjas the Saturday before or after actual Halloween? I know Halloween is All Hallows Eve and is supposed to be the day before All Saint's Day. But it is nowhere close to a religious holiday anymore. Now it's just a day for fun, candy and slutty Catwomen, it belongs on a Saturday. CMV.

t3_1anpo6

Private colleges would be cheaper and better than public ones. Why is this false for college but true for charter k-12?

I was thinking about a recent post about harvard and prison costing the same, so I wondered why the private is cheaper and better charter argument fails at the college level, and I haven't seen anything convincing about it working at the k-12 level either come to think of it. Thanks

Private colleges would be cheaper and better than public ones. Why is this false for college but true for charter k-12?. I was thinking about a recent post about harvard and prison costing the same, so I wondered why the private is cheaper and better charter argument fails at the college level, and I haven't seen anything convincing about it working at the k-12 level either come to think of it. Thanks

t3_1h9we5

I believe I'm justified to be mad at my girlfriend for what she did before we started dating. CMV

First off, my girlfriend and I are strong Christians, please respect that and bear that in mind. My girlfriend and I started seriously dating about two-three months ago. We have discussed and agree on some values that we believe everybody should follow such as no underage drinking, no drug use, and (importantly,) no pre-marital sex. We have both talked about how we would not be able date a person who does not follow these values. Because I've seen all three of these things ruin lives, they are very important to me. Recently, she told me that about six months before we started dating, she slept with her boyfriend of the time. She tells me that she doesn't want to pressure me to do anything I don't want to do. She tells me that she doesn't want to do it again before she's married, but part of me wonders if she's just telling me what I want to hear. She says that it's just a bad choice from her past, but I can't help but be angry. I believe that because she's made this decision with another guy, I'll never be able to satisfy what she wants in a relationship until we get married. If we were to get married, and had sex, I'll never be able to get over the fact that some other guy has done it with her before me. She'll always compare me to him. I believe that there should only be one person in the world you should want to have that experience with. This was before I even knew her, but I'm angry about it. CMV EDIT: I suppose many of these replies have made me realize that I'm not really mad she had sex, but that she essentially lied about it. We had the whole no-sex discussion and we were all fine and dandy, then several weeks later she said that she'd been keeping this from me. EDIT 2: Thanks for the advice guys, especially to /u/carasci. I really want this relationship to work, because she is a truly incredible woman. I've decided to talk to to her and tell her that I'm upset that she was dishonest and withheld this from me, even when she knows how I feel about the subject. I can post an update after we talk if anybody is interested.

I believe I'm justified to be mad at my girlfriend for what she did before we started dating. CMV. First off, my girlfriend and I are strong Christians, please respect that and bear that in mind. My girlfriend and I started seriously dating about two-three months ago. We have discussed and agree on some values that we believe everybody should follow such as no underage drinking, no drug use, and (importantly,) no pre-marital sex. We have both talked about how we would not be able date a person who does not follow these values. Because I've seen all three of these things ruin lives, they are very important to me. Recently, she told me that about six months before we started dating, she slept with her boyfriend of the time. She tells me that she doesn't want to pressure me to do anything I don't want to do. She tells me that she doesn't want to do it again before she's married, but part of me wonders if she's just telling me what I want to hear. She says that it's just a bad choice from her past, but I can't help but be angry. I believe that because she's made this decision with another guy, I'll never be able to satisfy what she wants in a relationship until we get married. If we were to get married, and had sex, I'll never be able to get over the fact that some other guy has done it with her before me. She'll always compare me to him. I believe that there should only be one person in the world you should want to have that experience with. This was before I even knew her, but I'm angry about it. CMV EDIT: I suppose many of these replies have made me realize that I'm not really mad she had sex, but that she essentially lied about it. We had the whole no-sex discussion and we were all fine and dandy, then several weeks later she said that she'd been keeping this from me. EDIT 2: Thanks for the advice guys, especially to /u/carasci. I really want this relationship to work, because she is a truly incredible woman. I've decided to talk to to her and tell her that I'm upset that she was dishonest and withheld this from me, even when she knows how I feel about the subject. I can post an update after we talk if anybody is interested.

t3_1dqpvr

I am an American that believes that Isreal is using their position as a "lone Jewish State" to justify illegal transgressions in the ME, CMV

As a disclaimer, I do not hate Jews, nor am I anti-Semetic. I think they were given too much slack since 1948. The arming by advanced Western powers also seems to have been a little much. I think it's hard to justify the use of (IMO) legitimate Palestinian territory for the use of settlements, martial rule, and really the overall refusal for reconciliation with the Palestinian people.

I am an American that believes that Isreal is using their position as a "lone Jewish State" to justify illegal transgressions in the ME, CMV. As a disclaimer, I do not hate Jews, nor am I anti-Semetic. I think they were given too much slack since 1948. The arming by advanced Western powers also seems to have been a little much. I think it's hard to justify the use of (IMO) legitimate Palestinian territory for the use of settlements, martial rule, and really the overall refusal for reconciliation with the Palestinian people.

t3_220dru

CMV:America needs a healthcare service like the NHS.

I don't understand why so many Americans are against the idea of a health care for all. I've relied on the NHS a lot in my life, especially recently. I've just had a medical procedure, blood drawn, referred for two more procedures AND they even paid for my travel to the hospital since I'm on Jobseekers allowance. I know a lot of people think we pay a lot more taxes than you but the truth is, we pay less tax on healthcare than you do. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M I see people talk about getting absolutely insane medical bills when they have an accident or get sick and need treatment. Like they say in that video a Colonoscopy costs on average $1,100 and I'll be having one for free. Why does this seem okay to so many people? America is supposed to be the best country in the world, but your health care is insane. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:America needs a healthcare service like the NHS. I don't understand why so many Americans are against the idea of a health care for all. I've relied on the NHS a lot in my life, especially recently. I've just had a medical procedure, blood drawn, referred for two more procedures AND they even paid for my travel to the hospital since I'm on Jobseekers allowance. I know a lot of people think we pay a lot more taxes than you but the truth is, we pay less tax on healthcare than you do. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M I see people talk about getting absolutely insane medical bills when they have an accident or get sick and need treatment. Like they say in that video a Colonoscopy costs on average $1,100 and I'll be having one for free. Why does this seem okay to so many people? America is supposed to be the best country in the world, but your health care is insane.

t3_68mdlo

CMV:Suicide is an acceptable right of any adult even if they aren't physically in pain or dying.

Not including people with deathly illnesses or with dibilitating and painful health issues. I believe that people in emotional and psychological pain be allowed to commit suicide and that actions to stop them via the government and health officials is wrong. Additionally, I believe that intervention by friends and family to seek help because of the family's own emotional reasons (ex: they will miss the suicidal person and be affected by such a situation) is wrong and should not be thrust upon the person as reasons to avoid what they believe is the solution to their problems. Here are some quotes from great thinkers on the subject: > They tell us that Suicide is the greatest piece of Cowardice... That Suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in this world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person. > - Arthur Schopenhauer Whereas, I reject such philosophical arguments like this: > He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. > - Kant Change My View. **Edit: this really blew up. I'm trying to read all the responses. I'm definitely seeing a lot of the points people are making and trying to reply and choose some of the best arguments ** _____ > *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:Suicide is an acceptable right of any adult even if they aren't physically in pain or dying. Not including people with deathly illnesses or with dibilitating and painful health issues. I believe that people in emotional and psychological pain be allowed to commit suicide and that actions to stop them via the government and health officials is wrong. Additionally, I believe that intervention by friends and family to seek help because of the family's own emotional reasons (ex: they will miss the suicidal person and be affected by such a situation) is wrong and should not be thrust upon the person as reasons to avoid what they believe is the solution to their problems. Here are some quotes from great thinkers on the subject: > They tell us that Suicide is the greatest piece of Cowardice... That Suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in this world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person. > - Arthur Schopenhauer Whereas, I reject such philosophical arguments like this: > He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. > - Kant Change My View. **Edit: this really blew up. I'm trying to read all the responses. I'm definitely seeing a lot of the points people are making and trying to reply and choose some of the best arguments **

t3_2cb5m0

CMV: African American Vernacacular English (AAVE) is inferior to the standard American English dialect and should be done away with (except for the word "y'all"- it's helpful to have a specifically plural 2nd person pronoun).

I know that that view is racist and that AAVE is a legitimate dialect that deserves respect, but the racist in me needs more convincing in order to thoroughly shake her belief. Late edit: A delta worthy comment would change one or both of my two opinions stated above, so you would have to either convince me that AAVE is not a legitimate dialect deserving of respect or that it is not inferior to standard American English and that it very much has a right to exist and so should go on existing. Edit 2: See [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2cb5m0/cmv_african_american_vernacacular_english_aave_is/cjelteq?context=9) for my conclusion. _____ > *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: African American Vernacacular English (AAVE) is inferior to the standard American English dialect and should be done away with (except for the word "y'all"- it's helpful to have a specifically plural 2nd person pronoun). I know that that view is racist and that AAVE is a legitimate dialect that deserves respect, but the racist in me needs more convincing in order to thoroughly shake her belief. Late edit: A delta worthy comment would change one or both of my two opinions stated above, so you would have to either convince me that AAVE is not a legitimate dialect deserving of respect or that it is not inferior to standard American English and that it very much has a right to exist and so should go on existing. Edit 2: See [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2cb5m0/cmv_african_american_vernacacular_english_aave_is/cjelteq?context=9) for my conclusion.

t3_6ghft1

CMV: It's not racist to demand that immigrants integrate into the dominant culture, and that is better for them if they do.

There's an old saying that goes like this. "When in Rome, do as they do". Now, that means you should obey/respect the customs, ideals and values that the country has. Now this sounds good right. Okay, let's say that I think immigrants should also follow this line of thinking. Europe is facing massive problems that stem from the fact there are people coming from the Middle East who refuse to accept Western Values. In my opinion, we should give them a choice. Accept our values, our rules and accept our laws, or leave. Muslim ghettos are breeding [terrorists. ](https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/03/22/muslim-ghettos-in-europe-are-hotbeds-for-terror/amp/). We must use this logic to preserve Western Civilization. Let me explain myself better. I can do whatever I want in my own house. I can walk around naked. Leave bags of chips everywhere. Crap on the rug if I want to. But I shouldn't do it in my neighbors house. It's rude, embarrassing, disgusting and disturbing. If I don't comply to the rules they lay out, they have every right to kick me out. Now, is this true in a reverse, where I go to Turkey and live there? I say yes. I should respect the culture of my location. Again, there house, there rules. In my opinion if immigrants (especially Muslims) would integrate culturally, life would be easier for everyone. There would be fewer people on welfare, fewer terrorist attacks, more people would be alive and young Muslims might have a brighter future. But instead they refuse, creating high poverty towns that no one with the cash to leave will stay in. Children are not given the education they need. Fear and paranoia now fills people [who live or have to go through these places](https://www.google.com/amp/s/acidmuncher.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/horrible-tale-from-inside-the-swedish-ghetto/amp/). Boys and girls in Muslims schools are [segregated by gender.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/58e40b1dc461889c668b45bc/amp)In my opinion, immigrants regardless of background should integrate into the dominant culture. So CMV, that immigrants should conform to the dominant culture.

CMV: It's not racist to demand that immigrants integrate into the dominant culture, and that is better for them if they do. There's an old saying that goes like this. "When in Rome, do as they do". Now, that means you should obey/respect the customs, ideals and values that the country has. Now this sounds good right. Okay, let's say that I think immigrants should also follow this line of thinking. Europe is facing massive problems that stem from the fact there are people coming from the Middle East who refuse to accept Western Values. In my opinion, we should give them a choice. Accept our values, our rules and accept our laws, or leave. Muslim ghettos are breeding [terrorists. ](https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/03/22/muslim-ghettos-in-europe-are-hotbeds-for-terror/amp/). We must use this logic to preserve Western Civilization. Let me explain myself better. I can do whatever I want in my own house. I can walk around naked. Leave bags of chips everywhere. Crap on the rug if I want to. But I shouldn't do it in my neighbors house. It's rude, embarrassing, disgusting and disturbing. If I don't comply to the rules they lay out, they have every right to kick me out. Now, is this true in a reverse, where I go to Turkey and live there? I say yes. I should respect the culture of my location. Again, there house, there rules. In my opinion if immigrants (especially Muslims) would integrate culturally, life would be easier for everyone. There would be fewer people on welfare, fewer terrorist attacks, more people would be alive and young Muslims might have a brighter future. But instead they refuse, creating high poverty towns that no one with the cash to leave will stay in. Children are not given the education they need. Fear and paranoia now fills people [who live or have to go through these places](https://www.google.com/amp/s/acidmuncher.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/horrible-tale-from-inside-the-swedish-ghetto/amp/). Boys and girls in Muslims schools are [segregated by gender.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/58e40b1dc461889c668b45bc/amp)In my opinion, immigrants regardless of background should integrate into the dominant culture. So CMV, that immigrants should conform to the dominant culture.

t3_2i53gm

CMV:Quality is better than quantity.

Over the years, I have come to notice how I believe as a general rule quality is better than quantity. It is more valuable to have less of something supreme than to try to acquire a greater amount simply for the sake of the number. By following this idea and recognizing the alternatives, people will actually feel more appreciative of what they have in scenarios of both tangible and intangible goods. Less is more. For example, the clothes consumers buy. In my eyes, it is better to spend more money on a few timeless pieces that you will love and wear all the time than to buy a whole collection of cheaper things. It is more than likely the quality pieces will last longer and will end up being the better deal than something that breaks or isn’t worn again after one time. If you feel otherwise, 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:Quality is better than quantity. Over the years, I have come to notice how I believe as a general rule quality is better than quantity. It is more valuable to have less of something supreme than to try to acquire a greater amount simply for the sake of the number. By following this idea and recognizing the alternatives, people will actually feel more appreciative of what they have in scenarios of both tangible and intangible goods. Less is more. For example, the clothes consumers buy. In my eyes, it is better to spend more money on a few timeless pieces that you will love and wear all the time than to buy a whole collection of cheaper things. It is more than likely the quality pieces will last longer and will end up being the better deal than something that breaks or isn’t worn again after one time. If you feel otherwise, please change my view!

t3_2wd7g2

CMV: "If you aren't with us, you're against us" is an unhealthy and incorrect mentality; passive non-participation is not the same as opposition.

This idea has probably been around as long as people have existed but I think it is flawed. I do not think that simply by existing I have somehow chosen sides on any number of topics or issues of which I am or am not aware. In my experience, this type of thinking is used to persuade someone to actively join a cause through guilt ("You are part of the system, so if you aren't working to right the inherent wrongs, you are part of the problem") but I think it often has the unintended effect of reinforcing ingroup vs. outgroup psychology by alienating people and telling them they have done something wrong. Common examples include race and gender issues. This tends to have some shades of moral or philosophical implications with regards to things that you "should" do. In my opinion, I have no obligation to actively effect change for any cause, even if it is tangentially related to me (e.g. I don't have to protest a war that may be unjust simply because my country is involved, I don't have to fight against discrimination that doesn't apply to me, etc.). I use extreme examples to underscore the point that those things do not directly affect me. I did not cause them, support them, or actively contribute to them. I am obligated not to *actively engage* in things that are wrong, but that is a separate topic. Change my view that it is possible to sit on the sidelines for things that don't affect me without being a detractor. EDIT: As it has been pointed out, there are plenty of examples of when a choice is truly binary, and non-participation is not an option. This is not what I was referring to. I specifically had in mind instances when it is applied in systematic social problems that don't fall neatly into a binary choice (not limited to those I listed, but I tried to choose examples which would illustrate clearly instances of when this logic might be applied). Also, as noted "non-action" is not the same as "non-participation", and in some circumstances non-action is clearly a choice supporting one side of the issue. My description was not meant to limit the scope of the topic, but to give context to times when I have experienced this type of thinking. The context may or may not be helpful depending on your experiences. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: "If you aren't with us, you're against us" is an unhealthy and incorrect mentality; passive non-participation is not the same as opposition. This idea has probably been around as long as people have existed but I think it is flawed. I do not think that simply by existing I have somehow chosen sides on any number of topics or issues of which I am or am not aware. In my experience, this type of thinking is used to persuade someone to actively join a cause through guilt ("You are part of the system, so if you aren't working to right the inherent wrongs, you are part of the problem") but I think it often has the unintended effect of reinforcing ingroup vs. outgroup psychology by alienating people and telling them they have done something wrong. Common examples include race and gender issues. This tends to have some shades of moral or philosophical implications with regards to things that you "should" do. In my opinion, I have no obligation to actively effect change for any cause, even if it is tangentially related to me (e.g. I don't have to protest a war that may be unjust simply because my country is involved, I don't have to fight against discrimination that doesn't apply to me, etc.). I use extreme examples to underscore the point that those things do not directly affect me. I did not cause them, support them, or actively contribute to them. I am obligated not to *actively engage* in things that are wrong, but that is a separate topic. Change my view that it is possible to sit on the sidelines for things that don't affect me without being a detractor. EDIT: As it has been pointed out, there are plenty of examples of when a choice is truly binary, and non-participation is not an option. This is not what I was referring to. I specifically had in mind instances when it is applied in systematic social problems that don't fall neatly into a binary choice (not limited to those I listed, but I tried to choose examples which would illustrate clearly instances of when this logic might be applied). Also, as noted "non-action" is not the same as "non-participation", and in some circumstances non-action is clearly a choice supporting one side of the issue. My description was not meant to limit the scope of the topic, but to give context to times when I have experienced this type of thinking. The context may or may not be helpful depending on your experiences. > *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_1rzv08

I think that people's hobbies don't necessarily have to be productive. CMV

Very often, we hear people saying that we should be doing things like reading books, learning trades, learning a language, etc instead of playing video games or watching TV with our free time. Why should this be the case? The reason I hold this belief is because we've only got one life. We should be free to live it however we want, so long as our activities don't negatively impact another person's rights. Some people even go as far as valuing a person's value based on how much they "contribute" to society. Does it really matter in the end? When we talk about productivity, we normally think about the end results. Video games, movies, etc are more about the journey. If one is paying his/her bills and doing his/her job properly, where is the problem? I understand time draining hobbies are usually associated with lazy bums, but I believe that's a different matter altogether. Thinking about all of this reminds of the movie "Fight Club". One of the characters said, “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don't need.” I've tried looking at this issue from different perspectives but I feel like my brain hit a brick wall. Change my view, please, and thanks for reading.

I think that people's hobbies don't necessarily have to be productive. CMV. Very often, we hear people saying that we should be doing things like reading books, learning trades, learning a language, etc instead of playing video games or watching TV with our free time. Why should this be the case? The reason I hold this belief is because we've only got one life. We should be free to live it however we want, so long as our activities don't negatively impact another person's rights. Some people even go as far as valuing a person's value based on how much they "contribute" to society. Does it really matter in the end? When we talk about productivity, we normally think about the end results. Video games, movies, etc are more about the journey. If one is paying his/her bills and doing his/her job properly, where is the problem? I understand time draining hobbies are usually associated with lazy bums, but I believe that's a different matter altogether. Thinking about all of this reminds of the movie "Fight Club". One of the characters said, “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don't need.” I've tried looking at this issue from different perspectives but I feel like my brain hit a brick wall. Change my view, please, and thanks for reading.

t3_1mtjx9

The rules of Basketball are flawed. The format of the game has too much dependency on the clock, and the team that wins the game isn't always the team that deserves to win. CMV

Basketball: You can miss most of the game and tune in to the last 3 minutes to watch the only important part of the game. I don't think the game does a good job of separating the better team from the lesser team. A game tied at 75-75 is often decided by a margin of 2 points once the clock ends. This "win" is not statistically significant and doesn't mean that the team that happened to win that particular game actually was a better basketball team that day. Some basketball purists say that the final 2 minutes of a game are the most exciting and beautiful part of the game; I say why not make the entire game 2 minutes long then? The entire early game really is made pointless due to the rules of basketball. Surely if a team Wins by a margin of 80-50, then they deserve to win, but I've seen too many basketball games won by a margin of 2 points to actually say that the game of basketball is well designed. CMV

The rules of Basketball are flawed. The format of the game has too much dependency on the clock, and the team that wins the game isn't always the team that deserves to win. CMV. Basketball: You can miss most of the game and tune in to the last 3 minutes to watch the only important part of the game. I don't think the game does a good job of separating the better team from the lesser team. A game tied at 75-75 is often decided by a margin of 2 points once the clock ends. This "win" is not statistically significant and doesn't mean that the team that happened to win that particular game actually was a better basketball team that day. Some basketball purists say that the final 2 minutes of a game are the most exciting and beautiful part of the game; I say why not make the entire game 2 minutes long then? The entire early game really is made pointless due to the rules of basketball. Surely if a team Wins by a margin of 80-50, then they deserve to win, but I've seen too many basketball games won by a margin of 2 points to actually say that the game of basketball is well designed. CMV

t3_1w5pip

CMV: I think a rapist should know if he contracted an STD from his victims.

Recently there was a case about a man who raped someone and as it turns out, his victim has HIV. I whole-heartedly believe that by raping someone you had to be willing to risk the chance of an STD, but I believe that you should know whether or not you contracted one. I believe that it is a basic human right to know what is happening to your body, and that by raping someone you **DO NOT** waive your right to know. I also believe it is cruel and unusual punishment for the rapist not to know. I also believe that if a rapist contracts an STD from a victim, he got what he deserved, but again, he deserves to know. This of course is an opinion I am willing to change given the right arguments, something to stike a chord. So Reddit, Change My View. Edit: [Link to the Article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/richard-thomas-rapist-hiv_n_3860659.html)

CMV: I think a rapist should know if he contracted an STD from his victims. Recently there was a case about a man who raped someone and as it turns out, his victim has HIV. I whole-heartedly believe that by raping someone you had to be willing to risk the chance of an STD, but I believe that you should know whether or not you contracted one. I believe that it is a basic human right to know what is happening to your body, and that by raping someone you **DO NOT** waive your right to know. I also believe it is cruel and unusual punishment for the rapist not to know. I also believe that if a rapist contracts an STD from a victim, he got what he deserved, but again, he deserves to know. This of course is an opinion I am willing to change given the right arguments, something to stike a chord. So Reddit, Change My View. Edit: [Link to the Article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/richard-thomas-rapist-hiv_n_3860659.html)

t3_5yua8c

CMV: Unconditional loyalty to sports teams is dumb and breeds mediocrity

I love sports but don't understand the rabid loyalty fans have for their chosen teams. Cursed and underperforming franchises are enabled by fans who continue to fill seats year after year, despite the team's record. Some fanbases even revel in this mediocrity and see it as part of the team's personality. Sports teams make money not by winning games, but by filling seats. And if lost games do not translate into lost customers, the economic incentive to improve approaches zero. And so if you really want your underperforming sports team to win the championship, the best thing you can do is stop supporting them, stop attending games, and stop buying merchandise until you see results on the field. Switch allegiances, be happier, and your team will benefit too. _____ > *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: Unconditional loyalty to sports teams is dumb and breeds mediocrity. I love sports but don't understand the rabid loyalty fans have for their chosen teams. Cursed and underperforming franchises are enabled by fans who continue to fill seats year after year, despite the team's record. Some fanbases even revel in this mediocrity and see it as part of the team's personality. Sports teams make money not by winning games, but by filling seats. And if lost games do not translate into lost customers, the economic incentive to improve approaches zero. And so if you really want your underperforming sports team to win the championship, the best thing you can do is stop supporting them, stop attending games, and stop buying merchandise until you see results on the field. Switch allegiances, be happier, and your team will benefit too.

t3_3dawsy

CMV: it's not wrong to use steroids for purely aesthetic reasons.

If someone doesn't compete in a sport or sell workout DVDs then it shouldn't matter what they're using to get to a certain physique. If it's their own body and they aren't competing at any sport, I see no reason why it should not only be acceptable but legal. If it were legal, it could be checked by government regulatory agencies or private testing firms, rather than having to live in the underground like it does today.

CMV: it's not wrong to use steroids for purely aesthetic reasons. If someone doesn't compete in a sport or sell workout DVDs then it shouldn't matter what they're using to get to a certain physique. If it's their own body and they aren't competing at any sport, I see no reason why it should not only be acceptable but legal. If it were legal, it could be checked by government regulatory agencies or private testing firms, rather than having to live in the underground like it does today.

t3_1drzif

I am considering taking ADD/ADHD medication to help me study CMV

I don't have either and I really don't have huge problems concentrating while studying (I procrastinate a lot but it's not overly debilitating). Legal/disciplinary consequences are practically non-existent because I would get a single dose from my friend, so I can't get caught. Abuse of the drug should not be a problem either since I am not using it for recreation or even on a consistent basis (if I decide to take it). I just want to do this to make my studying more effective and faster for finals. I will still most likely get A's even if I don't take the meds. EDIT: Ok so I'm convinced not to try tomorrow, the day before my test. Still, why not try during a less time stressful day and observe how it reacts with my system as a test run? EDIT2: I just read that it only lasts a few hours, so if I take it tomorrow morning and have my test ~20 hours after taking it, it shouldn't be a problem during my test.

I am considering taking ADD/ADHD medication to help me study CMV. I don't have either and I really don't have huge problems concentrating while studying (I procrastinate a lot but it's not overly debilitating). Legal/disciplinary consequences are practically non-existent because I would get a single dose from my friend, so I can't get caught. Abuse of the drug should not be a problem either since I am not using it for recreation or even on a consistent basis (if I decide to take it). I just want to do this to make my studying more effective and faster for finals. I will still most likely get A's even if I don't take the meds. EDIT: Ok so I'm convinced not to try tomorrow, the day before my test. Still, why not try during a less time stressful day and observe how it reacts with my system as a test run? EDIT2: I just read that it only lasts a few hours, so if I take it tomorrow morning and have my test ~20 hours after taking it, it shouldn't be a problem during my test.

t3_5y9z6o

CMV: The USSR's demise was inevitable. Communism just doesn't work.

Personally, I believe that the USSR was living on borrowed time right from the start. Its been proven time and time again that Communism never works, largely because (at least from my viewpoint) humans are just naturally selfish beings who put our own interests ahead of the interests of others. This is why communism couldn't work in the former Soviet Union, especially because it is just so vast and diverse. I once heard that if the Soviet Union implemented a rewards system, it could survive, but then would it really be communism at that point? Why do people still support a system which has been proven over and over again to not work? Edit: I've heard a lot of good arguments, but I'm still not entirely convinced, so I won't award any deltas for this thread. Nonetheless, it was a good discussion. To everyone who took time to post, thank you for having this discussion with me.

CMV: The USSR's demise was inevitable. Communism just doesn't work. Personally, I believe that the USSR was living on borrowed time right from the start. Its been proven time and time again that Communism never works, largely because (at least from my viewpoint) humans are just naturally selfish beings who put our own interests ahead of the interests of others. This is why communism couldn't work in the former Soviet Union, especially because it is just so vast and diverse. I once heard that if the Soviet Union implemented a rewards system, it could survive, but then would it really be communism at that point? Why do people still support a system which has been proven over and over again to not work? Edit: I've heard a lot of good arguments, but I'm still not entirely convinced, so I won't award any deltas for this thread. Nonetheless, it was a good discussion. To everyone who took time to post, thank you for having this discussion with me.

t3_1o4c3n

CMV: I do not believe sluts exist

I do not think there is a limit on the amount of sex a woman can have. I want to know how much/how many men/etc classifies a woman as a slut, because I don't think it is a measurable thing. I guess this could go with any sort of name calling but I'm concerned with this one in particuar. For example, I believe Miley Cyrus is entitled to do what she wants with her body, however I disagree with her decisions because they are merely for making money and I believe she is being used and trying to attract negative attention. She could be doing the same thing with more clothes on.

CMV: I do not believe sluts exist. I do not think there is a limit on the amount of sex a woman can have. I want to know how much/how many men/etc classifies a woman as a slut, because I don't think it is a measurable thing. I guess this could go with any sort of name calling but I'm concerned with this one in particuar. For example, I believe Miley Cyrus is entitled to do what she wants with her body, however I disagree with her decisions because they are merely for making money and I believe she is being used and trying to attract negative attention. She could be doing the same thing with more clothes on.

t3_5x5twx

CMV: Pitbulls are more likely to attack a person, and to attack and seriously injure a person than other dog breeds.

I'm a dog lover and have had dogs my entire life (though I don't currently and have never had a pit bull). A few years ago, when the question of banning specific breeds in communities began coming up, I began reading research to find out if certain breeds of dog are a higher risk of (a)causing any injury, and (b) causing serious injury or death. From what I've read and learned, while keeping an open mind, studies and statistics consistently reinforce that Pit bulls are responsible for a much higher proportion of attacks than a significantly higher proportion for serious attacks and deaths, followed a ways back by Rottweilers and German Shepherds. Whenever I see a discussion on the subject in an open forum, it's often anti-Pit bull speakers providing evidence and studies, while pro-Pit bull owners often speak of how nice, gentle, and trustworthy their particular Pit bull is (or one their family used to have or someone they know). My question is, can a rational and open-minded Pit bull owner, in the face of the available statistics and research, really say that a Pit bull is not more dangerous than another breed of dog without only giving anecdotal or op-ed evidence? If you own a Pit bull, can you concede that they are more dangerous than other dogs? Can anyone change my view that Pit bulls are significantly more dangerous, both in the probability to attack and the severity of attack when it occurs, than the average non-Pit bull dog?

CMV: Pitbulls are more likely to attack a person, and to attack and seriously injure a person than other dog breeds. I'm a dog lover and have had dogs my entire life (though I don't currently and have never had a pit bull). A few years ago, when the question of banning specific breeds in communities began coming up, I began reading research to find out if certain breeds of dog are a higher risk of (a)causing any injury, and (b) causing serious injury or death. From what I've read and learned, while keeping an open mind, studies and statistics consistently reinforce that Pit bulls are responsible for a much higher proportion of attacks than a significantly higher proportion for serious attacks and deaths, followed a ways back by Rottweilers and German Shepherds. Whenever I see a discussion on the subject in an open forum, it's often anti-Pit bull speakers providing evidence and studies, while pro-Pit bull owners often speak of how nice, gentle, and trustworthy their particular Pit bull is (or one their family used to have or someone they know). My question is, can a rational and open-minded Pit bull owner, in the face of the available statistics and research, really say that a Pit bull is not more dangerous than another breed of dog without only giving anecdotal or op-ed evidence? If you own a Pit bull, can you concede that they are more dangerous than other dogs? Can anyone change my view that Pit bulls are significantly more dangerous, both in the probability to attack and the severity of attack when it occurs, than the average non-Pit bull dog?

t3_5bxdmz

CMV: The elected president isn't as powerful as everybody thinks

To cut to the chase, the president of the United States of America, to my knowledge, is mostly just the face of America. They have the following powers: Appointing Vice President Appointing Supreme Court Justices Executive Orders Nuclear Codes While these CAN be certainly tilting in terms of majority, they are not 100% going to change the course of action the country takes especially if they can't get majority in their appointees. In my eyes I see them as the face of America, nothing more. Change my view

CMV: The elected president isn't as powerful as everybody thinks. To cut to the chase, the president of the United States of America, to my knowledge, is mostly just the face of America. They have the following powers: Appointing Vice President Appointing Supreme Court Justices Executive Orders Nuclear Codes While these CAN be certainly tilting in terms of majority, they are not 100% going to change the course of action the country takes especially if they can't get majority in their appointees. In my eyes I see them as the face of America, nothing more. Change my view

t3_1dqa0b

I believe in the soul

I grew up as a christian, decided god didn't exist at the age of eleven. Did shrooms at 16 which altered my view of reality (We live in a world of perception, not in a world of reality). I then searched on the internet about spiritual stuff, found extremely mindblowing stuff (this is what I like the most https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmN2RL4VJsE) Induced an out of body experience with practice (yes you can do this too).

I believe in the soul. I grew up as a christian, decided god didn't exist at the age of eleven. Did shrooms at 16 which altered my view of reality (We live in a world of perception, not in a world of reality). I then searched on the internet about spiritual stuff, found extremely mindblowing stuff (this is what I like the most https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmN2RL4VJsE) Induced an out of body experience with practice (yes you can do this too).

t3_2tryo3

CMV: People should not be eligible for unemployment simply because they cannot find work in their chosen field.

I know of more than a few people who have received unemployment benefits due to being laid off from a position in an office environment. In the area that I'm living, there are far more jobs than there are people willing to work them. Virtually every single restaurant and retail store is understaffed and constantly running "Now Hiring" ads. I don't think it's fair, right, or reasonable that someone can simply sit around doing nothing and collect unemployment paid for by the tax dollars of everyone who works, simply because they cannot find **the kind of job that they want**. There are restaurants here paying $12-15 an hour to anyone even remotely competent. In this area, those wages aren't even bad, as the cost of living is pretty low. Most of these places are even willing to try to train people with zero ability or experience. It may not be the case everywhere, but in my city, **anyone** can get a job paying well above minimum wage if they are simply willing to work hard every day. Why is it that people have the right to be picky about the kind of work that they do when receiving unemployment? CMV. EDIT: Okay, guys. The first response within minutes of my post succeeded in changing my view (or rather, eliminating my own ignorance on the subject). You can stop replying with the same explanation now :) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People should not be eligible for unemployment simply because they cannot find work in their chosen field. I know of more than a few people who have received unemployment benefits due to being laid off from a position in an office environment. In the area that I'm living, there are far more jobs than there are people willing to work them. Virtually every single restaurant and retail store is understaffed and constantly running "Now Hiring" ads. I don't think it's fair, right, or reasonable that someone can simply sit around doing nothing and collect unemployment paid for by the tax dollars of everyone who works, simply because they cannot find **the kind of job that they want**. There are restaurants here paying $12-15 an hour to anyone even remotely competent. In this area, those wages aren't even bad, as the cost of living is pretty low. Most of these places are even willing to try to train people with zero ability or experience. It may not be the case everywhere, but in my city, **anyone** can get a job paying well above minimum wage if they are simply willing to work hard every day. Why is it that people have the right to be picky about the kind of work that they do when receiving unemployment? CMV. EDIT: Okay, guys. The first response within minutes of my post succeeded in changing my view (or rather, eliminating my own ignorance on the subject). You can stop replying with the same explanation now :)

t3_28bfsl

CMV:i feel like my friends are too grateful

i love my friends and i believe they're good people. however, one thing i have realized is that they think themselves too powerless when it comes to changing society. i mean, i'm definitely grateful that i was born in a first world country and i have an expansive amount of opportunities that that people in third world countries don't normally get. but i think my friends would rather do nothing than try to make things better. i don't think there's anything wrong with being content with all the good things in your life, but that shouldn't mean its okay to ignore the bad things in life. i'm not saying take all the problems in our society and put them on your shoulders, but if everyone keeps doing nothing at all then absolutely nothing changes. it just feels like the amount of people who actually try to make things happen are outnumbered by the people who think themselves to be "grateful" or are too busy to be bothered. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:i feel like my friends are too grateful. i love my friends and i believe they're good people. however, one thing i have realized is that they think themselves too powerless when it comes to changing society. i mean, i'm definitely grateful that i was born in a first world country and i have an expansive amount of opportunities that that people in third world countries don't normally get. but i think my friends would rather do nothing than try to make things better. i don't think there's anything wrong with being content with all the good things in your life, but that shouldn't mean its okay to ignore the bad things in life. i'm not saying take all the problems in our society and put them on your shoulders, but if everyone keeps doing nothing at all then absolutely nothing changes. it just feels like the amount of people who actually try to make things happen are outnumbered by the people who think themselves to be "grateful" or are too busy to be bothered.

t3_5c5wg9

CMV: People are mistaken to think that a significant portion of Trump supporters voted for him for racist, sexist, or xenophobic reasons

I supported both Bernie and Hillary in the primaries, and voted for Hillary in the general election, but I've been reading so much on Facebook and seeing on the news so many people who argue that Trump's win is indicative of the racism, sexism, and xenophobia in our society and by and large I just don't buy it. I believe that the vast majority of Trump supporters voted for him because they are working class and tired of feeling cheated by their government. The rural working class have had to sit back and watch their jobs disappear and their towns face severe economic troubles and often destruction for the last three decades at least. They see the news media and liberal pundits as dismissive of their plight at best, and hostile towards their way of life at worst, and aren't unreasonable for thinking that way. Their vote was largely a reaction to a country that does not seem to take them seriously, and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to vote for someone. _____ > *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 are mistaken to think that a significant portion of Trump supporters voted for him for racist, sexist, or xenophobic reasons. I supported both Bernie and Hillary in the primaries, and voted for Hillary in the general election, but I've been reading so much on Facebook and seeing on the news so many people who argue that Trump's win is indicative of the racism, sexism, and xenophobia in our society and by and large I just don't buy it. I believe that the vast majority of Trump supporters voted for him because they are working class and tired of feeling cheated by their government. The rural working class have had to sit back and watch their jobs disappear and their towns face severe economic troubles and often destruction for the last three decades at least. They see the news media and liberal pundits as dismissive of their plight at best, and hostile towards their way of life at worst, and aren't unreasonable for thinking that way. Their vote was largely a reaction to a country that does not seem to take them seriously, and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to vote for someone.

t3_22awig

CMV: Babies are worthless because they are very replaceable, have no personalities, are completely helpless parasites, and bring nothing to the table.

I was watching a show where a mom runs crying and hysterically screaming after a guy who had kidnapped her infant daughter. Now, I know that a kidnapping is tragic, as someone just stole a family member away. What I don't understand though, is the value of this infant. Why is *this* one so important? This particular infant. Babies cry incessantly, they're completely helpless on their own, and it's like having a parasite with no discernible personality. For a woman, this baby literally lives off the mom for 9 months, taking away nutrients from her body. If it's that devastating to not have a kid anymore, then why can't you just make a new one? Babies don't really have personalities (or do they?) so I don't see what makes each baby special. I think I might be sadder if a pet ran away. There was a scene in another show where the pregnant mom sacrifices herself for the baby by demanding another person to cut her open without anesthetic. She then dies horribly, but saves the baby. I know it's a significantly dramatized TV show, but I do not understand why any character would do this. The reasoning or the motivations...totally does not compute. I don't see how anyone could give up their life for a screaming, crying, pooping, helpless leech that's just going to be a burden on others after you're gone. Perhaps I think this way because of overly effective Teen Pregnancy Prevention education in Sex Ed growing up. We learned all the nasty things that happen to your body during pregnancy with the swollen feet and vomiting and hemorrhoids and moodiness and frequent pees. And that you're liable for them for pretty much two decades. They suck up all of your money and it's like having the worst pet in the world. If you decide that it's not for you or that it was a mistake early on before it turns into a baby, there are people that automatically shun you for your "moral inferiority," although it's none of their business. (Not trying to turn this into an abortion debate. Apologies.) I do believe that all life is sacred--even this baby's. And I understand that babies have emotion and feel pain. But I don't know if I would be so torn up. I swear I'm not a sociopath, and I am a very caring person. I just never understood the bond that people have with babies. With normal people, you like them for their personalities, their company, and who they are as people, but I don't understand what a baby brings to the table. I do not understand the emotional attachment to an infant (small children, ok. pissing machines, not so much), and why anyone would be so devastated if they can just make a new one. I was raised by the best mom in the world, and I do know that I'm the luckiest girl on the planet to be her daughter. But I don't understand how she put up with my (literal) shit. I know I'm a horrible person for believing this, so someone please, somebody change my view. ("Morality" and religion aren't very convincing to me, as these are rather personal beliefs.) Thank you in advance. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Babies are worthless because they are very replaceable, have no personalities, are completely helpless parasites, and bring nothing to the table. I was watching a show where a mom runs crying and hysterically screaming after a guy who had kidnapped her infant daughter. Now, I know that a kidnapping is tragic, as someone just stole a family member away. What I don't understand though, is the value of this infant. Why is *this* one so important? This particular infant. Babies cry incessantly, they're completely helpless on their own, and it's like having a parasite with no discernible personality. For a woman, this baby literally lives off the mom for 9 months, taking away nutrients from her body. If it's that devastating to not have a kid anymore, then why can't you just make a new one? Babies don't really have personalities (or do they?) so I don't see what makes each baby special. I think I might be sadder if a pet ran away. There was a scene in another show where the pregnant mom sacrifices herself for the baby by demanding another person to cut her open without anesthetic. She then dies horribly, but saves the baby. I know it's a significantly dramatized TV show, but I do not understand why any character would do this. The reasoning or the motivations...totally does not compute. I don't see how anyone could give up their life for a screaming, crying, pooping, helpless leech that's just going to be a burden on others after you're gone. Perhaps I think this way because of overly effective Teen Pregnancy Prevention education in Sex Ed growing up. We learned all the nasty things that happen to your body during pregnancy with the swollen feet and vomiting and hemorrhoids and moodiness and frequent pees. And that you're liable for them for pretty much two decades. They suck up all of your money and it's like having the worst pet in the world. If you decide that it's not for you or that it was a mistake early on before it turns into a baby, there are people that automatically shun you for your "moral inferiority," although it's none of their business. (Not trying to turn this into an abortion debate. Apologies.) I do believe that all life is sacred--even this baby's. And I understand that babies have emotion and feel pain. But I don't know if I would be so torn up. I swear I'm not a sociopath, and I am a very caring person. I just never understood the bond that people have with babies. With normal people, you like them for their personalities, their company, and who they are as people, but I don't understand what a baby brings to the table. I do not understand the emotional attachment to an infant (small children, ok. pissing machines, not so much), and why anyone would be so devastated if they can just make a new one. I was raised by the best mom in the world, and I do know that I'm the luckiest girl on the planet to be her daughter. But I don't understand how she put up with my (literal) shit. I know I'm a horrible person for believing this, so someone please, somebody change my view. ("Morality" and religion aren't very convincing to me, as these are rather personal beliefs.) Thank you in advance.

t3_2h5kxi

CMV: I think that using MLA and APA works cited and reference pages for websites are outdated even for professional papers, and that a URL should be sufficient most of the time.

CMV: I think that MLA works cited and APA reference pages for websites are a waste of time. They require tedious searching for the required information, and much of the time the criteria don't even exist for the web page, taking even longer to 'find'. A URL gives a direct link to the source, gives credit to it, and allows the reader to verify the source and read more about it, which are the greatest purposes of citing a source. I say a URL is sufficient most of the time because sometimes you may need to reference the page numbers, but much of the time sources are just one page anyway. To clarify, parenthetical citations should still exist. Change my view! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think that using MLA and APA works cited and reference pages for websites are outdated even for professional papers, and that a URL should be sufficient most of the time. CMV: I think that MLA works cited and APA reference pages for websites are a waste of time. They require tedious searching for the required information, and much of the time the criteria don't even exist for the web page, taking even longer to 'find'. A URL gives a direct link to the source, gives credit to it, and allows the reader to verify the source and read more about it, which are the greatest purposes of citing a source. I say a URL is sufficient most of the time because sometimes you may need to reference the page numbers, but much of the time sources are just one page anyway. To clarify, parenthetical citations should still exist. Change my view!

t3_1m0o7p

I believe that Ron Paul is misleading his supporters by telling them that the Fed destroyed 98% of the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913. CMV

[Here's one of the best arguments I could find supporting my belief](http://fixingdebtcrisis.blogspot.com/2013/09/attempt-at-explaining-how-ron-paul-lied.html). [Here's another good argument that I believe](http://realfactbias.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-dollar-did-not-really-lose-95-of-its.html). I've seen all of the documentary videos about fractional reserve banking (zeitgeist addendum, money masters, etc.), [as well as one video lecture from Khan Academy explaining it that I found more insightful](http://fixingdebtcrisis.blogspot.com/2013/03/libertarian-belief-that-fractional.html).

I believe that Ron Paul is misleading his supporters by telling them that the Fed destroyed 98% of the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913. CMV. [Here's one of the best arguments I could find supporting my belief](http://fixingdebtcrisis.blogspot.com/2013/09/attempt-at-explaining-how-ron-paul-lied.html). [Here's another good argument that I believe](http://realfactbias.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-dollar-did-not-really-lose-95-of-its.html). I've seen all of the documentary videos about fractional reserve banking (zeitgeist addendum, money masters, etc.), [as well as one video lecture from Khan Academy explaining it that I found more insightful](http://fixingdebtcrisis.blogspot.com/2013/03/libertarian-belief-that-fractional.html).

t3_5uo1ma

CMV: If humanity colonizes other planets, it should bring as many world religions with it as possible.

As humanity marches into the future, the possibility of colonizing other planets is an important goal. When and if humanity does manage to colonize other planets, we should do our best to adapt world religions to space colonization. The reason for this is that religions are key components of human lifestyle. Religion has served as a way to investigate grand mysteries of the human condition, a basis for philosophy, art, and culture. Religion necessitates the creation of culture even when it is hard to do so. If humanity wishes to maintain it's identity as it moves beyond earth, the preservation of religion is inextricable from that maintenance. This view assumes that humans will be colonizing other planets. Regardless of what your view is on practicality of colonizing other planets it does not pertain to this view. CMV

CMV: If humanity colonizes other planets, it should bring as many world religions with it as possible. As humanity marches into the future, the possibility of colonizing other planets is an important goal. When and if humanity does manage to colonize other planets, we should do our best to adapt world religions to space colonization. The reason for this is that religions are key components of human lifestyle. Religion has served as a way to investigate grand mysteries of the human condition, a basis for philosophy, art, and culture. Religion necessitates the creation of culture even when it is hard to do so. If humanity wishes to maintain it's identity as it moves beyond earth, the preservation of religion is inextricable from that maintenance. This view assumes that humans will be colonizing other planets. Regardless of what your view is on practicality of colonizing other planets it does not pertain to this view. CMV

t3_22siva

CMV: Debating political view points is basically pointless, because people will never concede their point of view can be flawed

Perhaps this is only a reddit, but something I've noticed in many political debates is how much the points of view differ between (for example) Libertarians vs Socialists, or Anarchists and Statists, and how pointless and circular the debates become. Typically when someone tries to debate/argue, one side will talk about how everything in their system is completely right and pure, and can't be damaged by flawed humans, and the other side will say that's all garbage because of human nature. Everyone says that people will act like the logician's perfectly rational person, and handwaves any kind of flaw that could appear. A highly paraphrased but typical argument about taxes: Libertarian: Taxes are stealing Socialist: They're the cost of living in society, and we should take care of as many people as possible Libertarian: That's what the free market and charity is for Socialist: Not enough people can or will give charity to compensate Libertarian: Yes they will Socialist: no they won't (Ad nauseum) The thing is, it's not like we can model any of this system scientifically, or have two similar countries with Twin A in one country and Twin B in the other and see the outcome from the two political/economic models. So at the end of the day, trying to argue about it just seems pointless, and no one is going to change their 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 just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Debating political view points is basically pointless, because people will never concede their point of view can be flawed. Perhaps this is only a reddit, but something I've noticed in many political debates is how much the points of view differ between (for example) Libertarians vs Socialists, or Anarchists and Statists, and how pointless and circular the debates become. Typically when someone tries to debate/argue, one side will talk about how everything in their system is completely right and pure, and can't be damaged by flawed humans, and the other side will say that's all garbage because of human nature. Everyone says that people will act like the logician's perfectly rational person, and handwaves any kind of flaw that could appear. A highly paraphrased but typical argument about taxes: Libertarian: Taxes are stealing Socialist: They're the cost of living in society, and we should take care of as many people as possible Libertarian: That's what the free market and charity is for Socialist: Not enough people can or will give charity to compensate Libertarian: Yes they will Socialist: no they won't (Ad nauseum) The thing is, it's not like we can model any of this system scientifically, or have two similar countries with Twin A in one country and Twin B in the other and see the outcome from the two political/economic models. So at the end of the day, trying to argue about it just seems pointless, and no one is going to change their mind.

t3_2q0dpm

CMV: Going to the dentist every 6 months is a waste of NHS money if there is nothing to worry about

So I have an appointment at the dentist tomorrow and to be frank its a waste of time IMO. I mean I go, get my mouth poked and that awful scaling thing that gives me a headache and that is it. I have got no ulcers, no blood, pain or anything that would indicate a problem apart from the argument about not letting them take out wisdom teeth that aren't the problem they claim . Having a nurse for a Mum means that she won't let me drop off the radar and stuff so I can't just stop going (and the dentist makes you make the next appointment and can pay for it in advance) but I just think it is a waste of the NHS money when they never find anything and I look after my teeth fairly well. Its not like they are going to drop out or anything. You don't go for checkups at the doctor do you? I only go to the doctor when I really need it (generally someone makes me go) so why should the dentist be different. _____ > *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: Going to the dentist every 6 months is a waste of NHS money if there is nothing to worry about. So I have an appointment at the dentist tomorrow and to be frank its a waste of time IMO. I mean I go, get my mouth poked and that awful scaling thing that gives me a headache and that is it. I have got no ulcers, no blood, pain or anything that would indicate a problem apart from the argument about not letting them take out wisdom teeth that aren't the problem they claim . Having a nurse for a Mum means that she won't let me drop off the radar and stuff so I can't just stop going (and the dentist makes you make the next appointment and can pay for it in advance) but I just think it is a waste of the NHS money when they never find anything and I look after my teeth fairly well. Its not like they are going to drop out or anything. You don't go for checkups at the doctor do you? I only go to the doctor when I really need it (generally someone makes me go) so why should the dentist be different.

t3_31p2s8

CMV: I care more about others than I care about myself because that is what's right. No exceptions.

I am a bad human being. I used to do things only for myself, I hurt a lot of people, I was apathetic about everything, uncaring, cold, calculating; I thought only of the objective, whatever it was that day. Anything between me and that objective was irrelevant and was disregarded, and anybody who tried to change that view was weak. About 3 years ago, something happened to me, and my worldview flipped. I realized how small I was in this world and how petty my objectives were. I realized that there are people that matter more than me who deserve happiness much more than I do, simply because they are better than me. Those people that I care about now and give so much to are extremely talented in ways I could only dream of. They were good people to begin with, and they are good people now. Right now, I'm in a very bad place in life financially and emotionally, and in overall low health. But because I am a bad person, I feel like I should always give no matter where I am in life, because good people deserve it more than I do. Someone said to me recently, "How can you expect to help people if you can't help yourself." What I believe is that no matter how bad it gets, I can always keep giving: I'm a tissue and organ donor as of yesterday. _____ > *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 care more about others than I care about myself because that is what's right. No exceptions. I am a bad human being. I used to do things only for myself, I hurt a lot of people, I was apathetic about everything, uncaring, cold, calculating; I thought only of the objective, whatever it was that day. Anything between me and that objective was irrelevant and was disregarded, and anybody who tried to change that view was weak. About 3 years ago, something happened to me, and my worldview flipped. I realized how small I was in this world and how petty my objectives were. I realized that there are people that matter more than me who deserve happiness much more than I do, simply because they are better than me. Those people that I care about now and give so much to are extremely talented in ways I could only dream of. They were good people to begin with, and they are good people now. Right now, I'm in a very bad place in life financially and emotionally, and in overall low health. But because I am a bad person, I feel like I should always give no matter where I am in life, because good people deserve it more than I do. Someone said to me recently, "How can you expect to help people if you can't help yourself." What I believe is that no matter how bad it gets, I can always keep giving: I'm a tissue and organ donor as of yesterday.

t3_4ec99x

CMV:I believe animal rights is a bourgeoisie social issue and undermines the struggle of the poor.

**Disclaimer: I have been vegetarian/vegan in the past, I actually do agree with and support animal rights so I do not want to start a "anti-vegetarian" circlejerk** When speaking with Animal Rights Activists, I can't help shake the fact that their demographics skew heavily towards "Middle to upper Middle class, white, and female". Any media from animal rights groups usually [defaults with young, thin, pretty, white women](http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Katie+Pfleghar+PETA+Protests+Against+Chicken+OUdN60kW7sXl.jpg). Not to say that diversity in some of the animal rights media doesn't exist, but it is much more rare and sometimes comes off as tokenism. Secondly every vegetarian/vegan restaurant I've come across seems to always have a very expensive markup. Just yesterday I dined at a local vegetarian diner and I ended up paying $50+ for my own and my girlfriend's meal. I find it rather hypocritical to be for animal rights when you can afford to eat luxuriously when some people can only afford things like McDonalds. Thirdly, I come from a low-middle class background, these days I am more middle to upper middle class. I am a first generation American, and a lot of my culture and identity is deeply rooted in my family's food. Most of it which is omnivorous. When Animal Rights media tells me that I should be ashamed for eating food that I grew up with, I find it kind of irritating. In summary, I believe that Animal Rights, while valid to some extent. Should take the backseat to more pressing issues such as Wage disparity, upward mobility, and the poor. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I believe animal rights is a bourgeoisie social issue and undermines the struggle of the poor. **Disclaimer: I have been vegetarian/vegan in the past, I actually do agree with and support animal rights so I do not want to start a "anti-vegetarian" circlejerk** When speaking with Animal Rights Activists, I can't help shake the fact that their demographics skew heavily towards "Middle to upper Middle class, white, and female". Any media from animal rights groups usually [defaults with young, thin, pretty, white women](http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Katie+Pfleghar+PETA+Protests+Against+Chicken+OUdN60kW7sXl.jpg). Not to say that diversity in some of the animal rights media doesn't exist, but it is much more rare and sometimes comes off as tokenism. Secondly every vegetarian/vegan restaurant I've come across seems to always have a very expensive markup. Just yesterday I dined at a local vegetarian diner and I ended up paying $50+ for my own and my girlfriend's meal. I find it rather hypocritical to be for animal rights when you can afford to eat luxuriously when some people can only afford things like McDonalds. Thirdly, I come from a low-middle class background, these days I am more middle to upper middle class. I am a first generation American, and a lot of my culture and identity is deeply rooted in my family's food. Most of it which is omnivorous. When Animal Rights media tells me that I should be ashamed for eating food that I grew up with, I find it kind of irritating. In summary, I believe that Animal Rights, while valid to some extent. Should take the backseat to more pressing issues such as Wage disparity, upward mobility, and the poor.

t3_1r6xt9

I'm not homophobic, but I think stereotypical gay culture is horrendously annoying, CMV

I really can't stand the melodramatic culture, false feminine voices (I say false because its usually learned or trained) and effeminite qualities. You don't have to be gay for me to dislike those characteristics, if you can't get hurt without crying, and are overly emotional I would probably respectfully ignore and not associate with you. The reason I am targeting homosexual culture in particular is because the 'stereotype' of being \#Fabulous!!! isn't being disputed, even within the gay community, and so calling out someone on their annoying girly man voice and melodramatic personality is now the same as being a homophobe. I'm not a homophobe, I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality. The problem is I have never met a non stereotypical homosexual and thus every gay person I have met I didn't like. For example; If you say that a certain black person listens to stupid egotistical rap music nobody will call you racist as we all know that this individual does not define all black people. However you tell a gay person to quit being such a girl or If I said your voice is really irritating in public I would be called out as being a homophobe, I might be being an asshole but I'm not being homophobic.

I'm not homophobic, but I think stereotypical gay culture is horrendously annoying, CMV. I really can't stand the melodramatic culture, false feminine voices (I say false because its usually learned or trained) and effeminite qualities. You don't have to be gay for me to dislike those characteristics, if you can't get hurt without crying, and are overly emotional I would probably respectfully ignore and not associate with you. The reason I am targeting homosexual culture in particular is because the 'stereotype' of being \#Fabulous!!! isn't being disputed, even within the gay community, and so calling out someone on their annoying girly man voice and melodramatic personality is now the same as being a homophobe. I'm not a homophobe, I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality. The problem is I have never met a non stereotypical homosexual and thus every gay person I have met I didn't like. For example; If you say that a certain black person listens to stupid egotistical rap music nobody will call you racist as we all know that this individual does not define all black people. However you tell a gay person to quit being such a girl or If I said your voice is really irritating in public I would be called out as being a homophobe, I might be being an asshole but I'm not being homophobic.

t3_662ojh

CMV: Non-binary genders make no sense unless you accept that gender stereotypes, roles and the like are real and should be so. Non-binary genders, therefore, enforce gender roles.

**Edit** I think we are done here. Thanks, everyone. <3 **Edit2** I'm disabling inbox replies for this thread, as I'm getting so many of them still. My view has been changed. Once again, thank you. ______ I'll start this off with some context about myself and my views on things related to this, as I believe they will be important to this, along with the reason I want to change my view on this. I'm 16 and I identify as a transgirl, as that is what I feel like is the best match for me. I don't group transgender identities with non-binary ones because I see transgender being at its core about the body, while non-binary identities are mostly social. My view on gender roles (stereotypes, expectations, roles and whatever else will be grouped into one to save time) is that they should not exist, as they limit people based on something they can't change (again to save time, transgender is purely physical, ignoring the social factor since it differs between trans people). So the argument about gender roles in-fact being real after all is irrelevant. The reason I want to change my view is that because of my identity, I'm affiliated a lot with the LGBT+ community. Naturally, there are a lot of non-binary people there, and I feel like by seeing their identity is invalid makes me no better than the people invalidating homosexuality or trans people. That is why I'm here to try and change my view. **The argument** To get to the bottom of this we need to divide non-binary identities into two groups: "third-genders" (people saying they are not men or women but instead a whole new gender. These are a lot rarer I find) and "non-genders" (This includes agender, meaning lack of gender, and fluid & bi-genders, feeling both man and woman at the same time or one or the other from time to time. Also people simply saying they are non-binary). The argument for "third-genders" is easier. They don't have any physical standard. They are purely based on behavior. Defining gender by behavior (let's say that it includes clothing, interests etc.) is what creates a stereotype for it. Creating genders purely based on behavior is essentially just another box which to shove people into based on their personality. I don't see what's preventing someone from telling a person, who let's say is gender A, that they aren't behaving like gender A. That they are behaving more like gender C, and that means they either need to start behaving like gender A or otherwise they are gender C. I hope this isn't too confusing. For "non-genders" it's different. They are also, as I see it, based on behavior in a way. It's the lack of gender stereotypical behavior. But it also assumes that gender stereotypes are real and should be that way. My argument against "non-genders" isn't as solid, but I still do deeply fail to understand them, and why they exist, unless gender roles are in place. _____ I feel like I've already offended enough non-binary people by completely misunderstanding the whole thing, so go ahead. 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: Non-binary genders make no sense unless you accept that gender stereotypes, roles and the like are real and should be so. Non-binary genders, therefore, enforce gender roles. **Edit** I think we are done here. Thanks, everyone. <3 **Edit2** I'm disabling inbox replies for this thread, as I'm getting so many of them still. My view has been changed. Once again, thank you. ______ I'll start this off with some context about myself and my views on things related to this, as I believe they will be important to this, along with the reason I want to change my view on this. I'm 16 and I identify as a transgirl, as that is what I feel like is the best match for me. I don't group transgender identities with non-binary ones because I see transgender being at its core about the body, while non-binary identities are mostly social. My view on gender roles (stereotypes, expectations, roles and whatever else will be grouped into one to save time) is that they should not exist, as they limit people based on something they can't change (again to save time, transgender is purely physical, ignoring the social factor since it differs between trans people). So the argument about gender roles in-fact being real after all is irrelevant. The reason I want to change my view is that because of my identity, I'm affiliated a lot with the LGBT+ community. Naturally, there are a lot of non-binary people there, and I feel like by seeing their identity is invalid makes me no better than the people invalidating homosexuality or trans people. That is why I'm here to try and change my view. **The argument** To get to the bottom of this we need to divide non-binary identities into two groups: "third-genders" (people saying they are not men or women but instead a whole new gender. These are a lot rarer I find) and "non-genders" (This includes agender, meaning lack of gender, and fluid & bi-genders, feeling both man and woman at the same time or one or the other from time to time. Also people simply saying they are non-binary). The argument for "third-genders" is easier. They don't have any physical standard. They are purely based on behavior. Defining gender by behavior (let's say that it includes clothing, interests etc.) is what creates a stereotype for it. Creating genders purely based on behavior is essentially just another box which to shove people into based on their personality. I don't see what's preventing someone from telling a person, who let's say is gender A, that they aren't behaving like gender A. That they are behaving more like gender C, and that means they either need to start behaving like gender A or otherwise they are gender C. I hope this isn't too confusing. For "non-genders" it's different. They are also, as I see it, based on behavior in a way. It's the lack of gender stereotypical behavior. But it also assumes that gender stereotypes are real and should be that way. My argument against "non-genders" isn't as solid, but I still do deeply fail to understand them, and why they exist, unless gender roles are in place.

t3_73dcm0

CMV: Football is an inherently more dangerous sport to your brain with higher risk of CTE than hockey

So here's my thesis. Football and hockey are two of the most dangerous sports for head injuries out there, I can't deny that. But I would argue the sport of football carries a higher risk of CTE than hockey. Here's a great article from ESPN about some facts from the latest CTE study. www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/20498726/nhl-players-reluctant-donate-brains-concussion-studies. Anyway, Ann McKee is the leading CTE researcher out there and based out of Boston University which has the largest brain bank in the world. Her 2017 study showed 177 of 202 football players brains analyzed had CTE, 88%. Of those, 110 of 111 NFL players had CTE. 9 of 16 hockey player brains had CTE, 56%. Of those, 6 of 6 NHL players brains analyzed had CTE. Another Canadian study showed 1 of 2 NHL player brains had CTE. We certainly can't ignore that right now there's more data from Football players. And obviously, just b/c 99% of NFL players brains had CTE doesn't mean the risk of developing CTE when you're an NFL player is 99%. But the risk is uncertain. The risk is also uncertain for NHL players. But it appears the risk, though unknown, is lower for NHL players than NFL players. A 2015 study shows that football players and boxers account for 86% of all documented cases of CTE (JC Maroon). Ann McKee even says in the ESPN article "It's not a systematic study, but just anecdotally looking at the players that have come into our brain bank compared to the football players, in general I think the hockey players have less CTE or a milder CTE. But again, this is based on few numbers and this could change". So at this point I would assert her research is the best data we've got. It appears football is more dangerous, but that could be subject to change as we learn more. It's likely more football players brains are analyzed b/c CTE is suspected by the family and thus they choose to donate the brain. Players of other sports aren't dying with the cause attributed to possible CTE symptoms as often (A noted but accepted flaw in the data, btw). Regardless, Football players of any age are subject to literally thousands of subconcussive blows to the head over the course of a season. Hockey players generally are not. Would I want my kid play football? No, b/c of inevitable and repeated subconcussive hits to the head. Hockey players don't knock heads on nearly every play or practice drill like in football. Would I prefer my kid to play hockey, yes probably. Especially because peewee hockey players weigh 60 lbs and skate dang slow. I'd feel the same about soccer. Would I prefer my kid to play in the NHL, probably not. Granted, if that were ever a realistic possibility I would hope he or she understands the uncertain risk before playing in the Pros. And even still, given all that, I'm finding hockey a more interesting sport than the NFL recently. My waning interest in the NFL has multiple reasons not just CTE. IMO The product is poor in recent years, the risk is high and access is terrible. So anyway I accept this as the best Ive got at the moment, even if at times I express my sentiment with mild casuistry. I would say the risk in the NFL is highest of any sport save for boxing. And carries a higher risk of brain damage than hockey. Change my view.

CMV: Football is an inherently more dangerous sport to your brain with higher risk of CTE than hockey. So here's my thesis. Football and hockey are two of the most dangerous sports for head injuries out there, I can't deny that. But I would argue the sport of football carries a higher risk of CTE than hockey. Here's a great article from ESPN about some facts from the latest CTE study. www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/20498726/nhl-players-reluctant-donate-brains-concussion-studies. Anyway, Ann McKee is the leading CTE researcher out there and based out of Boston University which has the largest brain bank in the world. Her 2017 study showed 177 of 202 football players brains analyzed had CTE, 88%. Of those, 110 of 111 NFL players had CTE. 9 of 16 hockey player brains had CTE, 56%. Of those, 6 of 6 NHL players brains analyzed had CTE. Another Canadian study showed 1 of 2 NHL player brains had CTE. We certainly can't ignore that right now there's more data from Football players. And obviously, just b/c 99% of NFL players brains had CTE doesn't mean the risk of developing CTE when you're an NFL player is 99%. But the risk is uncertain. The risk is also uncertain for NHL players. But it appears the risk, though unknown, is lower for NHL players than NFL players. A 2015 study shows that football players and boxers account for 86% of all documented cases of CTE (JC Maroon). Ann McKee even says in the ESPN article "It's not a systematic study, but just anecdotally looking at the players that have come into our brain bank compared to the football players, in general I think the hockey players have less CTE or a milder CTE. But again, this is based on few numbers and this could change". So at this point I would assert her research is the best data we've got. It appears football is more dangerous, but that could be subject to change as we learn more. It's likely more football players brains are analyzed b/c CTE is suspected by the family and thus they choose to donate the brain. Players of other sports aren't dying with the cause attributed to possible CTE symptoms as often (A noted but accepted flaw in the data, btw). Regardless, Football players of any age are subject to literally thousands of subconcussive blows to the head over the course of a season. Hockey players generally are not. Would I want my kid play football? No, b/c of inevitable and repeated subconcussive hits to the head. Hockey players don't knock heads on nearly every play or practice drill like in football. Would I prefer my kid to play hockey, yes probably. Especially because peewee hockey players weigh 60 lbs and skate dang slow. I'd feel the same about soccer. Would I prefer my kid to play in the NHL, probably not. Granted, if that were ever a realistic possibility I would hope he or she understands the uncertain risk before playing in the Pros. And even still, given all that, I'm finding hockey a more interesting sport than the NFL recently. My waning interest in the NFL has multiple reasons not just CTE. IMO The product is poor in recent years, the risk is high and access is terrible. So anyway I accept this as the best Ive got at the moment, even if at times I express my sentiment with mild casuistry. I would say the risk in the NFL is highest of any sport save for boxing. And carries a higher risk of brain damage than hockey. Change my view.

t3_1mzwlg

Defunding The ACA is insane and impossible. CMV.

The idea that somehow Ted Cruz and John Boehner can somehow pass a resolution to defund the ACA through the senate and then get President Obama to sign it is completely wrong. First off, I want to use what the Speaker of the house said when the House passed a resolution to fund the government but defund Obamacare. "...We had a victory today for the american people" He then went on to say; "The house has listened to the american people" Well, Mr. Speaker, You run into 2 massive problems: 1.Not only do less than 20% of Americans want to defund Obamacare, meaning you are not representing a majority of people but also 2.More people voted for democratic candidates than republican candidates, but because of gerrymandering you control one part of the government, meaning, you are NOT representing the people. Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976 WARNING: i know MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, holding the US government and Economy is nothing short of stupid, especially when there is no way obamacare will be defunded. Harry Reid won't bring it up for vote and BARACK OBAMA WILL NOT VETO HIS SIGNATURE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. It is a waste of time and if the republicans successfully shut down the government it is on their hands. CMV

Defunding The ACA is insane and impossible. CMV. The idea that somehow Ted Cruz and John Boehner can somehow pass a resolution to defund the ACA through the senate and then get President Obama to sign it is completely wrong. First off, I want to use what the Speaker of the house said when the House passed a resolution to fund the government but defund Obamacare. "...We had a victory today for the american people" He then went on to say; "The house has listened to the american people" Well, Mr. Speaker, You run into 2 massive problems: 1.Not only do less than 20% of Americans want to defund Obamacare, meaning you are not representing a majority of people but also 2.More people voted for democratic candidates than republican candidates, but because of gerrymandering you control one part of the government, meaning, you are NOT representing the people. Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976 WARNING: i know MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, holding the US government and Economy is nothing short of stupid, especially when there is no way obamacare will be defunded. Harry Reid won't bring it up for vote and BARACK OBAMA WILL NOT VETO HIS SIGNATURE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. It is a waste of time and if the republicans successfully shut down the government it is on their hands. CMV

t3_40em97

CMV: Catch and release fishing is unethical and selfish

When we catch fish just to throw them back into the water, we are at best not hurting them too badly. We are also littering and leaving lures in the water that would otherwise not be there (allot of these lures contain lead). Fishing also promotes the unnecessary killing of fish that pray upon the game fish. I understand that if someone wants to eat the fish they catch, that is a different issue, we are talking about catch and release fishing. I grew up fishing and understand the values it can teach about nature, but arent there better ways of teaching these 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: Catch and release fishing is unethical and selfish. When we catch fish just to throw them back into the water, we are at best not hurting them too badly. We are also littering and leaving lures in the water that would otherwise not be there (allot of these lures contain lead). Fishing also promotes the unnecessary killing of fish that pray upon the game fish. I understand that if someone wants to eat the fish they catch, that is a different issue, we are talking about catch and release fishing. I grew up fishing and understand the values it can teach about nature, but arent there better ways of teaching these things?

t3_1lgblf

I believe Tarmogoyf is a seriously overrated card. CMV

Yeah, it's a 3/4+ for 2 mana, but it's got no defenses of any kind against removal, which means it's really nothing but a giant, walking target. Everyone and their grandmother runs 4x Path to Exile in modern, and since Goyf is usually a deck's biggest threat, guess what's gonna get hit with it the second it tries to swing? Goyf is only useful in a meta with relatively little removal, and otherwise is better off restricted to a sideboard card against low removal decks. Charging $100 plus for it is completely absurd. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just be glad you have a life.

I believe Tarmogoyf is a seriously overrated card. CMV. Yeah, it's a 3/4+ for 2 mana, but it's got no defenses of any kind against removal, which means it's really nothing but a giant, walking target. Everyone and their grandmother runs 4x Path to Exile in modern, and since Goyf is usually a deck's biggest threat, guess what's gonna get hit with it the second it tries to swing? Goyf is only useful in a meta with relatively little removal, and otherwise is better off restricted to a sideboard card against low removal decks. Charging $100 plus for it is completely absurd. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just be glad you have a life.

t3_1qncnw

I believe people who commit suicide are coward and selfish CMV

They have so much help around them with family and friends, the suicide hotline, multiple therapy centers where they can talk one on one and so much other help. Yet they don't think they about anyone but themselves and go kill themselves without thinking of how it affects people around them and what consequences will come to others by their actions. I feel they are taking the easy way out instead of actually getting help. You have a very rare opportunity being born and you're pretty much throwing it away. Edit: in the title it should be cowardly not coward. Sorry.

I believe people who commit suicide are coward and selfish CMV. They have so much help around them with family and friends, the suicide hotline, multiple therapy centers where they can talk one on one and so much other help. Yet they don't think they about anyone but themselves and go kill themselves without thinking of how it affects people around them and what consequences will come to others by their actions. I feel they are taking the easy way out instead of actually getting help. You have a very rare opportunity being born and you're pretty much throwing it away. Edit: in the title it should be cowardly not coward. Sorry.

t3_5spfw3

CMV: The current American administration cannot be counted on to protect the nation from terror attacks, because one would be too beneficial politically.

Trump campaigned on a few ideas related to protecting the nation against outside influence, but since election has not listened to intelligence briefings, diplomats, or allies. This is troubling because it signals that he is not interested in the existing apparatus of intelligence and counterterrorism. I believe he wants an attack to happen, and has signaled it already: Talk of the fictional Bowling Green Massacre, [repeated enough that we know it is no mistake](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/times-kellyanne-conway-referenced-bowling-green-massacre-attack/story?id=45311574). This [new list of terror attacks that supposedly were not covered by media, including both the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks that definitely *were* covered by media and total non-events like some guy in Chad shooting a BB gun near an embassy and injuring no one](http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/white-house-terror-attack-list-trump/). These moves suggest that, at the very least, the administration wants us to believe there is a higher frequency of terror attacks and we should be extra fearful of them. Why is that useful to the administration? If there is another 9/11, it justifies Trump's Muslim ban retroactively. It justifies a crackdown on privacy and civil liberties. It allows him to brand his detractors as unpatriotic at best and possible collaborators at worst. It allows him to seize special powers as president and insist on more positive coverage. It allows him to use "national security" as an excuse to do anything he might want. So when [officials raise concerns that the travel ban is weakening our ability to conduct effective counterterrorism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-worry-that-us-counterterrorism-defenses-will-be-weakened-by-trump-actions/2017/01/29/1f045074-e644-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want effective counterterrorism. When [allies warn that the travel ban is strengthening ISIS at a time when it otherwise might be about to collapse](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-travel-ban-us-allies-diplomats-cables-isis-retaliation-muslim-world/), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want ISIS to collapse. He campaigned on being ready to fight ISIS. You can't fight ISIS if they're gone. You can't fight terrorism if there isn't any. He needs an enemy or else his rhetoric falls flat. But if there's an attack, won't we blame Trump? Not if [he didn't know about it because he skipped the intelligence briefings.](http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504864988/trump-skips-intelligence-briefings-denies-russian-election-mischief) This allows him to scapegoat whoever it was who should be filling in for the president at these briefings. Who will his supporters blame? [He's already telling them, pre-emptively, to blame his opponents.](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2) That sounds like preparation that only makes sense if there's another terror attack. Think he's interested in preventing one? Please, change my view. I am very concerned about what the future might hold. (I will ignore any comment calling these stories "fake news".) _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The current American administration cannot be counted on to protect the nation from terror attacks, because one would be too beneficial politically. Trump campaigned on a few ideas related to protecting the nation against outside influence, but since election has not listened to intelligence briefings, diplomats, or allies. This is troubling because it signals that he is not interested in the existing apparatus of intelligence and counterterrorism. I believe he wants an attack to happen, and has signaled it already: Talk of the fictional Bowling Green Massacre, [repeated enough that we know it is no mistake](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/times-kellyanne-conway-referenced-bowling-green-massacre-attack/story?id=45311574). This [new list of terror attacks that supposedly were not covered by media, including both the Orlando and San Bernardino attacks that definitely *were* covered by media and total non-events like some guy in Chad shooting a BB gun near an embassy and injuring no one](http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/white-house-terror-attack-list-trump/). These moves suggest that, at the very least, the administration wants us to believe there is a higher frequency of terror attacks and we should be extra fearful of them. Why is that useful to the administration? If there is another 9/11, it justifies Trump's Muslim ban retroactively. It justifies a crackdown on privacy and civil liberties. It allows him to brand his detractors as unpatriotic at best and possible collaborators at worst. It allows him to seize special powers as president and insist on more positive coverage. It allows him to use "national security" as an excuse to do anything he might want. So when [officials raise concerns that the travel ban is weakening our ability to conduct effective counterterrorism](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-worry-that-us-counterterrorism-defenses-will-be-weakened-by-trump-actions/2017/01/29/1f045074-e644-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want effective counterterrorism. When [allies warn that the travel ban is strengthening ISIS at a time when it otherwise might be about to collapse](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-travel-ban-us-allies-diplomats-cables-isis-retaliation-muslim-world/), Trump doesn't care. He doesn't want ISIS to collapse. He campaigned on being ready to fight ISIS. You can't fight ISIS if they're gone. You can't fight terrorism if there isn't any. He needs an enemy or else his rhetoric falls flat. But if there's an attack, won't we blame Trump? Not if [he didn't know about it because he skipped the intelligence briefings.](http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504864988/trump-skips-intelligence-briefings-denies-russian-election-mischief) This allows him to scapegoat whoever it was who should be filling in for the president at these briefings. Who will his supporters blame? [He's already telling them, pre-emptively, to blame his opponents.](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2) That sounds like preparation that only makes sense if there's another terror attack. Think he's interested in preventing one? Please, change my view. I am very concerned about what the future might hold. (I will ignore any comment calling these stories "fake news".)

t3_1f567g

I believe that atheists who receive gifts on christmas are hypocrites, CMV

I'm an atheist myself (23), and have numerous friends (along with my older brother) who are also atheists. Every year I say to my family and friends not to buy me anything (mainly because im a very minimalist person), but also because I believe its very hypocritical to celebrate the holiday. My brother (30), on the other hand, always has a massive list of items 10 to 100 dollars and expects to get most of the list every year. He also spends maybe 10% of the value he receives. My friends all ask me what I get for christmas every year, and I reply with things like "a bag of starburst" or "various toiletries". While they talk about their iPads. I believe atheists pick and choose spots of other religions (christmas was a pagan holiday originally if i recall, which helps atheist's cause a bit i suppose) at their convenience, and are hypocritical for doing so. CMV.

I believe that atheists who receive gifts on christmas are hypocrites, CMV. I'm an atheist myself (23), and have numerous friends (along with my older brother) who are also atheists. Every year I say to my family and friends not to buy me anything (mainly because im a very minimalist person), but also because I believe its very hypocritical to celebrate the holiday. My brother (30), on the other hand, always has a massive list of items 10 to 100 dollars and expects to get most of the list every year. He also spends maybe 10% of the value he receives. My friends all ask me what I get for christmas every year, and I reply with things like "a bag of starburst" or "various toiletries". While they talk about their iPads. I believe atheists pick and choose spots of other religions (christmas was a pagan holiday originally if i recall, which helps atheist's cause a bit i suppose) at their convenience, and are hypocritical for doing so. CMV.

t3_1b00es

I feel the "talent" of acting and actors are overrated. CMV

I cannot understand why actors/actresses are perceived as being superiorly talented for what they do. No, I have never acted in a production. At the most, I think committing the lines to memory would be the most difficult part. Please enlighten me.

I feel the "talent" of acting and actors are overrated. CMV. I cannot understand why actors/actresses are perceived as being superiorly talented for what they do. No, I have never acted in a production. At the most, I think committing the lines to memory would be the most difficult part. Please enlighten me.

t3_1stn5z

I think women have more problems than men. CMV.

This is rooted from this [current thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1sr2zv/i_think_the_mens_rights_movement_is_just_an/). Many people commented correcting OP who said that women have more problems. I believe this is true, and after a quick Google / /r/changemyview search I didn't find anything meaningful about it. So, to the topic. I think women have more problems because: * Historically speaking, women have been seen as a lesser being, as a possession. * There's activities they couldn't perform like vote, driving, making decisions, some of which are still forbidden in certain places. * They are the ones getting pregnant, which is known of being extremely painful for most. * According to Wikipedia, they have more gender-related illnesses probability like breast cancer, osteoporosis, anorexia, alzheimer, depression. At least in my family or people who I know, genitalia related health it's been a more common issue between women (uterus removed, tumors, extreme pain to which at the end I didn't get to know the problem). * On average their salary is less. * In many places they are not taken seriously in areas like engineering. * Specific kind of violence against women (female specific murder). * In some places, genitalia mutilation. * The constant pressure to be beautiful. That's what I can come up with right now, I know there's more. **DISCLAIMER**: I know men also have a lot of problems, like dating (where many think women have an advantage), getting some kind of jobs, also the trouble of taking custody of children, the common violence against homosexuals, the low advantage respect women in cases of rape (of female victim), male rape not taken seriously, circumcision, and just like women, the gender roles societal limitations. But the more I think about it, I can't see how that's worse. **Notes**: I'm all about being equals. I'm female. I accept my ignorance, I would like to expand my knowledge about mens problems to defend this issue myself. I'm not sure if comparing gender problems is something important, but I would like to have good bases if I find the oportunity to raise conciousness in a conversation if someone diminishes some gender. English is not my main language, sorry for bad grammar.

I think women have more problems than men. CMV. This is rooted from this [current thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1sr2zv/i_think_the_mens_rights_movement_is_just_an/). Many people commented correcting OP who said that women have more problems. I believe this is true, and after a quick Google / /r/changemyview search I didn't find anything meaningful about it. So, to the topic. I think women have more problems because: * Historically speaking, women have been seen as a lesser being, as a possession. * There's activities they couldn't perform like vote, driving, making decisions, some of which are still forbidden in certain places. * They are the ones getting pregnant, which is known of being extremely painful for most. * According to Wikipedia, they have more gender-related illnesses probability like breast cancer, osteoporosis, anorexia, alzheimer, depression. At least in my family or people who I know, genitalia related health it's been a more common issue between women (uterus removed, tumors, extreme pain to which at the end I didn't get to know the problem). * On average their salary is less. * In many places they are not taken seriously in areas like engineering. * Specific kind of violence against women (female specific murder). * In some places, genitalia mutilation. * The constant pressure to be beautiful. That's what I can come up with right now, I know there's more. **DISCLAIMER**: I know men also have a lot of problems, like dating (where many think women have an advantage), getting some kind of jobs, also the trouble of taking custody of children, the common violence against homosexuals, the low advantage respect women in cases of rape (of female victim), male rape not taken seriously, circumcision, and just like women, the gender roles societal limitations. But the more I think about it, I can't see how that's worse. **Notes**: I'm all about being equals. I'm female. I accept my ignorance, I would like to expand my knowledge about mens problems to defend this issue myself. I'm not sure if comparing gender problems is something important, but I would like to have good bases if I find the oportunity to raise conciousness in a conversation if someone diminishes some gender. English is not my main language, sorry for bad grammar.

t3_4axqxf

CMV: [Economics] If the Labor Theory of Value is incorrect, then absurdly high CEO pay cannot be justified by the value they bring to the business

I have been told many times that the [Labor Theory of Value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) (LTOV) is not accepted among economists. > The labor theory of value (LTV) is a heterodox economic theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of socially necessary labor required to produce it, rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it. I have also been told many times that the main reason it's OK for CEOs (especially American ones) to get paid hundreds of times the amount their employees get paid is that [the CEO generates so much value for the company that it's worth it.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/07/18/the-wrong-people-care-about-ceo-pay-and-they-care-for-the-wrong-reasons/#7265e4bd512e) (I submit that *Forbes* is a reasonable source for how the wealthy conceive of this issue.) To me that sounds extremely similar to "you can determine how much value a worker's labor adds to something by how much the price of the final product differs from the price of the constituents the worker consumed in making changes." So what am I missing? Why is CEO pay justified by the value they add, but worker pay isn't? To CMV you'll have to convince me that CEO pay is *entirely* justified by some other mechanism than the value they add to the company, or you'll have to convince me that their pay being related to the value they bring is wholly different from the LTOV. Edit: I'm trying to respond as I can but I'm on a customer site so I can't spend as much time as I'd like on replies. _____ > *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: [Economics] If the Labor Theory of Value is incorrect, then absurdly high CEO pay cannot be justified by the value they bring to the business. I have been told many times that the [Labor Theory of Value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) (LTOV) is not accepted among economists. > The labor theory of value (LTV) is a heterodox economic theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of socially necessary labor required to produce it, rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it. I have also been told many times that the main reason it's OK for CEOs (especially American ones) to get paid hundreds of times the amount their employees get paid is that [the CEO generates so much value for the company that it's worth it.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/07/18/the-wrong-people-care-about-ceo-pay-and-they-care-for-the-wrong-reasons/#7265e4bd512e) (I submit that *Forbes* is a reasonable source for how the wealthy conceive of this issue.) To me that sounds extremely similar to "you can determine how much value a worker's labor adds to something by how much the price of the final product differs from the price of the constituents the worker consumed in making changes." So what am I missing? Why is CEO pay justified by the value they add, but worker pay isn't? To CMV you'll have to convince me that CEO pay is *entirely* justified by some other mechanism than the value they add to the company, or you'll have to convince me that their pay being related to the value they bring is wholly different from the LTOV. Edit: I'm trying to respond as I can but I'm on a customer site so I can't spend as much time as I'd like on replies.

t3_2286z3

CMV:I sometimes can't stand people in the military.

_____ I have come into contact with a lot of military people who think they are somehow better then others because they are in the military. Especially those who like to call civilians "sheep" it really pisses me off, because that is stupid. Also those who think we "owe" them something, I owe them nothing. Or those who like to brag and/or complain about all their time away from their families like it makes them special. My father in law works on an oil supply boat, he is gone one month, home one month, gone one month etc. There was a year when he was gone for two months and home for one month. So how does that make military people special? EDIT: Duffman1701 did point out that there are assholes in every group, and a society as a whole does owe the military as whole. That changed my view somewhat. I still don't automatically respect someone just because they are in the military, and I still think anybody who refers to anybody as sheep, for whatever reason no matter how "sweet" or whatever you are trying to make it sound you are still referring to someone as a farm animal. I also don't owe some one who is in the military and has a job that a civilian can do. In other words, if you have a job that a bunch of civilians have and you have NEVER seen any battle or anything like that, I don't owe you any more than I owe the civilians who have the same job you do, just not for the military. But my view has somewhat changed.

CMV:I sometimes can't stand people in the military. Or those who like to brag and/or complain about all their time away from their families like it makes them special. My father in law works on an oil supply boat, he is gone one month, home one month, gone one month etc. There was a year when he was gone for two months and home for one month. So how does that make military people special? EDIT: Duffman1701 did point out that there are assholes in every group, and a society as a whole does owe the military as whole. That changed my view somewhat. I still don't automatically respect someone just because they are in the military, and I still think anybody who refers to anybody as sheep, for whatever reason no matter how "sweet" or whatever you are trying to make it sound you are still referring to someone as a farm animal. I also don't owe some one who is in the military and has a job that a civilian can do. In other words, if you have a job that a bunch of civilians have and you have NEVER seen any battle or anything like that, I don't owe you any more than I owe the civilians who have the same job you do, just not for the military. But my view has somewhat changed.

t3_1tqnn6

I despise pro-Marijuana advocates. CMV.

Before I get downvoted to oblivion, knowing reddit's position when it comes to drug legislation, I'm referring to the actual advocates who promote marijuana legality (what I term the "marijuana crowd"), who I believe do more harm to their cause than good, rather than marijuana users themselves. I think it's only fair to start with my first, already implied, criticism against them - which seems to be the complete harassment or suppression of anyone who disagrees even slightly with their views, despite the majority being from liberal backgrounds. I think that was probably my first observation of the behaviour of the group, which is a behaviour I personally oppose, as a person who sees myself as quite liberal and open-minded and likes people to have a freedom to express opinion. Then, of course, we have the whole conspiratorial role - their ramblings that anyone who disagrees with them is "brainwashed" by "big pharma", and their belief in how their group is being "victimised" by the wider public (a public in which, from my view, they either make up the majority, or most others tend to be quite apathetic towards marijuana that antipathetic). My biggest opposition of marijuana advocates came when, following a discussion about someone whose father died of cancer, one such advocate cropped up and said (to paraphrase) "Damn big pharma! If your father had just smoked a joint, that would have cured his cancer, easy!". It would have been fine if they'd implied "helped with", as I had heard that claim enough times, but that experience of "cured" had quite a defining effect for me in locking me into the mindset that such people are just parasites preying on the ill and the vulnerable with peer pressure and appeals to emotion; drug-pushers trying to recruit to their cause with so-called "health benefits". It led me, quite frankly, to the belief that such people are selfish and ignorant towards the problems of others - almost sociopathic in either their suggestion or conviction that "One puff solves all", and that their drug is the "best" (or, at least, "not as bad as [insert drug here]"). Whilst, I agree, cannabis has little to no physically addictive effect, I believe that cannabis culture has an almost indoctrinatory structure that provides almost a psychological addiction in and if itself. People are targeted at their lowest low, and don't quit because of all of the reasons I've mentioned above (they feel part of a community/culture and adopted the norms and values - a culture than, in my opinion, seems to have many of the traits of a sect etc.), plus it having provided them the thrill to get them out of hard times. **How to change my view** I guess what I'm saying is, in spite of all this, I'm looking for some form of evidence or reassurance that marijuana advocates are actual human beings, and that many of the extreme behaviours are just the actions and opinions of a vocal minority. I don't want evidence that the drug itself is good, but I am looking for some reason why I should vote to let such people get what they want. Even better, I want you to challenge my perception of such people - try to find a way to show me that I have, infact, got it all wrong, and most advocates aren't like that.

I despise pro-Marijuana advocates. CMV. Before I get downvoted to oblivion, knowing reddit's position when it comes to drug legislation, I'm referring to the actual advocates who promote marijuana legality (what I term the "marijuana crowd"), who I believe do more harm to their cause than good, rather than marijuana users themselves. I think it's only fair to start with my first, already implied, criticism against them - which seems to be the complete harassment or suppression of anyone who disagrees even slightly with their views, despite the majority being from liberal backgrounds. I think that was probably my first observation of the behaviour of the group, which is a behaviour I personally oppose, as a person who sees myself as quite liberal and open-minded and likes people to have a freedom to express opinion. Then, of course, we have the whole conspiratorial role - their ramblings that anyone who disagrees with them is "brainwashed" by "big pharma", and their belief in how their group is being "victimised" by the wider public (a public in which, from my view, they either make up the majority, or most others tend to be quite apathetic towards marijuana that antipathetic). My biggest opposition of marijuana advocates came when, following a discussion about someone whose father died of cancer, one such advocate cropped up and said (to paraphrase) "Damn big pharma! If your father had just smoked a joint, that would have cured his cancer, easy!". It would have been fine if they'd implied "helped with", as I had heard that claim enough times, but that experience of "cured" had quite a defining effect for me in locking me into the mindset that such people are just parasites preying on the ill and the vulnerable with peer pressure and appeals to emotion; drug-pushers trying to recruit to their cause with so-called "health benefits". It led me, quite frankly, to the belief that such people are selfish and ignorant towards the problems of others - almost sociopathic in either their suggestion or conviction that "One puff solves all", and that their drug is the "best" (or, at least, "not as bad as [insert drug here]"). Whilst, I agree, cannabis has little to no physically addictive effect, I believe that cannabis culture has an almost indoctrinatory structure that provides almost a psychological addiction in and if itself. People are targeted at their lowest low, and don't quit because of all of the reasons I've mentioned above (they feel part of a community/culture and adopted the norms and values - a culture than, in my opinion, seems to have many of the traits of a sect etc.), plus it having provided them the thrill to get them out of hard times. **How to change my view** I guess what I'm saying is, in spite of all this, I'm looking for some form of evidence or reassurance that marijuana advocates are actual human beings, and that many of the extreme behaviours are just the actions and opinions of a vocal minority. I don't want evidence that the drug itself is good, but I am looking for some reason why I should vote to let such people get what they want. Even better, I want you to challenge my perception of such people - try to find a way to show me that I have, infact, got it all wrong, and most advocates aren't like that.

t3_1r9tho

I think that creationism should be banned from being taught in school, even in private schools. CMV.

There are many things that we know of that discredit creation (such as carbon-dating), yet so many young, impressionable minds are being force fed it in private/home schools. It's like allowing that the Earth orbits a cat to be taught in schools. It has no evidence in science nor history and should be banned from any curriculum. Anything taught as a school lesson should have to have a solid backing in the scientific community. Any religious aspects should be taught separately. Or if any religious ideas were taught, the scientific theory must also be taught with neither opinion nor bias added. Change my view.

I think that creationism should be banned from being taught in school, even in private schools. CMV. There are many things that we know of that discredit creation (such as carbon-dating), yet so many young, impressionable minds are being force fed it in private/home schools. It's like allowing that the Earth orbits a cat to be taught in schools. It has no evidence in science nor history and should be banned from any curriculum. Anything taught as a school lesson should have to have a solid backing in the scientific community. Any religious aspects should be taught separately. Or if any religious ideas were taught, the scientific theory must also be taught with neither opinion nor bias added. Change my view.

t3_1mzpr4

As a lower-income citizen, I don't think it's my job to worry about world issues - like hunger, poverty, things like that - and I don't think I should have to care or donate money to these causes because I have a negligible impact on anything outside of my local area of influence. CMV.

I got into this huge argument with my wife, and this happens constantly. She is very much a hippy-liberal type who thinks that we should all drop our shit and throw all of our free time and money at all the problems of the world (I'm clearly exaggerating a bit). In a nutshell, the way I view this is that if it is outside my sphere of local influence - my family, my town, my county - then it is a waste of time to care or spend any amount of mental energy on thinking about it. I have my own family to feed. Why the fuck should I give a shit about starving babies half a world away? I don't care. It's not my problem. I have my own problems. It's not my job to feed them. Another example is GMOs. I don't give one half of a flying fuck if the corn I eat is genetically modified. Why should I give a shit? I understand Monsanto's tactics are evil and shitty but there are so many products that I use on a daily basis that have corn as an ingredient that it is literally impossible to 'fight the man.' Not to mention that GMOs are not labeled. And besides, it's fucking corn. It's food. It makes you NOT hungry. That's its job, and it performs that job. Shut up, eat your food, and be glad that you HAVE food. Another good example: animal welfare. My wife went on a tirade about how it's stupid that pets are required, at the minimum, to have access to shelter, food, and CLEAN water, but that livestock can live out on a field with pond water to drink. My response? I don't care. They're getting slaughtered anyways and I'm going to eat their delicious, tasty meat. Not my problem. They're cows. Big fucking deal. The only animal welfare issues that I care about are things related to pet abuse and the massively fucked KFC slaughterhouse issue. I refuse to eat at KFC. That is one of those things that my conscious cannot handle for some reason. Anyways, I guess what this boils down to is why should I give a shit about problems like this? If it doesn't directly impact me, my life, or my family's welfare, I don't care. It's not my problem. I have a thousand other things to waste my time, mental energy, and money on. Like tasty meat from a cow that was fed genetically modified grain and watered at a pond, or something. And somehow my wife thinks that this means I'm a selfish asshole, which doesn't make sense to me because if I was selfish my number one priority wouldn't be my family (we have a two year old daughter).

As a lower-income citizen, I don't think it's my job to worry about world issues - like hunger, poverty, things like that - and I don't think I should have to care or donate money to these causes because I have a negligible impact on anything outside of my local area of influence. CMV. I got into this huge argument with my wife, and this happens constantly. She is very much a hippy-liberal type who thinks that we should all drop our shit and throw all of our free time and money at all the problems of the world (I'm clearly exaggerating a bit). In a nutshell, the way I view this is that if it is outside my sphere of local influence - my family, my town, my county - then it is a waste of time to care or spend any amount of mental energy on thinking about it. I have my own family to feed. Why the fuck should I give a shit about starving babies half a world away? I don't care. It's not my problem. I have my own problems. It's not my job to feed them. Another example is GMOs. I don't give one half of a flying fuck if the corn I eat is genetically modified. Why should I give a shit? I understand Monsanto's tactics are evil and shitty but there are so many products that I use on a daily basis that have corn as an ingredient that it is literally impossible to 'fight the man.' Not to mention that GMOs are not labeled. And besides, it's fucking corn. It's food. It makes you NOT hungry. That's its job, and it performs that job. Shut up, eat your food, and be glad that you HAVE food. Another good example: animal welfare. My wife went on a tirade about how it's stupid that pets are required, at the minimum, to have access to shelter, food, and CLEAN water, but that livestock can live out on a field with pond water to drink. My response? I don't care. They're getting slaughtered anyways and I'm going to eat their delicious, tasty meat. Not my problem. They're cows. Big fucking deal. The only animal welfare issues that I care about are things related to pet abuse and the massively fucked KFC slaughterhouse issue. I refuse to eat at KFC. That is one of those things that my conscious cannot handle for some reason. Anyways, I guess what this boils down to is why should I give a shit about problems like this? If it doesn't directly impact me, my life, or my family's welfare, I don't care. It's not my problem. I have a thousand other things to waste my time, mental energy, and money on. Like tasty meat from a cow that was fed genetically modified grain and watered at a pond, or something. And somehow my wife thinks that this means I'm a selfish asshole, which doesn't make sense to me because if I was selfish my number one priority wouldn't be my family (we have a two year old daughter).

t3_5poub4

CMV: There should be no freedom of religion.

Throughout history, there has too often been a conflict between religious and secular interests. A common result is that worldly rulers take over some religious functions (like almost all monarchs in history) or that religions propagate government and are a --as a wise man said-- false to the wise, true to the stupid and useful to the politican. I suspect that religious governors that made policies based on superstitions and senseless laws were less effective than cold-blooded cynics (e.g. some religious rulers would not allow interest rates). Overall there seem to have been less and less theocracies over time, especially in Europe. If we agree those are undesirable and that religion and state should be separated, the question is how much religion should be allowed. In the past, religions hostile to government were wiped out and there were heavy sanctions for refusal to bow to state authority. Thus in Western countries we are mostly left with moderate religions and conclude that these are harmless when in truth we crippled them in the past so only the conforming cults survived. For instance, the Catholic church vehemently resisted all porgressive ideas of the Enlightenment, but was forced into moderation. Eventually it even accepted democratic governments, which it traditionally opposed. If religions are less moderate, it is partly the result of religous freedom: In America where freedom of religion has existed for centuries the Amish and Mormons could spread what would have been hardly impossible in Europe due to persecution. I suggest that freedom of speech and thought be preserved, but there should be no freedom of religion because that always entails some actions (which may or may not be tolerated, see genital mutilation for instance) and large communities may use their freedom while taking it from everybody else as soon as they can (early Christianity destroying all pagan temples is a great example). There are at least some bad outcomes of religous freedom: * Rather than religious moderates, it helps religious extremists who will be the most enthusiastic about spreading their ideas. Imagine you would have granted religious freedom in a medieval city. It would have collapsed quickly since all the religious lunatics of Europe would have been drawn there like flies. Something like that even happened in Munster. * It splits a society into various fractions. Religion is the worst form of tribalism humans ever came up with. Nothing comes close to the cohesion of religious communities, especially if they only marry people of the same faith. Both political ideologies and races can hardly compete. Of course, once a religion has wiped out the others, there will be sects and infighting too. * It will discriminate against atheists, who have no nonexistent authorities to argue and little violence to threaten society with. But if your prophet demanded something a few centuries ago and enough people are convinced, governments will allow you to ignore laws or adjust them in your favour. * Once you abandon pure reason and embrace superstition, there can also be no rational argument. Only violence and appeals to authority (my prophet is the true one) remain. * The enormous suffering religion has brought onto the world and that there can be little to no good from having a worldview that is false and unscientific.

CMV: There should be no freedom of religion. Throughout history, there has too often been a conflict between religious and secular interests. A common result is that worldly rulers take over some religious functions (like almost all monarchs in history) or that religions propagate government and are a --as a wise man said-- false to the wise, true to the stupid and useful to the politican. I suspect that religious governors that made policies based on superstitions and senseless laws were less effective than cold-blooded cynics (e.g. some religious rulers would not allow interest rates). Overall there seem to have been less and less theocracies over time, especially in Europe. If we agree those are undesirable and that religion and state should be separated, the question is how much religion should be allowed. In the past, religions hostile to government were wiped out and there were heavy sanctions for refusal to bow to state authority. Thus in Western countries we are mostly left with moderate religions and conclude that these are harmless when in truth we crippled them in the past so only the conforming cults survived. For instance, the Catholic church vehemently resisted all porgressive ideas of the Enlightenment, but was forced into moderation. Eventually it even accepted democratic governments, which it traditionally opposed. If religions are less moderate, it is partly the result of religous freedom: In America where freedom of religion has existed for centuries the Amish and Mormons could spread what would have been hardly impossible in Europe due to persecution. I suggest that freedom of speech and thought be preserved, but there should be no freedom of religion because that always entails some actions (which may or may not be tolerated, see genital mutilation for instance) and large communities may use their freedom while taking it from everybody else as soon as they can (early Christianity destroying all pagan temples is a great example). There are at least some bad outcomes of religous freedom: * Rather than religious moderates, it helps religious extremists who will be the most enthusiastic about spreading their ideas. Imagine you would have granted religious freedom in a medieval city. It would have collapsed quickly since all the religious lunatics of Europe would have been drawn there like flies. Something like that even happened in Munster. * It splits a society into various fractions. Religion is the worst form of tribalism humans ever came up with. Nothing comes close to the cohesion of religious communities, especially if they only marry people of the same faith. Both political ideologies and races can hardly compete. Of course, once a religion has wiped out the others, there will be sects and infighting too. * It will discriminate against atheists, who have no nonexistent authorities to argue and little violence to threaten society with. But if your prophet demanded something a few centuries ago and enough people are convinced, governments will allow you to ignore laws or adjust them in your favour. * Once you abandon pure reason and embrace superstition, there can also be no rational argument. Only violence and appeals to authority (my prophet is the true one) remain. * The enormous suffering religion has brought onto the world and that there can be little to no good from having a worldview that is false and unscientific.

t3_2j9wd8

CMV: Minors who have left their home country to join ISIS should be allowed to return, without criminal charges

Context: http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/2iv98f/austrian_girl_who_joined_isis_in_syria_wants_to/ High criminal penalties in these circumstances do not serve any purpose. * Deterrence: The threat of punishment by a Western court lacks credibility when a potential militant is considering joining ISIS, since they imagine they'll live in ISIS for the rest of their lives. * Reform: The very poor conditions that ISIS militants have will be more effective for preventing recidivism than criminal penalties. Western governments should publicly announce that they will accept their citizens back. When those citizens return, they should be offered the following plea bargain if they're under the age of 18: * 300 hours of community service * Agreeing to tell the authorities everything they know about ISIS * Removing their ability to leave the country * Agreeing not to recruit for ISIS or any other terrorist organization It should not be treated as a felony, as that would restrict their ability to find jobs in the future. Former militants should be placed on a 'watch list,' but that watch list should not be public. (As in the example of sex offender registries.) People who have joined ISIS who are above the age of 18 should also be accepted back, but they should get a harsher sentence. **EDIT**: I now believe that jail time could be intimidating to potential militants, if they thought they'd be enforced. However, I still believe that militants believe that it wouldn't be enforced. In fact, I'll make a prediction: I think that less than 5% of the Westerners that joined ISIS will eventually be tried in court, whether that be an Iraqi court, a Syrian court, or a Western court. PS. going to bed, getting late _____ > *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: Minors who have left their home country to join ISIS should be allowed to return, without criminal charges. Context: http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/2iv98f/austrian_girl_who_joined_isis_in_syria_wants_to/ High criminal penalties in these circumstances do not serve any purpose. * Deterrence: The threat of punishment by a Western court lacks credibility when a potential militant is considering joining ISIS, since they imagine they'll live in ISIS for the rest of their lives. * Reform: The very poor conditions that ISIS militants have will be more effective for preventing recidivism than criminal penalties. Western governments should publicly announce that they will accept their citizens back. When those citizens return, they should be offered the following plea bargain if they're under the age of 18: * 300 hours of community service * Agreeing to tell the authorities everything they know about ISIS * Removing their ability to leave the country * Agreeing not to recruit for ISIS or any other terrorist organization It should not be treated as a felony, as that would restrict their ability to find jobs in the future. Former militants should be placed on a 'watch list,' but that watch list should not be public. (As in the example of sex offender registries.) People who have joined ISIS who are above the age of 18 should also be accepted back, but they should get a harsher sentence. **EDIT**: I now believe that jail time could be intimidating to potential militants, if they thought they'd be enforced. However, I still believe that militants believe that it wouldn't be enforced. In fact, I'll make a prediction: I think that less than 5% of the Westerners that joined ISIS will eventually be tried in court, whether that be an Iraqi court, a Syrian court, or a Western court. PS. going to bed, getting late

t3_2fopdv

CMV:right to basic necessities of life and right to bodily autonomy are fundamentally contradictory, and any meaningful code of ethics must reject one of them.

First: definitions. Bodily Autonomy = right to decide what to do with one's own body - People have the right to have full control over their own bodies. This includes after their death. Right to basic necessities of life = right to have anything that one needs to stay alive. If someone needs x to live, then they have the right to have access to x. Contradiction = P and not-P Consider the following situation: Bob is suffering from a disease that is sure to kill him if he does not get an organ transplant, but if he does get a transplant, he will make a quick recovery. The only suitable donor is Bill, who has recently died. Bill did not opt-in for organ donation (or he opted out, for those with an opt-out system), and his religion prohibits him from donating organs. Now, should doctors take Bill's organs (against his wishes) and give it to Bob? According to bodily autonomy, Bill has the right over his own body, and he does not agree to donate his organs, so the doctors should not do so. According to right to basic necessities of life, Bob needs the organs to live, the organs are necessary for him to live, so the doctors should do so. This is a contradiction. Formally: N = Bob needs the organs G = Bill agrees to donate organs S = the doctors should give Bill's organs to Bob. Premises: (1) N (premise) (2) ~G (premise) (3) N -> S (right to basic necessities of life) (premise) (4) ~G -> ~S (right to bodily autonomy) (premise) (5) S (1,3,Modus ponens) (6) ~S (2,4,Modus ponens) (7) S^~S (conjunction introduction) line 7 is a contradiction. edit: since many people are saying this, if you reject one of the rights, then the contradiction disappears. That's obvious, but that's not the point of this thread. saying "bodily autonomy supersedes right to basic needs", then you're rejecting a premise, and the contradiction goes away. but that's not the point of this thread. I believe that if **both premises are accepted, then a contradiction arises**, I don't care about what happens if a premise is rejected. _____ > *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:right to basic necessities of life and right to bodily autonomy are fundamentally contradictory, and any meaningful code of ethics must reject one of them. First: definitions. Bodily Autonomy = right to decide what to do with one's own body - People have the right to have full control over their own bodies. This includes after their death. Right to basic necessities of life = right to have anything that one needs to stay alive. If someone needs x to live, then they have the right to have access to x. Contradiction = P and not-P Consider the following situation: Bob is suffering from a disease that is sure to kill him if he does not get an organ transplant, but if he does get a transplant, he will make a quick recovery. The only suitable donor is Bill, who has recently died. Bill did not opt-in for organ donation (or he opted out, for those with an opt-out system), and his religion prohibits him from donating organs. Now, should doctors take Bill's organs (against his wishes) and give it to Bob? According to bodily autonomy, Bill has the right over his own body, and he does not agree to donate his organs, so the doctors should not do so. According to right to basic necessities of life, Bob needs the organs to live, the organs are necessary for him to live, so the doctors should do so. This is a contradiction. Formally: N = Bob needs the organs G = Bill agrees to donate organs S = the doctors should give Bill's organs to Bob. Premises: (1) N (premise) (2) ~G (premise) (3) N -> S (right to basic necessities of life) (premise) (4) ~G -> ~S (right to bodily autonomy) (premise) (5) S (1,3,Modus ponens) (6) ~S (2,4,Modus ponens) (7) S^~S (conjunction introduction) line 7 is a contradiction. edit: since many people are saying this, if you reject one of the rights, then the contradiction disappears. That's obvious, but that's not the point of this thread. saying "bodily autonomy supersedes right to basic needs", then you're rejecting a premise, and the contradiction goes away. but that's not the point of this thread. I believe that if **both premises are accepted, then a contradiction arises**, I don't care about what happens if a premise is rejected.

t3_2622tj

CMV: I have contempt for picky eaters.

I'm an extremely adventurous eater and approach new foods with excitement, as opposed to anxiety and take refusal to try new foods, or refusal to learn to like old foods as at best unnecessarily precious, and at worst disrespectful and insulting. With the rare eating is learned behaviour and can be unlearned. I taught myself to overcome several food dislikes. So when somebody is picky, and particularly refuses to try new food, my response is not particularly sympathetic. The palate of a five year old is not something to be proud of and like any other five year old behaviour, people should learn to grow up and behave like an adult. However, I'm starting to doubt myself and looking for a convincing enough argument to push me towards sympathy. Is picky eating like anxiety and my refusal to indulge it just making things worse? What does a picky eater go through when trying something unpleasant or unknown? If I eat something gross, I just drink some water and get on with it. Why are other people unable to do that? Either way, CMV.

CMV: I have contempt for picky eaters. I'm an extremely adventurous eater and approach new foods with excitement, as opposed to anxiety and take refusal to try new foods, or refusal to learn to like old foods as at best unnecessarily precious, and at worst disrespectful and insulting. With the rare eating is learned behaviour and can be unlearned. I taught myself to overcome several food dislikes. So when somebody is picky, and particularly refuses to try new food, my response is not particularly sympathetic. The palate of a five year old is not something to be proud of and like any other five year old behaviour, people should learn to grow up and behave like an adult. However, I'm starting to doubt myself and looking for a convincing enough argument to push me towards sympathy. Is picky eating like anxiety and my refusal to indulge it just making things worse? What does a picky eater go through when trying something unpleasant or unknown? If I eat something gross, I just drink some water and get on with it. Why are other people unable to do that? Either way, CMV.

t3_23483j

CMV: Everybody should have personal liability insurance

States require liability insurance to operate vehicles so that damages you cause will be covered, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs%2Fbrochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm When people commit crimes their victims often cannot recover the damages incurred because the criminal lacks money. Requiring everyone to carry sufficient liability insurance would allow victims to recover from the financial cost of crimes. The cost of insurance would be rated by the probability and cost of the individual committing crime so that they would pay the burden of crime instead of their victims or society, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10013830/Violent-crime-costs-the-UK-economy-124-billion-report-suggests.html The required amount of liabilty insurance would be determined by average liability claims. Those people failing to maintain the required liability coverage would be fined and if unable to pay then declared an [outlaw](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw) or exiled. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Everybody should have personal liability insurance. States require liability insurance to operate vehicles so that damages you cause will be covered, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs%2Fbrochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm When people commit crimes their victims often cannot recover the damages incurred because the criminal lacks money. Requiring everyone to carry sufficient liability insurance would allow victims to recover from the financial cost of crimes. The cost of insurance would be rated by the probability and cost of the individual committing crime so that they would pay the burden of crime instead of their victims or society, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10013830/Violent-crime-costs-the-UK-economy-124-billion-report-suggests.html The required amount of liabilty insurance would be determined by average liability claims. Those people failing to maintain the required liability coverage would be fined and if unable to pay then declared an [outlaw](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw) or exiled.

t3_2ghavw

CMV: I believe professional athletes should be able to use HGH while recovering from injury

The NFL recently announced that it will begin testing for HGH, which is all and good, but I believe HGH should be approved for players rehabbing from serious injury. Recently ACL tears have gone from an 18-24 month recovering time to as little as 8 months. I believe a large portion of this change in recovery time is due to the widespread use of HGH. While I can see why it is banned as a "performance enhancer", I honestly do not see a problem with it for injury recovery. In baseball, it is perfectly acceptable for a pitcher to have a ligament surgically removed from his leg and placed into his elbow, but taking a medication to speed up the healing process is somehow cheating. I think that is an absurd position to take. If followed by a teams medical staff, and prior permission is granted by the league after medical evaluation, I believe HGH is a proper, safe and successful form of treatment for injury. 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 believe professional athletes should be able to use HGH while recovering from injury. The NFL recently announced that it will begin testing for HGH, which is all and good, but I believe HGH should be approved for players rehabbing from serious injury. Recently ACL tears have gone from an 18-24 month recovering time to as little as 8 months. I believe a large portion of this change in recovery time is due to the widespread use of HGH. While I can see why it is banned as a "performance enhancer", I honestly do not see a problem with it for injury recovery. In baseball, it is perfectly acceptable for a pitcher to have a ligament surgically removed from his leg and placed into his elbow, but taking a medication to speed up the healing process is somehow cheating. I think that is an absurd position to take. If followed by a teams medical staff, and prior permission is granted by the league after medical evaluation, I believe HGH is a proper, safe and successful form of treatment for injury. CMV

t3_2y4jkf

CMV: The term "womyn" with a y is silly and only causes people to not take feminists seriously.

Let me start of by clarifying that I myself do not view feminism as silly and I do take it very seriously. I identify as a feminist and think the feminist cause is legitimate and on top of that, a necessary goal for any forward thinking society. There are however times when feminist rhetoric becomes a bit... off putting. In particular, it's when some feminists (but certainly not all) use words like "womyn". I single out this particular word because it's the most common. To be clear, I don't have this problem with wanting to get rid of terms like congressman or businessman, replacing them with congressperson and businessperson, because in those cases there's a real implication that the congress*man* and business*man* are, in fact, men. The word woman, on the other hand, does not actually share that implication, so I don't see why it should be considered "unfeminist".

CMV: The term "womyn" with a y is silly and only causes people to not take feminists seriously. Let me start of by clarifying that I myself do not view feminism as silly and I do take it very seriously. I identify as a feminist and think the feminist cause is legitimate and on top of that, a necessary goal for any forward thinking society. There are however times when feminist rhetoric becomes a bit... off putting. In particular, it's when some feminists (but certainly not all) use words like "womyn". I single out this particular word because it's the most common. To be clear, I don't have this problem with wanting to get rid of terms like congressman or businessman, replacing them with congressperson and businessperson, because in those cases there's a real implication that the congress*man* and business*man* are, in fact, men. The word woman, on the other hand, does not actually share that implication, so I don't see why it should be considered "unfeminist".

t3_6bagk6

CMV: Eugenics is not inherently wrong

Now don't get me wrong, I am not in for breeding people with blond hair and blue eyes and killing the rest. The definition of eugenics is vague at best, but for the argument's sake, let's define it as "trying to improve genetic quality of humans". Every day infants with genetic disorders get born. You name them, anything from Huntington's disease though various cancer predispositions to colorblindness. Thanks to modern technology we know exactly which mutations of which genes cause them. With methods of assisted reproduction, it is (or soon will be) possible to select eggs/sperm carrying only healthy (or at least healthier) chromosomes. Or even to edit a specific gene. Thanks to this, many hereditary genetic disorders could be eliminated in a few generations. A few counter-arguments I meet and my answer: * Price. Yes, it is not feasible today, especially on population scale. But it is getting more and more affordable. And let's be honest, taking care of all the patients is not quite cheap either. We might easily get to the point when it'd be cheaper to "breed" healthy people than cure the ill in not too distant future. * People would abuse the technology and make their babies prettier/stronger/smarter. There should be 0 tolerance for eugenics and such technology shouldn't even be developed. Well yes, that could easily happen. But you can't just prevent a technology from being developed, really, secret/illegal research is done all the time. Not to mention we pretty much have it already. And 0 tolerance is NOT the solution for anything. We have have 0 tolerance for murder but people get killed daily. We tried 0 tolerance for drugs, but that only made the business more lucrative and done by shady characters and it didn't stop anyone from taking the drugs. Where is demand, there is supply and all we could achieve by making such modifications illegal is that they would be only for the richest and there would be many unnecessary risks. And poor children, whose parents had "wrong" ideas, would be persecuted. Star Trek fans - think of Eugenics war or doc. Julian Bashir. _____ > *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: Eugenics is not inherently wrong. Now don't get me wrong, I am not in for breeding people with blond hair and blue eyes and killing the rest. The definition of eugenics is vague at best, but for the argument's sake, let's define it as "trying to improve genetic quality of humans". Every day infants with genetic disorders get born. You name them, anything from Huntington's disease though various cancer predispositions to colorblindness. Thanks to modern technology we know exactly which mutations of which genes cause them. With methods of assisted reproduction, it is (or soon will be) possible to select eggs/sperm carrying only healthy (or at least healthier) chromosomes. Or even to edit a specific gene. Thanks to this, many hereditary genetic disorders could be eliminated in a few generations. A few counter-arguments I meet and my answer: * Price. Yes, it is not feasible today, especially on population scale. But it is getting more and more affordable. And let's be honest, taking care of all the patients is not quite cheap either. We might easily get to the point when it'd be cheaper to "breed" healthy people than cure the ill in not too distant future. * People would abuse the technology and make their babies prettier/stronger/smarter. There should be 0 tolerance for eugenics and such technology shouldn't even be developed. Well yes, that could easily happen. But you can't just prevent a technology from being developed, really, secret/illegal research is done all the time. Not to mention we pretty much have it already. And 0 tolerance is NOT the solution for anything. We have have 0 tolerance for murder but people get killed daily. We tried 0 tolerance for drugs, but that only made the business more lucrative and done by shady characters and it didn't stop anyone from taking the drugs. Where is demand, there is supply and all we could achieve by making such modifications illegal is that they would be only for the richest and there would be many unnecessary risks. And poor children, whose parents had "wrong" ideas, would be persecuted. Star Trek fans - think of Eugenics war or doc. Julian Bashir.

t3_1nnpt7

I think that the government shutdown in America is a good thing, showing how extraneous much of the government really is and how much of it can be cut or reorganized to be less cost inefficient. CMV

With the recent government shutdown there have been a lot of people who've been put on furlough and a lot of programs that have been slowed or shut down entirely. One statistic that particularly jumps out at me is that 93% of EPA employees have been labelled as non-essential. Now don't get me wrong, I think we should have the EPA and be looking for ways to be more clean and energy efficient. At the same time, however, I don't see the need for the size of these branches. On the flip side of the coin some branches of the bureaucracy need to be restructured. For example, the NSA had a large group of people labelled non-essential. I think that we do need some sort of counterintelligence gathering from them (Though not necessarily with the methods they have chosen to employ as of late) but that it needs to be restructured because if a large percentage of their employees are seen as non-essential than there needs to be more essential jobs for them to do. Put them to work doing things that get them "essential" status. The way I see it, if we can re-structure, cut and re-organize parts of the government that have been effected thus far we can effectively help prevent such a thing from happening. **TL;DR** The government shutdown is giving us an opportunity to restructure to where we're not spending as much money because of twisted bureaucracy and bloated non-essential programs.

I think that the government shutdown in America is a good thing, showing how extraneous much of the government really is and how much of it can be cut or reorganized to be less cost inefficient. CMV. With the recent government shutdown there have been a lot of people who've been put on furlough and a lot of programs that have been slowed or shut down entirely. One statistic that particularly jumps out at me is that 93% of EPA employees have been labelled as non-essential. Now don't get me wrong, I think we should have the EPA and be looking for ways to be more clean and energy efficient. At the same time, however, I don't see the need for the size of these branches. On the flip side of the coin some branches of the bureaucracy need to be restructured. For example, the NSA had a large group of people labelled non-essential. I think that we do need some sort of counterintelligence gathering from them (Though not necessarily with the methods they have chosen to employ as of late) but that it needs to be restructured because if a large percentage of their employees are seen as non-essential than there needs to be more essential jobs for them to do. Put them to work doing things that get them "essential" status. The way I see it, if we can re-structure, cut and re-organize parts of the government that have been effected thus far we can effectively help prevent such a thing from happening. **TL;DR** The government shutdown is giving us an opportunity to restructure to where we're not spending as much money because of twisted bureaucracy and bloated non-essential programs.

t3_4ipier

CMV: Talking about a problem without asking for or proposing a solution is just complaining and is without value.

There is a tendency for people to drone on and on about things that are wrong with the world, with their lives, with their jobs, with their relationships and so forth and the social backing is that they are just looking for someone to listen to their problems. This is something usually ascribed to women that men don't understand but I've seen it in both genders pretty equally. I'm not talking about people discussing problems in a way to use someone as a sounding board so as to eventually come to a conclusion. I acknowledge that talking about a problem will sometimes make the solution apparent, like "How on earth can I finish this assignment in time? Oh well I guess I've still got 8 hours, maybe if I start now I can finish." I am speaking to the phenomenon of people who have no plans to even attempt to solve a problem they just want to talk about it and complain preferably in solidarity with someone with the same problem. People who have bad jobs but aren't trying to find a better one or be transferred, people who are out of shape but have no plans to change diet or activity, people who have just had a "hard day" and want to whine about it. If the problem exists only in the past, bringing it up and whining about it constantly only makes the problem persist. If the problem is ongoing and it cannot be affected (IE the weather or traffic) then complaining about it beyond just an offhand comment is a waste of time. If the problem is ongoing but there is a possible solution (work troubles, relationship troubles, financial troubles, etc) then talking about it should be an exercise in finding a solution. _____ > *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: Talking about a problem without asking for or proposing a solution is just complaining and is without value. There is a tendency for people to drone on and on about things that are wrong with the world, with their lives, with their jobs, with their relationships and so forth and the social backing is that they are just looking for someone to listen to their problems. This is something usually ascribed to women that men don't understand but I've seen it in both genders pretty equally. I'm not talking about people discussing problems in a way to use someone as a sounding board so as to eventually come to a conclusion. I acknowledge that talking about a problem will sometimes make the solution apparent, like "How on earth can I finish this assignment in time? Oh well I guess I've still got 8 hours, maybe if I start now I can finish." I am speaking to the phenomenon of people who have no plans to even attempt to solve a problem they just want to talk about it and complain preferably in solidarity with someone with the same problem. People who have bad jobs but aren't trying to find a better one or be transferred, people who are out of shape but have no plans to change diet or activity, people who have just had a "hard day" and want to whine about it. If the problem exists only in the past, bringing it up and whining about it constantly only makes the problem persist. If the problem is ongoing and it cannot be affected (IE the weather or traffic) then complaining about it beyond just an offhand comment is a waste of time. If the problem is ongoing but there is a possible solution (work troubles, relationship troubles, financial troubles, etc) then talking about it should be an exercise in finding a solution.

t3_3lu8wy

CMV: The correct and moral thing for Luke to do at the end of RofJ was to destroy all of the Jedi teachings and put an end to the order

This would be the only answer for peace in the galaxy. Using only the canon of the movies, this was the end of the sith and Luke was the last remaining Jedi, meaning he was the only person who knew the proper training and techniques to strengthen his connection with the force. Over the movies, every war was caused, even indirectly by the Jedi, being as the Sith were, as I understand it, started by jedi who had fallen from the light side. The trade federation was being manipulated by darth sidious and only wanted peace, as stated in revenge of the sith. The republic goes into the war led by the jedi then again manipulated by sidious to create the galactic empire who rules with fear and tyranny, enforces slavery and other horrible atrocities. The moral thing for Luke to do would be snuff out these insanely powerful techniques so that the fewest people possible would ever be aware of how to use them and the Republic could maintain itself. The corruption of the power was obviously too easy and the fact that they were separate from the republic and governed themselves was just asking for power struggles later down the road. After that he should have devouted his remaining time in finding and destroying any sith or other religions teachings and taking out any dark jedi who may have remained. If Vader could do it with the Jedi, Luke could have certainly done it with force users who were imporperly trained. The only Jedi to escape Vader(Yoda and Obi-wan) were 2 of the most powerful masters in the galaxy so Luke shouldnt have had many issues with it, and it should have been then left to the reublic to quell any force use in the future. The Jedi them selves caused a major power imbalence in the galaxy, and it would have been a more peaceful and stable place without them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The correct and moral thing for Luke to do at the end of RofJ was to destroy all of the Jedi teachings and put an end to the order. This would be the only answer for peace in the galaxy. Using only the canon of the movies, this was the end of the sith and Luke was the last remaining Jedi, meaning he was the only person who knew the proper training and techniques to strengthen his connection with the force. Over the movies, every war was caused, even indirectly by the Jedi, being as the Sith were, as I understand it, started by jedi who had fallen from the light side. The trade federation was being manipulated by darth sidious and only wanted peace, as stated in revenge of the sith. The republic goes into the war led by the jedi then again manipulated by sidious to create the galactic empire who rules with fear and tyranny, enforces slavery and other horrible atrocities. The moral thing for Luke to do would be snuff out these insanely powerful techniques so that the fewest people possible would ever be aware of how to use them and the Republic could maintain itself. The corruption of the power was obviously too easy and the fact that they were separate from the republic and governed themselves was just asking for power struggles later down the road. After that he should have devouted his remaining time in finding and destroying any sith or other religions teachings and taking out any dark jedi who may have remained. If Vader could do it with the Jedi, Luke could have certainly done it with force users who were imporperly trained. The only Jedi to escape Vader(Yoda and Obi-wan) were 2 of the most powerful masters in the galaxy so Luke shouldnt have had many issues with it, and it should have been then left to the reublic to quell any force use in the future. The Jedi them selves caused a major power imbalence in the galaxy, and it would have been a more peaceful and stable place without them.

t3_5tv638

CMV: In the classic scenario of a magical genie granting you three wishes, the optimal first wish is for a complete knowledge and thorough understanding of the Rules of Wishing whilst retaining your sanity and physical agency.

This came up in a conversation with some friends and family recently, and many of them used their wishes on material things (like a cowboy hat that looks good on them) or eternal life/youth. When it came to me, and I specified this as my first wish, I was basically told it was a waste of a wish, and I'd be better off choosing something else. My reasons are: 1) A complete knowledge and thorough understanding of the Rules puts you on a roughly even playing field with the genie. This would allow a clever person to see loop-holes or places where deliberate mis-interpretations of their following two wishes could be exploited by a devious genie, and thus prevent most unwelcome outcomes. 2) Similarly, it allows the Wisher to be aware of ways in which the Rules may be bent or broken to a desireable end. 3) I believe two wishes requested with the knowledge of the Rules would be more beneficial than 3 wishes requested without said knowledge and so, sacrificing one wish would be worth it. 4) This information would be useful if the genie was inherently good-natured, but would become absolutely critical if said genie was seeking to do the wisher harm. Therefore, it is better to hedge your bets against the ancient wish-granting-entity, rather than be too trusting.

CMV: In the classic scenario of a magical genie granting you three wishes, the optimal first wish is for a complete knowledge and thorough understanding of the Rules of Wishing whilst retaining your sanity and physical agency. This came up in a conversation with some friends and family recently, and many of them used their wishes on material things (like a cowboy hat that looks good on them) or eternal life/youth. When it came to me, and I specified this as my first wish, I was basically told it was a waste of a wish, and I'd be better off choosing something else. My reasons are: 1) A complete knowledge and thorough understanding of the Rules puts you on a roughly even playing field with the genie. This would allow a clever person to see loop-holes or places where deliberate mis-interpretations of their following two wishes could be exploited by a devious genie, and thus prevent most unwelcome outcomes. 2) Similarly, it allows the Wisher to be aware of ways in which the Rules may be bent or broken to a desireable end. 3) I believe two wishes requested with the knowledge of the Rules would be more beneficial than 3 wishes requested without said knowledge and so, sacrificing one wish would be worth it. 4) This information would be useful if the genie was inherently good-natured, but would become absolutely critical if said genie was seeking to do the wisher harm. Therefore, it is better to hedge your bets against the ancient wish-granting-entity, rather than be too trusting.

t3_293ssq

CMV: There should be a law requiring employers to provide a minimum amount of sick leave.

I will start this by saying I'm no economist so my view may have repercussions I'm unaware of. I've worked for companies that have vacation time and sick leave separate. I've also worked for companies that accumulate it all as PTO. There is also a third type of company (restaurants come to mind) that offer neither. I am of the opinion that sick leave is most beneficial for everyone. Number one reason sick leave should be required is because when it's not, sick people come into work. They either can't afford to miss an unpaid day or don't wish to take away from their family vacation time. And with that, germs/illness is spread and becomes a hazard for everyone. Secondly, it's not the least bit fair to require people to take unpaid time OR vacation time for the unpleasant necessities of life (needing a couple days to recover from flu, having to care for a sick child, or a chronic condition that maybe requires regular blood transfusions or what have you). Finally, in regards to PTO, it all depends on how much time you earn to how often you work. Sometimes the amount earned is very small, making it difficult to get even a full work day of PTO to use in the first place, let alone multiple. I'm sure to people with perfect attendance, many of these reasons are irrelevant. Even healthy people need a mental health day here and there though. Please point out anything I may be missing 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: There should be a law requiring employers to provide a minimum amount of sick leave. I will start this by saying I'm no economist so my view may have repercussions I'm unaware of. I've worked for companies that have vacation time and sick leave separate. I've also worked for companies that accumulate it all as PTO. There is also a third type of company (restaurants come to mind) that offer neither. I am of the opinion that sick leave is most beneficial for everyone. Number one reason sick leave should be required is because when it's not, sick people come into work. They either can't afford to miss an unpaid day or don't wish to take away from their family vacation time. And with that, germs/illness is spread and becomes a hazard for everyone. Secondly, it's not the least bit fair to require people to take unpaid time OR vacation time for the unpleasant necessities of life (needing a couple days to recover from flu, having to care for a sick child, or a chronic condition that maybe requires regular blood transfusions or what have you). Finally, in regards to PTO, it all depends on how much time you earn to how often you work. Sometimes the amount earned is very small, making it difficult to get even a full work day of PTO to use in the first place, let alone multiple. I'm sure to people with perfect attendance, many of these reasons are irrelevant. Even healthy people need a mental health day here and there though. Please point out anything I may be missing and CMV.

t3_4mciml

CMV: As a 32 white male with a non-Stem degree with £1,500 of debt who has been unemployed for two years my future will most likely be one of continual employment or low paid work, with little hope for improvement.

As a 32 year old white male who has a non-STEM degree with £1,500 of debt who has been unemployed for two years my future will most likely be one of continual employment or low paid work, with little hope for improvement. **The over the last two years** Since leaving my last job, which was unskilled office work which I hated after five years of working for a corporate organisation whose behaviour was nothing short of criminal two years ago I spent a year trying to find work unsuccessfully. I began by applying for jobs I would like to do in the third sector but never made it to the interview stage. I then tried any type of employment, including the types of job I had as a teen like supermarket or cleaning, but never made it past the interview stage. Since leaving university in 2008 with a 2:1 in sociology I have only ever had one job, and in seems impossible to get one now without relevant experience or qualifications and recent employment history. After being sanctioned for arguing with one of the job centre staff about the usefulness of providing e-mail printouts as proof of jobseeking (What's the point of me bringing them in, they would be so easy to fake? Don't both of us have better things to do with our time?) I tried to set up my own business on the NEA scheme selling paintings about a year ago rather than being technically unemployed. I have not sold any paintings, although I have exhibited my work, and did previously sell some while employed a few years ago. **More recently** I now have no disposable income apart £40.00 a week working tax credits, although most of this goes on household bills as my housing benefit does not even cover the cost of my rent. I am £1,500 in debt, and this goes up by roughly £200 a month, and has done for the last 6 months. I am about to move back in with my parents as I am getting deeper and deeper into debt, and think it would probably be sensible to get a Debt Relief Order at this point, as my prospects of applying for something like a mortgage anyhow in my lifetime is pretty unlikely (I have volunteered at the CAB in an effort to improve my CV, this is how I found out about the DRO option). **Now** I have just from another unsuccessful job interview (I didn't even make it through to the final assessment stage, we were all told straight away) and can see no hope for my future. I am destined for a life of temporary periods of employment completing unskilled work in an unpleasant environment in-between long bouts of unemployment. Convince me I have another practical option. I'd love to gain a qualification in IT, I've used SQL and python volunteering with community projects. I also really enjoyed university, and would have loved to gone on to do an MA, but I was not really the 'academic' type. EDIT: gave intro and included headings for ease of reading > *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: As a 32 white male with a non-Stem degree with £1,500 of debt who has been unemployed for two years my future will most likely be one of continual employment or low paid work, with little hope for improvement. As a 32 year old white male who has a non-STEM degree with £1,500 of debt who has been unemployed for two years my future will most likely be one of continual employment or low paid work, with little hope for improvement. **The over the last two years** Since leaving my last job, which was unskilled office work which I hated after five years of working for a corporate organisation whose behaviour was nothing short of criminal two years ago I spent a year trying to find work unsuccessfully. I began by applying for jobs I would like to do in the third sector but never made it to the interview stage. I then tried any type of employment, including the types of job I had as a teen like supermarket or cleaning, but never made it past the interview stage. Since leaving university in 2008 with a 2:1 in sociology I have only ever had one job, and in seems impossible to get one now without relevant experience or qualifications and recent employment history. After being sanctioned for arguing with one of the job centre staff about the usefulness of providing e-mail printouts as proof of jobseeking (What's the point of me bringing them in, they would be so easy to fake? Don't both of us have better things to do with our time?) I tried to set up my own business on the NEA scheme selling paintings about a year ago rather than being technically unemployed. I have not sold any paintings, although I have exhibited my work, and did previously sell some while employed a few years ago. **More recently** I now have no disposable income apart £40.00 a week working tax credits, although most of this goes on household bills as my housing benefit does not even cover the cost of my rent. I am £1,500 in debt, and this goes up by roughly £200 a month, and has done for the last 6 months. I am about to move back in with my parents as I am getting deeper and deeper into debt, and think it would probably be sensible to get a Debt Relief Order at this point, as my prospects of applying for something like a mortgage anyhow in my lifetime is pretty unlikely (I have volunteered at the CAB in an effort to improve my CV, this is how I found out about the DRO option). **Now** I have just from another unsuccessful job interview (I didn't even make it through to the final assessment stage, we were all told straight away) and can see no hope for my future. I am destined for a life of temporary periods of employment completing unskilled work in an unpleasant environment in-between long bouts of unemployment. Convince me I have another practical option. I'd love to gain a qualification in IT, I've used SQL and python volunteering with community projects. I also really enjoyed university, and would have loved to gone on to do an MA, but I was not really the 'academic' type. EDIT: gave intro and included headings for ease of reading > *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_3fyfgj

CMV: The vast amounts of zero karma posts on r/changemyview prove that the downvote button is a disagree button.

So I browse this sub from time to time and I've come to the conclusion that the downvote button is a disagree button. A good chunk of the posts here (not new posts, posts that are over 8 hours old) with only around 10 karma points, or even 0 karma points are "bad" or "dumb" or in better terms, don't have enough good points to help the OP look like their view is good. The original purpose of a downvote is to mostly help remove irrelevant posts that nothing to do with the current sub. 99% low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub. This is the main reason I will always see the downvote button as a disagree button. Please change my view. Edit: I'm back.

CMV: The vast amounts of zero karma posts on r/changemyview prove that the downvote button is a disagree button. So I browse this sub from time to time and I've come to the conclusion that the downvote button is a disagree button. A good chunk of the posts here (not new posts, posts that are over 8 hours old) with only around 10 karma points, or even 0 karma points are "bad" or "dumb" or in better terms, don't have enough good points to help the OP look like their view is good. The original purpose of a downvote is to mostly help remove irrelevant posts that nothing to do with the current sub. 99% low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub. This is the main reason I will always see the downvote button as a disagree button. Please change my view. Edit: I'm back.

t3_2wsftc

CMV: Being "transgender" is a form of mental illness.

I want to start off by saying that i am in no way against rights for people apart of the LGBT community as a whole. That said, i do not see how someone who is born with the chromosomes of a specific gender can identify or "feel" like the opposite gender they were born without having some form of mental illness. It doesn't matter how many supplements someone takes, their body will still have the XX or XY chromosomes they were born with, and continue to develop the traits a male/female body unless the "natural" development is suppressed by alternative hormones. How can someone "feel" like the opposite gender when they have never actually been a part of that gender genetically?

CMV: Being "transgender" is a form of mental illness. I want to start off by saying that i am in no way against rights for people apart of the LGBT community as a whole. That said, i do not see how someone who is born with the chromosomes of a specific gender can identify or "feel" like the opposite gender they were born without having some form of mental illness. It doesn't matter how many supplements someone takes, their body will still have the XX or XY chromosomes they were born with, and continue to develop the traits a male/female body unless the "natural" development is suppressed by alternative hormones. How can someone "feel" like the opposite gender when they have never actually been a part of that gender genetically?

t3_1nym57

I believe people as a whole are bad at discussing ineffective decisions, and priorities in general. Please CMV.

I don't know why this is. It could be that people want to spare each other's feelings, or don't want to bother stopping someone else from making a social mistake towards them by letting a little transparency slip (I won't respond if you talk to me further), or maybe people don't have their priorities in order to begin with so discussing ineffective decisions in general becomes muddled immediately. I'm fairly certain I think this because of the dearth of quality media available to help usher young teens into being relevant adults, by helping them overcome the feeling of having to learn so much they didn't know about the world without it interrupting their ability to continue being social and continuing to enjoy expressing their character and personality they've worked hard to forge through their childhood and teenage years. I think that dearth is relevant because it shows causally why the average conversation you hear about ineffective decisions don't lead to effective decisions, or if there is no dearth then it shows that ineffective decision making is so prevalent that it doesn't just cover talking about itself, but also covers people not seeking out how to better express themselves regarding ineffective decisions. Ineffective decisions in this situation would be things like not moving around most of your day doing productive things, not helping people who need help, not fighting any kind of addiction, not expanding your horizons, not learning about the world around you, not learning how to express yourself, etc. I've heard the explanation 'people want to learn at their own pace' and I can understand that. It doesn't mean that people who insist they are learning at their own pace aren't bad at discussing the ineffective decisions they make or see other people make towards the things they're coming across regularly though. Being good at discussing ineffective decisions is whatever occurs that has people actually making better decisions consistently towards whatever it is being discussed, either in their actions themselves which were previously ineffective or the ability to discuss and express yourself.

I believe people as a whole are bad at discussing ineffective decisions, and priorities in general. Please CMV. I don't know why this is. It could be that people want to spare each other's feelings, or don't want to bother stopping someone else from making a social mistake towards them by letting a little transparency slip (I won't respond if you talk to me further), or maybe people don't have their priorities in order to begin with so discussing ineffective decisions in general becomes muddled immediately. I'm fairly certain I think this because of the dearth of quality media available to help usher young teens into being relevant adults, by helping them overcome the feeling of having to learn so much they didn't know about the world without it interrupting their ability to continue being social and continuing to enjoy expressing their character and personality they've worked hard to forge through their childhood and teenage years. I think that dearth is relevant because it shows causally why the average conversation you hear about ineffective decisions don't lead to effective decisions, or if there is no dearth then it shows that ineffective decision making is so prevalent that it doesn't just cover talking about itself, but also covers people not seeking out how to better express themselves regarding ineffective decisions. Ineffective decisions in this situation would be things like not moving around most of your day doing productive things, not helping people who need help, not fighting any kind of addiction, not expanding your horizons, not learning about the world around you, not learning how to express yourself, etc. I've heard the explanation 'people want to learn at their own pace' and I can understand that. It doesn't mean that people who insist they are learning at their own pace aren't bad at discussing the ineffective decisions they make or see other people make towards the things they're coming across regularly though. Being good at discussing ineffective decisions is whatever occurs that has people actually making better decisions consistently towards whatever it is being discussed, either in their actions themselves which were previously ineffective or the ability to discuss and express yourself.

t3_248wev

CMV: If you have a problem with what Don Sterling said, you should also dislike Al Sharpton, Lyndon Johnson, and many other prominent Democrats.

Sterling's comments were clearly racist and contemptible. But why do people make excuses for people like Al Sharpton, Lyndon Johnson, Senator Robert Byrd, and many other prominent Democrats who have been, or are presently, clearly racist? Senator Robert Byrd was a prominent member of the Ku Klux Klan but his past was just completely ignored or excused by Democrats. My view is that racists need to be called out for what they are, no matter who they are. President Bill Clinton eulogized Byrd and essentially said (paraphrasing) that he had a bad past but made up for it... but Michael Richards is castigated? President Johnson advocated for the civil rights act and other very good legislation; however, on multiple occasions he specifically referred to African Americans as "niggers" and said he would trick them into voting Democrat for the next 200 years. Why does his racism get a pass but Sterling gets castigated? Why not castigate both? Al Sharpton is clearly racist. He has proved this over and over again by assuming that African Americans always tell the truth, cannot lie, and that all whites are liars and murderers-in-wait. He did it in the George Zimmerman case (also assuming GZ was white and lying) and did it in the Tawana Brawley rape case and several times in between. Why isn't Sharpton's racism grounds to castigate him? I think we should call a racist what he is and not give some people a pass for arbitrary reasons. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If you have a problem with what Don Sterling said, you should also dislike Al Sharpton, Lyndon Johnson, and many other prominent Democrats. Sterling's comments were clearly racist and contemptible. But why do people make excuses for people like Al Sharpton, Lyndon Johnson, Senator Robert Byrd, and many other prominent Democrats who have been, or are presently, clearly racist? Senator Robert Byrd was a prominent member of the Ku Klux Klan but his past was just completely ignored or excused by Democrats. My view is that racists need to be called out for what they are, no matter who they are. President Bill Clinton eulogized Byrd and essentially said (paraphrasing) that he had a bad past but made up for it... but Michael Richards is castigated? President Johnson advocated for the civil rights act and other very good legislation; however, on multiple occasions he specifically referred to African Americans as "niggers" and said he would trick them into voting Democrat for the next 200 years. Why does his racism get a pass but Sterling gets castigated? Why not castigate both? Al Sharpton is clearly racist. He has proved this over and over again by assuming that African Americans always tell the truth, cannot lie, and that all whites are liars and murderers-in-wait. He did it in the George Zimmerman case (also assuming GZ was white and lying) and did it in the Tawana Brawley rape case and several times in between. Why isn't Sharpton's racism grounds to castigate him? I think we should call a racist what he is and not give some people a pass for arbitrary reasons.

t3_29gd5c

CMV: Opinions do matter.

_____ I believe that opinions/beliefs do matter. For example, it was Hitlers opinion that jews were bad, and that led to 6 million deaths. Now, that is an extreme, but the point still stands. Just today I was talking with a friend about the Oil rigs and tar sands in Alberta. I told him it's disgustingly polluted and ruins entire habitats, climates, and could very well ruin Canada, and he disagrees. That's fine, I'm not ignorant about it, he can have his own opinion and values on it, but instead of seeing what I see he says "I'm more of a capitalist, and money is greater than environment". Whether or not that is true doesn't matter, it's the fact that his opinion, and similar opinions will ruin the environment of Canada. It was peoples opinion that blacks should be slaves, and peoples opinion that Gays are sub-human. It was also peoples opinion to free the blacks, and peoples opinion that are getting gay marriage legal. So, while they shouldn't matter, Opinions do matter imo. CMV yo

CMV: Opinions do matter. _____ I believe that opinions/beliefs do matter. For example, it was Hitlers opinion that jews were bad, and that led to 6 million deaths. Now, that is an extreme, but the point still stands. Just today I was talking with a friend about the Oil rigs and tar sands in Alberta. I told him it's disgustingly polluted and ruins entire habitats, climates, and could very well ruin Canada, and he disagrees. That's fine, I'm not ignorant about it, he can have his own opinion and values on it, but instead of seeing what I see he says "I'm more of a capitalist, and money is greater than environment". Whether or not that is true doesn't matter, it's the fact that his opinion, and similar opinions will ruin the environment of Canada. It was peoples opinion that blacks should be slaves, and peoples opinion that Gays are sub-human. It was also peoples opinion to free the blacks, and peoples opinion that are getting gay marriage legal. So, while they shouldn't matter, Opinions do matter imo. CMV yo

t3_3940s3

CMV: If I've established that I don't owe a debt collector any money and they still keep harassing me, it's ok to screw with the poor debt collector drone up to and including the point where their job is in trouble if I have that kind of time on my hands.

I've reported them to the FTC and the CFPB. I've played through their automated system and been told my account (I never had an account as far as I know) has been discharged. I've been so *fucking* polite with the service drones on the phone who are only giving me a hard time because they need to make rent and put food on their table. But I've had enough. I've looked up the way to ruin both profit margins and performance evaluations at these places and the only thing stopping me is my empathy for a person in a shitty job. Why should that empathy stop me? If nothing else works, if I can't get these people to leave me alone, why not fuck them right back and accept the collateral damage on my conscience?

CMV: If I've established that I don't owe a debt collector any money and they still keep harassing me, it's ok to screw with the poor debt collector drone up to and including the point where their job is in trouble if I have that kind of time on my hands. I've reported them to the FTC and the CFPB. I've played through their automated system and been told my account (I never had an account as far as I know) has been discharged. I've been so *fucking* polite with the service drones on the phone who are only giving me a hard time because they need to make rent and put food on their table. But I've had enough. I've looked up the way to ruin both profit margins and performance evaluations at these places and the only thing stopping me is my empathy for a person in a shitty job. Why should that empathy stop me? If nothing else works, if I can't get these people to leave me alone, why not fuck them right back and accept the collateral damage on my conscience?

t3_4tglsa

CMV: Taylor Swift is not a liar.

I'm a Kanye stan as much as the next guy, but I just don't understand the hub-bub about Kim's leaked phone call video. Taylor never quite denied that she received notice about the lyric, but in the video, Kanye only raps the first part: "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex..." omitting the next line where he calls her a bitch and claims responsibility for making her famous. It's clear that it is this SECOND line that Taylor has objected to, and not the first. There is no evidence Kanye ever had Taylor clear the entire song. Taylor claims, > “Where is the video of Kanye telling me that he was going to call me ‘that bitch’ in his song? It doesn't exist because it never happened. You don't get to control someone else's emotional response to being called ‘that bitch’ in front of the entire world.” As far as I can tell, Taylor was upset about the one lyric that Kanye did not share with her and there's no proof he ever did. Maybe there was some ambiguity, and on some level Taylor was being disingenuous because she at least *knew* about the song, but her outrage was hardly the manipulative, manufactured lie that it is being made out to be. I see no evidence that Kim's tape reveal shows anything we didn't already know, or contradicts Taylor's story in any way, but maybe I have my Facts wrong. Anybody willing to shed some more Highlights on this one? _____ > *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: Taylor Swift is not a liar. I'm a Kanye stan as much as the next guy, but I just don't understand the hub-bub about Kim's leaked phone call video. Taylor never quite denied that she received notice about the lyric, but in the video, Kanye only raps the first part: "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex..." omitting the next line where he calls her a bitch and claims responsibility for making her famous. It's clear that it is this SECOND line that Taylor has objected to, and not the first. There is no evidence Kanye ever had Taylor clear the entire song. Taylor claims, > “Where is the video of Kanye telling me that he was going to call me ‘that bitch’ in his song? It doesn't exist because it never happened. You don't get to control someone else's emotional response to being called ‘that bitch’ in front of the entire world.” As far as I can tell, Taylor was upset about the one lyric that Kanye did not share with her and there's no proof he ever did. Maybe there was some ambiguity, and on some level Taylor was being disingenuous because she at least *knew* about the song, but her outrage was hardly the manipulative, manufactured lie that it is being made out to be. I see no evidence that Kim's tape reveal shows anything we didn't already know, or contradicts Taylor's story in any way, but maybe I have my Facts wrong. Anybody willing to shed some more Highlights on this one?

t3_5vjbt9

CMV: White people rapping, although probably is an example of cultural appropriation, is not a bad thing

To start off with, this is not something that I wholeheartedly believe. I just really like a lot of white rappers (Eminem, Hilltop Hoods, Brother Ali, Grieves, Hollywood Undead). The big argument that I've heard as to why this is a bad thing is that white people don't understand what rap means to the black communty, nor do they understand the roots of hip hop music/culture. However, I have to assume that all of the rappers that I mentioned must be pretty knowledgeable about the importance and history of rap - it's just something you end up learning about it you're heavily invested in it. Even myself as just a consumer of rap, I've read a pretty fair bit about it. I also ofc listen to and respect the black greats. I don't think that it's bad that I prefer white rappers a lot of the time... but maybe it is. CMV. _____ > *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: White people rapping, although probably is an example of cultural appropriation, is not a bad thing. To start off with, this is not something that I wholeheartedly believe. I just really like a lot of white rappers (Eminem, Hilltop Hoods, Brother Ali, Grieves, Hollywood Undead). The big argument that I've heard as to why this is a bad thing is that white people don't understand what rap means to the black communty, nor do they understand the roots of hip hop music/culture. However, I have to assume that all of the rappers that I mentioned must be pretty knowledgeable about the importance and history of rap - it's just something you end up learning about it you're heavily invested in it. Even myself as just a consumer of rap, I've read a pretty fair bit about it. I also ofc listen to and respect the black greats. I don't think that it's bad that I prefer white rappers a lot of the time... but maybe it is. CMV.

t3_1cntqy

I believe smart people are superior. CMV.

As someone with a relatively high IQ, I cannot see how smart people are even comparable to "stupid ones". People of lower intelligence are often incapable of making good decisions, and are less likely to think ahead in terms of how their actions will affect the future. Often I find myself talking to someone and wondering how they can even function on a day-to day basis. I feel bad for having this opinion, so please CMV.

I believe smart people are superior. CMV. As someone with a relatively high IQ, I cannot see how smart people are even comparable to "stupid ones". People of lower intelligence are often incapable of making good decisions, and are less likely to think ahead in terms of how their actions will affect the future. Often I find myself talking to someone and wondering how they can even function on a day-to day basis. I feel bad for having this opinion, so please CMV.

t3_217z08

I have never, and will never, hire a woman under 50 years old for any position that is even mildly important. CMV.

My family owns a pretty big business (around 45 direct employees plus another 30 or so part-times) and I've always refused to hire child-bearing capable women for any important position, even when we were a lot smaller. The only women that work in my company are a few secretaries, and they are all too old to get pregnant, plus the girls who clean the factory every day after hours (they are not employed by me but a company I hired to clean however, so I don't care) It always made me feel like a bad person, but I will always put my company and my family's welfare over some employee's decision to get pregnant and simply force me to pay them not to come to work for two years while somehow managing with the workload she was getting paid to do, when you can simply hire a man with all the benefits without any of the troubles that employing women gives you. And that's without even opening the sexual harassment lawsuit can of worms, that although not the main reason, certainly doesn't help at all (it's not that I want to sexually harass women, it's just opening up yourself to liabilities). I also refuse to hire handicapped people for the same reason, maybe they are perfectly qualified for the job but why hire them and open myself up to many things that a regular man who is equally qualified would not give me, I don't see it. I am not a mysoginist, or at least I don't think so, my personal secretary, the one who actually runs the fucking place, is a woman. I have no problem employing 50+ year-old qualified women, it's just that those women aren't really in the business of sending CV's anymore for important positions and people in management positions are there for being good at their jobs for years in the first place before being promoted, something women can't do. I just don't see a single reason to hire a woman over a man, and many *many* reasons not to, I believe my financial security and my company's health are far more important than social justice. I think this is a logical position to take, CMV.

I have never, and will never, hire a woman under 50 years old for any position that is even mildly important. CMV. My family owns a pretty big business (around 45 direct employees plus another 30 or so part-times) and I've always refused to hire child-bearing capable women for any important position, even when we were a lot smaller. The only women that work in my company are a few secretaries, and they are all too old to get pregnant, plus the girls who clean the factory every day after hours (they are not employed by me but a company I hired to clean however, so I don't care) It always made me feel like a bad person, but I will always put my company and my family's welfare over some employee's decision to get pregnant and simply force me to pay them not to come to work for two years while somehow managing with the workload she was getting paid to do, when you can simply hire a man with all the benefits without any of the troubles that employing women gives you. And that's without even opening the sexual harassment lawsuit can of worms, that although not the main reason, certainly doesn't help at all (it's not that I want to sexually harass women, it's just opening up yourself to liabilities). I also refuse to hire handicapped people for the same reason, maybe they are perfectly qualified for the job but why hire them and open myself up to many things that a regular man who is equally qualified would not give me, I don't see it. I am not a mysoginist, or at least I don't think so, my personal secretary, the one who actually runs the fucking place, is a woman. I have no problem employing 50+ year-old qualified women, it's just that those women aren't really in the business of sending CV's anymore for important positions and people in management positions are there for being good at their jobs for years in the first place before being promoted, something women can't do. I just don't see a single reason to hire a woman over a man, and many *many* reasons not to, I believe my financial security and my company's health are far more important than social justice. I think this is a logical position to take, CMV.

t3_2y1qef

CMV:There is some scientifically valid evidence against compulsory childhood vaccines.

I'm a supporter of normalizing childhood vaccinations, and I think that they provide real benefit with negligible risk. However, I recently came across [an interesting article](http://peopleoverpolitics.org/2014/04/05/vaccine-truth-vs-propaganda/) that makes a compelling case against vaccinations. Of the highlights, records suggest that most of the worst diseases we vaccinate for were already becoming much less common at the advent of widespread vaccination, and that hygiene and access to clean water were more of a factor in eliminating disease than vaccines were. What really hooked my attention was the conspiracy theory aspect; I'm a believer in science and value the truth, but I'm very cynical about corporate abuses of ethics. You can see that major pharma companies have billions of dollars of profit to be made in vaccinations, and they might be powerful and influential enough to try suppressing any evidence that would disrupt their market share. If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, please let me know because I want to read it. Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article. Arguing to ignorance ('you aren't doing the clinical research yourself'), *ad hominem* ('conspiracy theorists are always wrong'), and appeals to authority ('the pharma company selling the drug says it's safe') are logically flimsy. I don't want to argue in favor of one side over another, I want to see someone address the points being made. EDIT: I'm convinced that the issue is resolved. There are a lot of logical fallacies and misleading statistics in the article, which only pretends to make an airtight case against vaccines. Thanks much to everyone who took the time to make an argument, I appreciate your efforts! _____ > *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 some scientifically valid evidence against compulsory childhood vaccines. I'm a supporter of normalizing childhood vaccinations, and I think that they provide real benefit with negligible risk. However, I recently came across [an interesting article](http://peopleoverpolitics.org/2014/04/05/vaccine-truth-vs-propaganda/) that makes a compelling case against vaccinations. Of the highlights, records suggest that most of the worst diseases we vaccinate for were already becoming much less common at the advent of widespread vaccination, and that hygiene and access to clean water were more of a factor in eliminating disease than vaccines were. What really hooked my attention was the conspiracy theory aspect; I'm a believer in science and value the truth, but I'm very cynical about corporate abuses of ethics. You can see that major pharma companies have billions of dollars of profit to be made in vaccinations, and they might be powerful and influential enough to try suppressing any evidence that would disrupt their market share. If anyone knows of something that addresses the points made in this article, please let me know because I want to read it. Please try to approach the issue by actually addressing the content of the article. Arguing to ignorance ('you aren't doing the clinical research yourself'), *ad hominem* ('conspiracy theorists are always wrong'), and appeals to authority ('the pharma company selling the drug says it's safe') are logically flimsy. I don't want to argue in favor of one side over another, I want to see someone address the points being made. EDIT: I'm convinced that the issue is resolved. There are a lot of logical fallacies and misleading statistics in the article, which only pretends to make an airtight case against vaccines. Thanks much to everyone who took the time to make an argument, I appreciate your efforts!

t3_4gybe5

CMV: As an individual, the benefits of preordering a game outweigh the negatives.

I'm talking specifically about what is positive and negative to me, here, not consumers as a whole. In two weeks, *DOOM* will be released, and while I have not preordered yet I am probably going to for these reasons: 1. There is absolutely no way that I am going to end up not playing it, and I am almost certainly not going to be waiting for it to go on sale, which would probably be months. 2. Preloading the game will allow me to play it several days earlier than otherwise. My internet speeds are such that it took about a week to download Wolfenstein: The New Order (a 50GB game) and DOOM is probably going to have a larger filesize, which means a longer download time. 3. Everything I've seen and played of the game so far is fantastic. I loved the multiplayer beta, and the singleplayer (my primary reason for playing the game) looks even better. There's also the preorder-exclusive multiplayer stuff, but it isn't why I would be preordering. The only negative I see to me as an individual is that if the game turns out to suck total balls I may have wasted my money. However, I'm going to be sceptical of reviews anyway; most reviews of the multiplayer beta were negative for reasons I disagree with, and the singleplayer might be the same. _____ > *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: As an individual, the benefits of preordering a game outweigh the negatives. I'm talking specifically about what is positive and negative to me, here, not consumers as a whole. In two weeks, *DOOM* will be released, and while I have not preordered yet I am probably going to for these reasons: 1. There is absolutely no way that I am going to end up not playing it, and I am almost certainly not going to be waiting for it to go on sale, which would probably be months. 2. Preloading the game will allow me to play it several days earlier than otherwise. My internet speeds are such that it took about a week to download Wolfenstein: The New Order (a 50GB game) and DOOM is probably going to have a larger filesize, which means a longer download time. 3. Everything I've seen and played of the game so far is fantastic. I loved the multiplayer beta, and the singleplayer (my primary reason for playing the game) looks even better. There's also the preorder-exclusive multiplayer stuff, but it isn't why I would be preordering. The only negative I see to me as an individual is that if the game turns out to suck total balls I may have wasted my money. However, I'm going to be sceptical of reviews anyway; most reviews of the multiplayer beta were negative for reasons I disagree with, and the singleplayer might be the same.

t3_2qo8rr

CMV: Harsh factory conditions, no social net, censorship and the Chinese Communist Party is a necessary evil to bring China, and along with it, Asia, back up to par alongside the rest of the players among the world stage.

You hear stuff about how the big bad China is repressing democracy in Hong Kong, you hear about articles bashing on China and their companies because of factory conditions and low pay, and the constant brushing off as China becoming a world power because "its constantly building ghost cities that will cause the real estate bubble to pop." Of course, no other country will overtake 'murica, and its a relief to see that a nation that upholds liberty and personal freedom leads the world, but I think that there is only one way that things can turn out that will bring eastern Asia out of crippling poverty, and that's China taking the #1 economically. The leading officials of the communist party leading China are ripe with corruption and greed, but they are smarter than a majority of the population in the western world, and the eastern world, and can lead China to become a nation prosperous enough that its wealth will leak into rural Asian nations and raise their living standards. The communist party, without a doubt, can be credited with the achievement of making China #2. There is one other billion numbered nation like China: India. It is a democratically elected government, although India is making leapas and bounds towards industrialization, the Chinese government already made them. India was in a better place than China in the 1900s and now here in 2014 you can see the positions are switched. India suffers from starvation and poverty, while China now only suffers poverty (I'm not saying it's completely devoid of hunger though obviously). From this, a lot of people can see that an authoritarian government can get things done a lot more efficiently ( if it has the right people in power) and should not be so quick as to instantly judge that a democracy is not always the best way that a nation can grow. Throughout history a pattern emerges, a country industrializes and urban centers form. You see China preparing for this as these "ghost cities" begin to fill up as rural China becomes more and more urban. I think the main point of what I am saying is that China is not the evil country that everyone makes it out to be, I'm saying that the Chinese government **roughly** knows what they are doing and will be the ones to bring eastern Asia out of its rut. CMV. EDIT: I forgot a comma in the title. Sorry, English is my first language.

CMV: Harsh factory conditions, no social net, censorship and the Chinese Communist Party is a necessary evil to bring China, and along with it, Asia, back up to par alongside the rest of the players among the world stage. You hear stuff about how the big bad China is repressing democracy in Hong Kong, you hear about articles bashing on China and their companies because of factory conditions and low pay, and the constant brushing off as China becoming a world power because "its constantly building ghost cities that will cause the real estate bubble to pop." Of course, no other country will overtake 'murica, and its a relief to see that a nation that upholds liberty and personal freedom leads the world, but I think that there is only one way that things can turn out that will bring eastern Asia out of crippling poverty, and that's China taking the #1 economically. The leading officials of the communist party leading China are ripe with corruption and greed, but they are smarter than a majority of the population in the western world, and the eastern world, and can lead China to become a nation prosperous enough that its wealth will leak into rural Asian nations and raise their living standards. The communist party, without a doubt, can be credited with the achievement of making China #2. There is one other billion numbered nation like China: India. It is a democratically elected government, although India is making leapas and bounds towards industrialization, the Chinese government already made them. India was in a better place than China in the 1900s and now here in 2014 you can see the positions are switched. India suffers from starvation and poverty, while China now only suffers poverty (I'm not saying it's completely devoid of hunger though obviously). From this, a lot of people can see that an authoritarian government can get things done a lot more efficiently ( if it has the right people in power) and should not be so quick as to instantly judge that a democracy is not always the best way that a nation can grow. Throughout history a pattern emerges, a country industrializes and urban centers form. You see China preparing for this as these "ghost cities" begin to fill up as rural China becomes more and more urban. I think the main point of what I am saying is that China is not the evil country that everyone makes it out to be, I'm saying that the Chinese government **roughly** knows what they are doing and will be the ones to bring eastern Asia out of its rut. CMV. EDIT: I forgot a comma in the title. Sorry, English is my first language.

t3_28lyug

CMV: People should make every effort to protect themselves from crime to avoid victim blaming.

I've read through some of the CMV posts about this topic, and I don't think that any have addressed the view I hold. Most of these involve rape, so ill use this as my example. If a woman goes out in revealing clothes, gets drunk and goes home with some guy and gets raped. Then of course the guy is at fault, and should be blamed. But my argument is that the woman should have done more to protect herself. She shouldn't have to think about other people, as the "Teach men not to rape" view goes. But then In this society we have to, as we never know who we are going to meet. And as a women in a higher risk group, she shouldn't have do in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world. If she had decided that she should, wear less revealing clothes, make sure she has a group of friends around or not drunk as much. But then got dragged away, then she couldn't be blamed, but then she would be much more less likely to be in that situation, due to them factors. TL;DR If someone protect themselves as best they can, then they shouldn't be blamed, but they need to be wary of other people. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People should make every effort to protect themselves from crime to avoid victim blaming. I've read through some of the CMV posts about this topic, and I don't think that any have addressed the view I hold. Most of these involve rape, so ill use this as my example. If a woman goes out in revealing clothes, gets drunk and goes home with some guy and gets raped. Then of course the guy is at fault, and should be blamed. But my argument is that the woman should have done more to protect herself. She shouldn't have to think about other people, as the "Teach men not to rape" view goes. But then In this society we have to, as we never know who we are going to meet. And as a women in a higher risk group, she shouldn't have do in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world. If she had decided that she should, wear less revealing clothes, make sure she has a group of friends around or not drunk as much. But then got dragged away, then she couldn't be blamed, but then she would be much more less likely to be in that situation, due to them factors. TL;DR If someone protect themselves as best they can, then they shouldn't be blamed, but they need to be wary of other people.

t3_3rk25j

CMV: Social statistics are not useful for changing minds, they only reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree with them.

So to start I'll define what I mean by social statistics. Statistics, that indicate things based in societal concepts, Not hard science. To clarify, I agree that over a large number of coin flips the odds will roughly come out to 50/50 The type of statistics I'm talking about are things like 51% of gamers being women. Both are strictly examples. Now that' it's been defined, I believe that social statistics are fairly useless in changing the mind of your opposition, because to validate themselves they require an extreme amount of nuance and specific modifiers. Any well reasoned opponent is going to look at how you came to your conclusion and go "Oh, so you arrived at your conclusion by including this ambiguous subgroup because it somewhat fits your metric." Beyond that point, changing their minds becomes essentially impossible because you were incapable of making a compelling argument without relying on an extreme outlier to the core issue for your stats. On the flip side of that coin, if someone already agrees with you, they will gobble your stats up as fact, and may not even fact check you. Supposing they do, they won't have any criticisms of how you came to that conclusion, because chances are they deemed the way you came to that conclusion as appropriate to the topic at hand. This concept weakens social statistics as a whole, because nobody is going to weaken their position by omitting immaterial results, and so the criticisms from the opponent will continue to bolster their position that "They can't make an argument that stands on its own two legs." 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: Social statistics are not useful for changing minds, they only reinforce the beliefs of people who already agree with them. So to start I'll define what I mean by social statistics. Statistics, that indicate things based in societal concepts, Not hard science. To clarify, I agree that over a large number of coin flips the odds will roughly come out to 50/50 The type of statistics I'm talking about are things like 51% of gamers being women. Both are strictly examples. Now that' it's been defined, I believe that social statistics are fairly useless in changing the mind of your opposition, because to validate themselves they require an extreme amount of nuance and specific modifiers. Any well reasoned opponent is going to look at how you came to your conclusion and go "Oh, so you arrived at your conclusion by including this ambiguous subgroup because it somewhat fits your metric." Beyond that point, changing their minds becomes essentially impossible because you were incapable of making a compelling argument without relying on an extreme outlier to the core issue for your stats. On the flip side of that coin, if someone already agrees with you, they will gobble your stats up as fact, and may not even fact check you. Supposing they do, they won't have any criticisms of how you came to that conclusion, because chances are they deemed the way you came to that conclusion as appropriate to the topic at hand. This concept weakens social statistics as a whole, because nobody is going to weaken their position by omitting immaterial results, and so the criticisms from the opponent will continue to bolster their position that "They can't make an argument that stands on its own two legs." CMV.

t3_1ednpj

I believe criticizing certain traits (e.g. homosexuality) as being "evolutionarily maladaptive" is pointless and often a justification for bigotry. CMV

There are billions of humans on this earth. Even if the highest cited numbers for incidence of homosexuality in the general population (10%) is correct, we're not going anywhere. There is no moral imperative for humans to reproduce just because they are humans; in fact, it might be more moral to refrain from reproducing. (The population growth disparity between developed and non-developed countries is another argument entirely - they're all human). If there were to be a global catastrophe that wiped out the vast majority of humans, our current breeding statistics would have little to do with how well we survived that. Despite this, CMV has seen a veritable deluge of threads that all boil down to "homosexuality is wrong according to science (!!!) because gay people are less likely to have children", and not a single thread arguing for the classification of other people who have few or no children as "lesser". Why the obsession? After all, if passing on one's genes is the final arbiter of morality, a serial rapist is the most moral being of all. I can't help but think these OPs are looking for a better reason than religion to justify feeling uncomfortable.

I believe criticizing certain traits (e.g. homosexuality) as being "evolutionarily maladaptive" is pointless and often a justification for bigotry. CMV. There are billions of humans on this earth. Even if the highest cited numbers for incidence of homosexuality in the general population (10%) is correct, we're not going anywhere. There is no moral imperative for humans to reproduce just because they are humans; in fact, it might be more moral to refrain from reproducing. (The population growth disparity between developed and non-developed countries is another argument entirely - they're all human). If there were to be a global catastrophe that wiped out the vast majority of humans, our current breeding statistics would have little to do with how well we survived that. Despite this, CMV has seen a veritable deluge of threads that all boil down to "homosexuality is wrong according to science (!!!) because gay people are less likely to have children", and not a single thread arguing for the classification of other people who have few or no children as "lesser". Why the obsession? After all, if passing on one's genes is the final arbiter of morality, a serial rapist is the most moral being of all. I can't help but think these OPs are looking for a better reason than religion to justify feeling uncomfortable.

t3_53df7z

CMV: Anyone who studies Krav Maga would be better off studying "real" martial arts

I will immediately concede that studying Krav Maga is better for self-defense than studying nothing. However, I think any student of Krav Maga would be better served spending their time studying a combination of Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu, wrestling, and/or boxing. I have 2 main problems with Krav Maga: 1) No full-sparring/competitions, 2) Gimmicky reliance on "dirty" techniques such as eye-poking and groin-shots. 1) Krav Maga is allegedly "too dangerous" to spar full-on. However, any distinction between relatively skilled practitioners is rendered untestable by this mentality. It's like a scientific hypothesis -- if you can't test it in controlled environment, you can't objectively assess it. How am I supposed to know my Krav Maga teacher's stuff really works compared to the Krav Maga teacher across town? How do I know my teacher isn't just better than literal novices, but comparatively is a novice himself compared to "real" practitioners? If you can't test any of it, it's all hypothetical. 2) There's this strange mentality about Krav Maga that because it is designed for real self-defense application, it has all these exclusive groin and eye attacks. In reality, there is nothing preventing someone trained in the aforementioned martial arts from attacking the eyes or groin in a street fight scenario. In fact, such a martial artist almost certainly has superior striking, defense, reaction time, and coordination than a Krav Maga fighter, so arguably he'd be *better* suited to throw and defend such strikes. With all of that in mind, I think it's clear that time spent studying Krav Maga is better than nothing, but inferior to studying other martial arts. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Anyone who studies Krav Maga would be better off studying "real" martial arts. I will immediately concede that studying Krav Maga is better for self-defense than studying nothing. However, I think any student of Krav Maga would be better served spending their time studying a combination of Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu, wrestling, and/or boxing. I have 2 main problems with Krav Maga: 1) No full-sparring/competitions, 2) Gimmicky reliance on "dirty" techniques such as eye-poking and groin-shots. 1) Krav Maga is allegedly "too dangerous" to spar full-on. However, any distinction between relatively skilled practitioners is rendered untestable by this mentality. It's like a scientific hypothesis -- if you can't test it in controlled environment, you can't objectively assess it. How am I supposed to know my Krav Maga teacher's stuff really works compared to the Krav Maga teacher across town? How do I know my teacher isn't just better than literal novices, but comparatively is a novice himself compared to "real" practitioners? If you can't test any of it, it's all hypothetical. 2) There's this strange mentality about Krav Maga that because it is designed for real self-defense application, it has all these exclusive groin and eye attacks. In reality, there is nothing preventing someone trained in the aforementioned martial arts from attacking the eyes or groin in a street fight scenario. In fact, such a martial artist almost certainly has superior striking, defense, reaction time, and coordination than a Krav Maga fighter, so arguably he'd be *better* suited to throw and defend such strikes. With all of that in mind, I think it's clear that time spent studying Krav Maga is better than nothing, but inferior to studying other martial arts.

t3_29bkpi

CMV: Shopping at thrift stores while rich-middle class is wrong.

I am from an upper middle class family who lives in a very well off town. To me shopping at a thrift store always was for people who couldn't afford normal clothes. I've donated lots of clothes to thrift shops assuming that it would go to people who need it. Recently a lot of rich kids in my town have started shopping at the local thrift shop looking for cheap hipster clothes. I think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them. To me it seems like going to a thrift shop is like going to a food bank. I'm not begrudging people who go to thrift shops who are poor. That is who they are for. I'm saying that rich people shouldn't shop there. _____ > *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: Shopping at thrift stores while rich-middle class is wrong. I am from an upper middle class family who lives in a very well off town. To me shopping at a thrift store always was for people who couldn't afford normal clothes. I've donated lots of clothes to thrift shops assuming that it would go to people who need it. Recently a lot of rich kids in my town have started shopping at the local thrift shop looking for cheap hipster clothes. I think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them. To me it seems like going to a thrift shop is like going to a food bank. I'm not begrudging people who go to thrift shops who are poor. That is who they are for. I'm saying that rich people shouldn't shop there.

t3_48816o

CMV: Margaret Thatcher is not only the worst modern British PM, but one of the worst leaders of Western World in the past century.

Thatcher implemented policies I firmly believe the UK are still paying for. Such as her major disrespect for Northern England and Scottish blue collar workers, the poll tax, her warmongering ways in correlation with the Falkland Islands, her cooperation in the Libya attacks with the U.S., the rampant anti-intellectualism in her policies, and her mass privatization of big businesses. Not only did these ideals flourish when she was in power, but also continued when John Major became the leader of Conservative and PM in 1990. I would be very interested in hearing a person defend Thatcher and her policies because I don't understand.

CMV: Margaret Thatcher is not only the worst modern British PM, but one of the worst leaders of Western World in the past century. Thatcher implemented policies I firmly believe the UK are still paying for. Such as her major disrespect for Northern England and Scottish blue collar workers, the poll tax, her warmongering ways in correlation with the Falkland Islands, her cooperation in the Libya attacks with the U.S., the rampant anti-intellectualism in her policies, and her mass privatization of big businesses. Not only did these ideals flourish when she was in power, but also continued when John Major became the leader of Conservative and PM in 1990. I would be very interested in hearing a person defend Thatcher and her policies because I don't understand.

t3_3v7k8p

CMV: Gender and Woman's studies is an unnecessary field of study.

I do not mean to say that the topics covered in this field are not worthy of study. However, I feel that the study of gender and sexuality and their effect on society is adequately represented by Psychology and Sociology. I imagine that Gender Studies has methodologies of study that differ from those of sociology and psychology and that is why it is a separate field. What I would like to understand is why the methodologies of psychology and sociology are inadequate to describe the effects of gender on individuals and society and how the gender studies view point is superior in this regard.

CMV: Gender and Woman's studies is an unnecessary field of study. I do not mean to say that the topics covered in this field are not worthy of study. However, I feel that the study of gender and sexuality and their effect on society is adequately represented by Psychology and Sociology. I imagine that Gender Studies has methodologies of study that differ from those of sociology and psychology and that is why it is a separate field. What I would like to understand is why the methodologies of psychology and sociology are inadequate to describe the effects of gender on individuals and society and how the gender studies view point is superior in this regard.

t3_4lkm9n

CMV: There should absolutely be a cap on how much money one can make.

Some people work harder than others. Some people are more intelligent. I believe you should be fairly compensated for your work. The average American makes 40k a year. If you are educated and have a masters degree, you might make 100k a year! If you are a scientist and find a cure for world problems like clean water or a crippling disease, you might earn 10 million dollars! But what about people that earn 50 million a year? 100 million? How about people that make 500 million - a billion a year? Like I said earlier, if you work hard and contribute to society, you should be rewarded appropriately. But if there was a cap on income at say, 50 million, that person would be indulgently set for life and there would be a lot more money to help problems in the world.

CMV: There should absolutely be a cap on how much money one can make. Some people work harder than others. Some people are more intelligent. I believe you should be fairly compensated for your work. The average American makes 40k a year. If you are educated and have a masters degree, you might make 100k a year! If you are a scientist and find a cure for world problems like clean water or a crippling disease, you might earn 10 million dollars! But what about people that earn 50 million a year? 100 million? How about people that make 500 million - a billion a year? Like I said earlier, if you work hard and contribute to society, you should be rewarded appropriately. But if there was a cap on income at say, 50 million, that person would be indulgently set for life and there would be a lot more money to help problems in the world.

t3_2gt8gz

CMV: Sarcastically degrading Women as a gender for a passive joke is offensive BUT so is doing the same for Men.

Telling your wife/gf to get her tits in the kitchen even when being playfully sardonic is offensive to most people, not only for the lack of humor but in principle. The joke is only funny as some form of anti-humor but nonetheless exists as a depressing reminder of oppressive gender roles experienced by everyone. When I see girls make similar jokes about men it's frustratingly hypocritical. "Guys? you mean sex toys that are rude?" should be no more acceptable than it's female equivalent. Yet self proclaimed feminists espouse that stuff enthusiastically, passing it around like my dad with an Obama meme. _____ > *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: Sarcastically degrading Women as a gender for a passive joke is offensive BUT so is doing the same for Men. Telling your wife/gf to get her tits in the kitchen even when being playfully sardonic is offensive to most people, not only for the lack of humor but in principle. The joke is only funny as some form of anti-humor but nonetheless exists as a depressing reminder of oppressive gender roles experienced by everyone. When I see girls make similar jokes about men it's frustratingly hypocritical. "Guys? you mean sex toys that are rude?" should be no more acceptable than it's female equivalent. Yet self proclaimed feminists espouse that stuff enthusiastically, passing it around like my dad with an Obama meme.

t3_25ssm0

CMV: I believe that if I catch a man having sex with my wife, I'm entitled to kill both of them.

Raising another man's child as my own is the biggest evolutionary con a man can go through. It's insulting, demoralizing, and enslaving. It's serious business, yet people treat it as if it was of no such severity. There's a risk for STD, it's an emotional bullet to the head, and all through the centuries people have been killing themselves because of love, loss and rejection. So how come we think it's immoral to exact revenge upon a cheating wife and a man who fucks her? And how come so many men think it's OK to bang another man's wife? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that if I catch a man having sex with my wife, I'm entitled to kill both of them. Raising another man's child as my own is the biggest evolutionary con a man can go through. It's insulting, demoralizing, and enslaving. It's serious business, yet people treat it as if it was of no such severity. There's a risk for STD, it's an emotional bullet to the head, and all through the centuries people have been killing themselves because of love, loss and rejection. So how come we think it's immoral to exact revenge upon a cheating wife and a man who fucks her? And how come so many men think it's OK to bang another man's wife?

t3_1xleos

23andme, and other genetic testing services, should be allowed to report health results. CMV

The FDA needs to back off. [This article](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/04/23andme-and-me-why-policymakers-should-set-the-genetic-testing-company-free.html) gives an overview, but here's my take. My wife and I both purchased kits prior to the FDA ruling to limit 23andme, and the kits were $99 each ($20 off the second one, too). After a few weeks of waiting, we got results that showed us what conditions we're genetically predisposed to, as well as what we might be carriers for. These results are valuable, and anyone who is curious about their genetics should have the right to know what research says about their genomes. Only months prior to ordering the home test kits, when we found out my wife was pregnant. We had tests done to test for certain things we might be at risk for (CF, Tay-Sachs, etc.), ant the tests through the medical establishment, while less accurate and nowhere near as broad in scope, were nearly $700. The FDA has inserted its nose into a potentially huge innovation, halting progress. As a professional in the healthcare field, I'm extremely irritated with the FDA's recent decisions. I think that they have the interests of the lab companies and the doctors who get kickbacks in mind. I don't like being this cynical; please change my view.

23andme, and other genetic testing services, should be allowed to report health results. CMV. The FDA needs to back off. [This article](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/04/23andme-and-me-why-policymakers-should-set-the-genetic-testing-company-free.html) gives an overview, but here's my take. My wife and I both purchased kits prior to the FDA ruling to limit 23andme, and the kits were $99 each ($20 off the second one, too). After a few weeks of waiting, we got results that showed us what conditions we're genetically predisposed to, as well as what we might be carriers for. These results are valuable, and anyone who is curious about their genetics should have the right to know what research says about their genomes. Only months prior to ordering the home test kits, when we found out my wife was pregnant. We had tests done to test for certain things we might be at risk for (CF, Tay-Sachs, etc.), ant the tests through the medical establishment, while less accurate and nowhere near as broad in scope, were nearly $700. The FDA has inserted its nose into a potentially huge innovation, halting progress. As a professional in the healthcare field, I'm extremely irritated with the FDA's recent decisions. I think that they have the interests of the lab companies and the doctors who get kickbacks in mind. I don't like being this cynical; please change my view.

t3_3ebfwz

CMV: ubiquitous, efficient camera surveillance system would be pretty neat

I think that (camera-based) surveillance state would be a pretty good thing, provided it's properly implemented. Here I'm focusing on cameras, not on NSA-style phone tapping, email interception, crossing databases, etc. So, imagine your country implements **OmniWatch™**. **OmniWatch™** is a widespread system of cameras placed in public and semipublic areas (malls, schools, hotels), connected to dedicated servers. These servers are capable of tracking people (using face recognition etc.) to the point where it's possible to know, for a given person, where they've been all day, and get images for it all. BUT, there are some limits on the system: * All **OmniWatch™** software is open-source and publicly available; running modified code on one of the servers is a grave felony * Only some officials are allowed to access **OmniWatch™** data, only in the form of specific queries (give me the recent trajectory of all people present at such-and-such location at such-and-such time); * The queries are a matter of public record (automatically published) * Querying something outside of a well-defined framework (investigating a criminal incident, destruction of property, etc.) is severely punished. * All data stored in **OmniWatch™** is encrypted in a way that stealing it would be very hard. * People who have the right to access **OmniWatch™** would be part of an independant organization from the police, military and courts, so as to reduce conflict of interest. So basically, assuming we have a robust people tracking system, and a robust way of making sure that information can only be used for investigating physical crimes, then we can get pretty neat results (I don't want to debate whether those assumptions can realistically be met). **Benefits we would get:** * **Whole categories of crime would basically disappear** : theft, assault, vandalism in public spaces would nearly systematically be caught, so I would expect them to drop off pretty quickly. * As a result, **we wouldn't need so many locks, alarms and cops** * Living in a poor neighbourhood would have less risks, so people wouldn't try as hard to outbid each other to live in "good" neighbourhoods -> real estate would probably be cheaper * Less vandalism and theft would make owning a store or restaurant etc. much less risky, so we would have more economic activity, more jobs. The common downsides of NSA-style surveillance (chilling effects, potential for blackmail, selective enforcement) don't seem to apply, so I don't really see any major downsides here (mission creep, maybe?). So, convince me that this Orwellian "Stalin's wet dream" scenario wouldn't actually be a great improvement to our societies :) _____ > *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: ubiquitous, efficient camera surveillance system would be pretty neat. I think that (camera-based) surveillance state would be a pretty good thing, provided it's properly implemented. Here I'm focusing on cameras, not on NSA-style phone tapping, email interception, crossing databases, etc. So, imagine your country implements **OmniWatch™**. **OmniWatch™** is a widespread system of cameras placed in public and semipublic areas (malls, schools, hotels), connected to dedicated servers. These servers are capable of tracking people (using face recognition etc.) to the point where it's possible to know, for a given person, where they've been all day, and get images for it all. BUT, there are some limits on the system: * All **OmniWatch™** software is open-source and publicly available; running modified code on one of the servers is a grave felony * Only some officials are allowed to access **OmniWatch™** data, only in the form of specific queries (give me the recent trajectory of all people present at such-and-such location at such-and-such time); * The queries are a matter of public record (automatically published) * Querying something outside of a well-defined framework (investigating a criminal incident, destruction of property, etc.) is severely punished. * All data stored in **OmniWatch™** is encrypted in a way that stealing it would be very hard. * People who have the right to access **OmniWatch™** would be part of an independant organization from the police, military and courts, so as to reduce conflict of interest. So basically, assuming we have a robust people tracking system, and a robust way of making sure that information can only be used for investigating physical crimes, then we can get pretty neat results (I don't want to debate whether those assumptions can realistically be met). **Benefits we would get:** * **Whole categories of crime would basically disappear** : theft, assault, vandalism in public spaces would nearly systematically be caught, so I would expect them to drop off pretty quickly. * As a result, **we wouldn't need so many locks, alarms and cops** * Living in a poor neighbourhood would have less risks, so people wouldn't try as hard to outbid each other to live in "good" neighbourhoods -> real estate would probably be cheaper * Less vandalism and theft would make owning a store or restaurant etc. much less risky, so we would have more economic activity, more jobs. The common downsides of NSA-style surveillance (chilling effects, potential for blackmail, selective enforcement) don't seem to apply, so I don't really see any major downsides here (mission creep, maybe?). So, convince me that this Orwellian "Stalin's wet dream" scenario wouldn't actually be a great improvement to our societies :)

t3_6vu7lf

CMV: The "Thin Gold Line" representing 911 dispatchers is a farce.

Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against first responders or those that help them. You've got the Thin Blue Line representing the police. You've got the Thin Red Line for firefighters. And I'd say that those are perfectly warranted; they're damn hard jobs with genuine danger involved. And then there's the Thin Gold Line. Came right out of nowhere to represent the dispatcher side of things. And to me, it cheapens the living hell out of the first two lines. Dispatchers are important, no question about it. But from where I sit their jobs are nowhere *near* on the level of a firefighter or police officer. Firefighters / EMTs go into situations where buildings are going up in flames and people are on the verge of dying. Police officers go into situations where there may well be someone waiting to open fire upon arrival. Dispatchers...sit in a room and answer calls. They provide addresses and some information. And then you see things like [this](https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d3/fb/04/d3fb043f2d94d73879de7420b575222a--safety-work--dispatcher.jpg), in the same vein as things like [this](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9f/b0/56/9fb0568347d09fa0234c6722d62cf4e9--police-officer-quotes-police-quotes.jpg) or [that](https://cdn3.volusion.com/pomkb.sfmxx/v/vspfiles/photos/D637-2.jpg). I see the last two and I think they're kinda cheesy, but whatever. I see the first one and all I can think is "*Get fucking real*". _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The "Thin Gold Line" representing 911 dispatchers is a farce. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against first responders or those that help them. You've got the Thin Blue Line representing the police. You've got the Thin Red Line for firefighters. And I'd say that those are perfectly warranted; they're damn hard jobs with genuine danger involved. And then there's the Thin Gold Line. Came right out of nowhere to represent the dispatcher side of things. And to me, it cheapens the living hell out of the first two lines. Dispatchers are important, no question about it. But from where I sit their jobs are nowhere *near* on the level of a firefighter or police officer. Firefighters / EMTs go into situations where buildings are going up in flames and people are on the verge of dying. Police officers go into situations where there may well be someone waiting to open fire upon arrival. Dispatchers...sit in a room and answer calls. They provide addresses and some information. And then you see things like [this](https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d3/fb/04/d3fb043f2d94d73879de7420b575222a--safety-work--dispatcher.jpg), in the same vein as things like [this](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9f/b0/56/9fb0568347d09fa0234c6722d62cf4e9--police-officer-quotes-police-quotes.jpg) or [that](https://cdn3.volusion.com/pomkb.sfmxx/v/vspfiles/photos/D637-2.jpg). I see the last two and I think they're kinda cheesy, but whatever. I see the first one and all I can think is "*Get fucking real*".

t3_3k9cb9

CMV: My friend believes that the pay gap in the UK is not a significant problem despite it being 'Approximately 93% of what men make' and that the class system is a bigger problem. I believe that's not the case.

I guess the best way to describe this would be that while I get that the UK has a bit of a class issue problem it doesn't effect the majority of people. We've gotten into two disagreements about it and one drunken row almost in which a friend of mine backed me up and told me that he was talking out of his ass. He's otherwise level headed and one of the smartest people I know and I would never really describe him as misogynistic though he does subscribe to a few traditional patterns. So is he an asshole or am I just subscribing to American views too much as because as far as I'm aware this is a global issue. EDIT: I know this is a controversial issue for most but can we just discuss this without it becoming heated?

CMV: My friend believes that the pay gap in the UK is not a significant problem despite it being 'Approximately 93% of what men make' and that the class system is a bigger problem. I believe that's not the case. I guess the best way to describe this would be that while I get that the UK has a bit of a class issue problem it doesn't effect the majority of people. We've gotten into two disagreements about it and one drunken row almost in which a friend of mine backed me up and told me that he was talking out of his ass. He's otherwise level headed and one of the smartest people I know and I would never really describe him as misogynistic though he does subscribe to a few traditional patterns. So is he an asshole or am I just subscribing to American views too much as because as far as I'm aware this is a global issue. EDIT: I know this is a controversial issue for most but can we just discuss this without it becoming heated?

t3_5lyloi

CMV: People who ask "What is the meaning of life?" are asking "Can I be your slave, respectfully and with some privilege?"

It is very very simple. Being a slave is many times just something people want, it is something people wouldn't feel bad at, it is a fact, if they get something good in return. People will say this statement as a way to announce their hunger por power. If they were treated with respect and promissed great things, a lot of people would accept slavery, this becomes evident when a human asks "What is the meaning of life". It seems a crazy concept, but it is not really. The answer is power. Humanity is crazed and infatuated for power. In order to gain power people do the craziest things, many go as far as murder millions, even billions of people if they could, so why be afraid of slavery by some superior force, if they might get something great in return? In the pursuit for power, people will ask the question "What is the meaning of life?" (It essentially means: For power, I would do anything, I would respectfully be your slave, command me and I will obey you.... and just think about it, when someone asks "What is the meaning of life", they will be selective of the answer given to then (this is the key point in my analysis of this question, that must never be overlooked, people are selective of the answer, they will choose the answer, defeating the purpose of the question, why ask something if you will select the answer you want?), people will only accept answer that gives something great to then, in return they would essentially accept slavery and obeying the new master like a dog, this sums up religion well too).

CMV: People who ask "What is the meaning of life?" are asking "Can I be your slave, respectfully and with some privilege?". It is very very simple. Being a slave is many times just something people want, it is something people wouldn't feel bad at, it is a fact, if they get something good in return. People will say this statement as a way to announce their hunger por power. If they were treated with respect and promissed great things, a lot of people would accept slavery, this becomes evident when a human asks "What is the meaning of life". It seems a crazy concept, but it is not really. The answer is power. Humanity is crazed and infatuated for power. In order to gain power people do the craziest things, many go as far as murder millions, even billions of people if they could, so why be afraid of slavery by some superior force, if they might get something great in return? In the pursuit for power, people will ask the question "What is the meaning of life?" (It essentially means: For power, I would do anything, I would respectfully be your slave, command me and I will obey you.... and just think about it, when someone asks "What is the meaning of life", they will be selective of the answer given to then (this is the key point in my analysis of this question, that must never be overlooked, people are selective of the answer, they will choose the answer, defeating the purpose of the question, why ask something if you will select the answer you want?), people will only accept answer that gives something great to then, in return they would essentially accept slavery and obeying the new master like a dog, this sums up religion well too).

t3_3a1jqb

CMV:Support of the post-revolution Ukrainian government by western media is immoral.

After the 2013-2014 revolution in Ukraine, a lot of things have happened. An internal conflict, resulting in a full-blown civil war, a serious clampdown on the free speech and free association, a lot of internal conflicts and hate driving a lot of refugees (including myself and my family) out of country, and while the war is a valid threat to the economy, corruption on the never-seen-before scale is literally killing the country. Western media is obviously whole-heartedly support the new regime, due to absolutely understandable geopolitical reasons. Yet, I believe by enabling the culture of hate, violence and corruption, a lot more unnecessary lives may be lost; thus, this media stance is immoral. 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:Support of the post-revolution Ukrainian government by western media is immoral. After the 2013-2014 revolution in Ukraine, a lot of things have happened. An internal conflict, resulting in a full-blown civil war, a serious clampdown on the free speech and free association, a lot of internal conflicts and hate driving a lot of refugees (including myself and my family) out of country, and while the war is a valid threat to the economy, corruption on the never-seen-before scale is literally killing the country. Western media is obviously whole-heartedly support the new regime, due to absolutely understandable geopolitical reasons. Yet, I believe by enabling the culture of hate, violence and corruption, a lot more unnecessary lives may be lost; thus, this media stance is immoral. Change my view.

t3_40brby

CMV: Right wingers are the real collectivists, despite claiming to believe in liberty and individualism.

Even though right wingers often accuse left wingers of being collectivists who want to punish individual choice and hard work for the sake of the greater good, I actually think the Right are the true collectivists. After all, they're the ones who think everyone should follow the same religion and speak the same language, and they value people based on their economic productivity to society and not for their value as an individual. In that sense they aren't really that different from Stalinist authoritarian communists. They're also much more nationalistic and patriotic than left wingers, and insist more on "fitting in" and being in tune with the mainstream and what's considered normal. Left wingers might be in favor of distributing wealth more equitably between classes, but this isn't because they believe in the collective above the individual. Quite to the contrary, they want to promote liberty and free choice by liberating people from hunger and poverty, something we have more than enough resources to do but not the will to do. They also want to challenge authoritarian power structures so people have more control over their own lives. What do you think? Am I missing something? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Right wingers are the real collectivists, despite claiming to believe in liberty and individualism. Even though right wingers often accuse left wingers of being collectivists who want to punish individual choice and hard work for the sake of the greater good, I actually think the Right are the true collectivists. After all, they're the ones who think everyone should follow the same religion and speak the same language, and they value people based on their economic productivity to society and not for their value as an individual. In that sense they aren't really that different from Stalinist authoritarian communists. They're also much more nationalistic and patriotic than left wingers, and insist more on "fitting in" and being in tune with the mainstream and what's considered normal. Left wingers might be in favor of distributing wealth more equitably between classes, but this isn't because they believe in the collective above the individual. Quite to the contrary, they want to promote liberty and free choice by liberating people from hunger and poverty, something we have more than enough resources to do but not the will to do. They also want to challenge authoritarian power structures so people have more control over their own lives. What do you think? Am I missing something?

t3_24ekn8

CMV: The iPhone 5s is a better long-term investment than a Samsung Galaxy S4.

Okay, my post requires a bit of setup, so read on please! I also think this is a relevant conversation to have since there have been (from what I can tell) no posts on the iOS/Android discussion since the release of iOS 7. I'll tell a little of my phone history. My first smartphone was a Motorola Droid 2 Global, back in 2011ish. I ditched it when I discovered the microphone wouldn't turn on during calls. Since I didn't text at the time, that was a deal breaker. I bought an iPhone 4s in 2012 and have had the same unit since. So in my personal experience, iPhone longevity > Motorola longevity. That's just background to the bigger issue at hand. My 2 year contract is up and I'm considering a new phone. So I'm here to get educated on the advancements in the Android OS and Android's hardware since 2011 and how they compare to iOS and iPhones. My working hypothesis, currently, is that in terms of how I use my phone (light app using, little to no games, heavy music listening and heavy texting and phone calling), the two phones in the title are perfect substitutes. I'm no audiophile, by any means, but the phone's built-in speakers matter little and less to me. Processor, memory, these don't matter terribly much to me. Screen size is not a concern between the competitors. I would need to upgrade to something along the lines of a Galaxy Tab or Note to see any appreciable increases in productivity. That's not really an issue, since I have an iPad to do my tablet-y things on. To elaborate on my statement in the title: The variety of features offered by iPhones make it as a unit superior to its Android counterparts. iPod and iTunes integration means my music is always accessible and playable. iCould sync means that I don't have to worry about my data. The fact that all of these services are free to use makes the iPhone a better use of my money than purchasing a comparably priced Android phone and paying money for comparable services. The widespread availability of accessories also increases the iPhone's value. Most importantly, features like iMessage decrease the overall cost of operating the phone, increasing its value as an investment (To be honest, I might have to upgrade my texting plan if I change phone types, since a large number of people I text also have iPhones). The App Store's selection, while comparable with the Android counterparts (Google Play, Amazon App, etc) is often more innovative, and new apps take longer to reach Android phones. This is not a question of hardware. This is a question of which offers the best features and gets me the biggest bang for my buck. Thank you, CMV! I'm interested to hear what you have to say! _____ > *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 iPhone 5s is a better long-term investment than a Samsung Galaxy S4. Okay, my post requires a bit of setup, so read on please! I also think this is a relevant conversation to have since there have been (from what I can tell) no posts on the iOS/Android discussion since the release of iOS 7. I'll tell a little of my phone history. My first smartphone was a Motorola Droid 2 Global, back in 2011ish. I ditched it when I discovered the microphone wouldn't turn on during calls. Since I didn't text at the time, that was a deal breaker. I bought an iPhone 4s in 2012 and have had the same unit since. So in my personal experience, iPhone longevity > Motorola longevity. That's just background to the bigger issue at hand. My 2 year contract is up and I'm considering a new phone. So I'm here to get educated on the advancements in the Android OS and Android's hardware since 2011 and how they compare to iOS and iPhones. My working hypothesis, currently, is that in terms of how I use my phone (light app using, little to no games, heavy music listening and heavy texting and phone calling), the two phones in the title are perfect substitutes. I'm no audiophile, by any means, but the phone's built-in speakers matter little and less to me. Processor, memory, these don't matter terribly much to me. Screen size is not a concern between the competitors. I would need to upgrade to something along the lines of a Galaxy Tab or Note to see any appreciable increases in productivity. That's not really an issue, since I have an iPad to do my tablet-y things on. To elaborate on my statement in the title: The variety of features offered by iPhones make it as a unit superior to its Android counterparts. iPod and iTunes integration means my music is always accessible and playable. iCould sync means that I don't have to worry about my data. The fact that all of these services are free to use makes the iPhone a better use of my money than purchasing a comparably priced Android phone and paying money for comparable services. The widespread availability of accessories also increases the iPhone's value. Most importantly, features like iMessage decrease the overall cost of operating the phone, increasing its value as an investment (To be honest, I might have to upgrade my texting plan if I change phone types, since a large number of people I text also have iPhones). The App Store's selection, while comparable with the Android counterparts (Google Play, Amazon App, etc) is often more innovative, and new apps take longer to reach Android phones. This is not a question of hardware. This is a question of which offers the best features and gets me the biggest bang for my buck. Thank you, CMV! I'm interested to hear what you have to say!

t3_4bpv69

CMV: The far left wing on the political spectrum is more humane and equal than being far right wing. So left-wing ideas are always going to be better for society overall.

(Disclaimer: I'm just hoping you all sort of get the point, I am not good at voicing my opinions, my views are observation and judgement out of experience.) What is better? What I mean when I say better is that it is more humanitarian. The ring wingers are more likely to support inhumane policies, such as the deportation of immigrants, and unfairness towards minority groups. They are more nationalistic, and more likely to support war. The far right's embodiment is Adolf Hitler. The craziest of right wing supporters are racists, war hawks, and the extremely religious. While on the craziest of left wing we would get hippies, nature conservationists, and supporters for equality. _____ > *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 far left wing on the political spectrum is more humane and equal than being far right wing. So left-wing ideas are always going to be better for society overall. (Disclaimer: I'm just hoping you all sort of get the point, I am not good at voicing my opinions, my views are observation and judgement out of experience.) What is better? What I mean when I say better is that it is more humanitarian. The ring wingers are more likely to support inhumane policies, such as the deportation of immigrants, and unfairness towards minority groups. They are more nationalistic, and more likely to support war. The far right's embodiment is Adolf Hitler. The craziest of right wing supporters are racists, war hawks, and the extremely religious. While on the craziest of left wing we would get hippies, nature conservationists, and supporters for equality.