Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_30udbo

CMV: Most people go through depression. Hence, depression is normal.

There's no doubt that depression exists and it is a very real phenomenon that people go through. A lot of people go through it, in fact, most people do. The majority of people go through depression. Those who truthfully say they've never been through depression are the minority. All of this leads me into thinking depression is just a natural state human beings go through every once in a while, it isn't a disease or mental illness, it isn't rare and it's carrier isn't special in any way. It's just a normal thing that happens to people, some more frequently than others, and some not at all.. Almost exactly like periods in females. E: for further clarification I am not talking about clinical depression. I'm using the word as vaguely as the average person. Since the terms are tricky, I just refer to clinical depression as *clinical depression*.

CMV: Most people go through depression. Hence, depression is normal. There's no doubt that depression exists and it is a very real phenomenon that people go through. A lot of people go through it, in fact, most people do. The majority of people go through depression. Those who truthfully say they've never been through depression are the minority. All of this leads me into thinking depression is just a natural state human beings go through every once in a while, it isn't a disease or mental illness, it isn't rare and it's carrier isn't special in any way. It's just a normal thing that happens to people, some more frequently than others, and some not at all.. Almost exactly like periods in females. E: for further clarification I am not talking about clinical depression. I'm using the word as vaguely as the average person. Since the terms are tricky, I just refer to clinical depression as *clinical depression*.

t3_4tbtqf

CMV: It is justifiable for politicians to be corrupt when not being so would cost more to society

To clarify, by "the alternative would cost more to society" I'm talking about situations like being one vote short of passing a law for free healthcare or college,^1 and a senator from the opposition saying he's willing to vote for it if he's paid $50K. In such a situation, I would be willing to pay the guy because I think free would grant enough benefits to be worth it. Alternatively, just bribing a politician or two is also justifiable to me if it breaks a deadlock in the legislative power. ^1 Please remember this is just an example of what I'm thinking, I'm not interested right now in a discussion about whether those things are good or not. Neither do I care that free college/healthcare is paid from my taxes. EDIT, points that arose from discussion that I pre-supposed but didn't make explicit: 1. I talk about corruption within the government when the legislative or executive branch are very close to achieving something but fall just short of it (like, party or coalition A has 49 seats out of 100 in the senate so they bribe 2 politicians from party/coalition B to vote for project X), not cases where a group outside of government bribes everybody to control it. 2. Corruption is not OK in the judicial branch. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is justifiable for politicians to be corrupt when not being so would cost more to society. To clarify, by "the alternative would cost more to society" I'm talking about situations like being one vote short of passing a law for free healthcare or college,^1 and a senator from the opposition saying he's willing to vote for it if he's paid $50K. In such a situation, I would be willing to pay the guy because I think free would grant enough benefits to be worth it. Alternatively, just bribing a politician or two is also justifiable to me if it breaks a deadlock in the legislative power. ^1 Please remember this is just an example of what I'm thinking, I'm not interested right now in a discussion about whether those things are good or not. Neither do I care that free college/healthcare is paid from my taxes. EDIT, points that arose from discussion that I pre-supposed but didn't make explicit: 1. I talk about corruption within the government when the legislative or executive branch are very close to achieving something but fall just short of it (like, party or coalition A has 49 seats out of 100 in the senate so they bribe 2 politicians from party/coalition B to vote for project X), not cases where a group outside of government bribes everybody to control it. 2. Corruption is not OK in the judicial branch.

t3_1gtkiw

I think some criminal lawyers are just as bad as the criminals they represent. CMV

I think some criminal lawyers are just as bad as the criminals they represent. Lawyers, despite their original intentions when finding their career path, care more about money than justice. They will help a guilty criminal get away with their crimes because if they are good at it, people will pay them a lot to do it. I think that knowingly helping a wrongdoer evade justice is just as bad, if not worse, than the original crime. What's more, I find it awful that despite everyone in the courtroom knowing the defendant is guilty, lawyers can manipulate the case in their favor, regardless of the truth. I don't think this opinion is true, because I'm sure any system, even in America, couldn't be *that* broken. I want to change this view because I think I just irrationally hate an entire profession.

I think some criminal lawyers are just as bad as the criminals they represent. CMV. I think some criminal lawyers are just as bad as the criminals they represent. Lawyers, despite their original intentions when finding their career path, care more about money than justice. They will help a guilty criminal get away with their crimes because if they are good at it, people will pay them a lot to do it. I think that knowingly helping a wrongdoer evade justice is just as bad, if not worse, than the original crime. What's more, I find it awful that despite everyone in the courtroom knowing the defendant is guilty, lawyers can manipulate the case in their favor, regardless of the truth. I don't think this opinion is true, because I'm sure any system, even in America, couldn't be *that* broken. I want to change this view because I think I just irrationally hate an entire profession.

t3_1me1nb

CMV I think US culture is one of the worst problems the world faces

From what I hear when I talk to my friends in the US (who are from the US but also share my point of view), read the opinions from US citizen on the Internet and also see what happens in US politics and media I have the impression the US is a country full of selfish, superficial and rather simple minded individuals (with a some exceptions of course). The extreme national pride is pointless, the crazy focus on getting rich and buying things is pretty sick, the superficial ideals that are embraced by the public and for example result in extreme celeb worship are rather stupid. The greed that is cherished in the name of capitalism seems to make it alright that the government is deeply involved with corporations. Corporations indirectly rule the US and come up with ridiculous laws that screw up people in the US and worldwide (or generate profits in case its time for another war and money for Haliburton and others). It wouldnt bother me if the US just did this to their own people. But the US and the US backed corporations play their games worldwide. All this can only happen because of the backwards and greedy culture in the US. The average US citizen either supports all this crap or just watches it happening. Im really happy about the polls that show how much the public view about the US in most countries has changed in recent years and even more in recent months. So cmv, what is there to like about the US culture?

CMV I think US culture is one of the worst problems the world faces. From what I hear when I talk to my friends in the US (who are from the US but also share my point of view), read the opinions from US citizen on the Internet and also see what happens in US politics and media I have the impression the US is a country full of selfish, superficial and rather simple minded individuals (with a some exceptions of course). The extreme national pride is pointless, the crazy focus on getting rich and buying things is pretty sick, the superficial ideals that are embraced by the public and for example result in extreme celeb worship are rather stupid. The greed that is cherished in the name of capitalism seems to make it alright that the government is deeply involved with corporations. Corporations indirectly rule the US and come up with ridiculous laws that screw up people in the US and worldwide (or generate profits in case its time for another war and money for Haliburton and others). It wouldnt bother me if the US just did this to their own people. But the US and the US backed corporations play their games worldwide. All this can only happen because of the backwards and greedy culture in the US. The average US citizen either supports all this crap or just watches it happening. Im really happy about the polls that show how much the public view about the US in most countries has changed in recent years and even more in recent months. So cmv, what is there to like about the US culture?

t3_4ni8l0

CMV: I don't see the point in supporting a candidate you know won't win

So a just a few weeks ago, this would have been aimed at Sanders supporters. Now, it's clear the same support is flying behind Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. These candidates will not win. Period. There is no historical evidence for their victory. There is no practical or probable path that leads them to win. Supporting them--voting for them especially--is a strategically bone-headed move for either end of the ideological spectrum. Let's say a Jill Stein voter is at 0 and Johnson at 100 along an itherwise meaningless number line. Then--for the sake of argument--we put Clinton at 25 and Trump at 75. Voting for Stein makes ti more likely that Trump--who is farther away from your 0 than Clinton is--will win. So instead of an ideological net loss of only 25, you have an ideological net loss of 75. So at most what you're holding on to is ideological purity, or principles beholden to your beliefs. What you are losing, however, is the net gain towards those beliefs. _____ > *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 see the point in supporting a candidate you know won't win. So a just a few weeks ago, this would have been aimed at Sanders supporters. Now, it's clear the same support is flying behind Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. These candidates will not win. Period. There is no historical evidence for their victory. There is no practical or probable path that leads them to win. Supporting them--voting for them especially--is a strategically bone-headed move for either end of the ideological spectrum. Let's say a Jill Stein voter is at 0 and Johnson at 100 along an itherwise meaningless number line. Then--for the sake of argument--we put Clinton at 25 and Trump at 75. Voting for Stein makes ti more likely that Trump--who is farther away from your 0 than Clinton is--will win. So instead of an ideological net loss of only 25, you have an ideological net loss of 75. So at most what you're holding on to is ideological purity, or principles beholden to your beliefs. What you are losing, however, is the net gain towards those beliefs.

t3_3og6hg

CMV: Regulated Capitalism is good unregulated Capitalism is not

more and more companies are striving for less and less regualtion in the first world. In my opinion people are acting less and less moral in name of working for a company, or doing it in their interest. I stand for more regulation on almost all fields including the government. It is key to make laws and regulations simple and easy to follow. The counter argument to this is, is of course the big brother society. But aren't we already heading this way but instead of the government there will be corporations? TLDR: My view, we need more regulation for capitalism to function in not be lead by it and race to the bottom on a morals and ethics

CMV: Regulated Capitalism is good unregulated Capitalism is not. more and more companies are striving for less and less regualtion in the first world. In my opinion people are acting less and less moral in name of working for a company, or doing it in their interest. I stand for more regulation on almost all fields including the government. It is key to make laws and regulations simple and easy to follow. The counter argument to this is, is of course the big brother society. But aren't we already heading this way but instead of the government there will be corporations? TLDR: My view, we need more regulation for capitalism to function in not be lead by it and race to the bottom on a morals and ethics

t3_1t9v7b

I believe that it is morally wrong to put lethal weapons on drones and any other future (or present) non-human soldiers. CMV

If we have the ability to remove our troops from the battlefield and have them be replaced by "robots", in whatever shape that takes, I fully support this idea. But, we should then limit the lethal capabilities they possess. Tranquilize; render unconscious; incapacitate in some manner, absolutely. Kill, no. The reason I feel this way is two-fold: 1, we should look to limit the amount of civilian casualties (and even enemy combatants) to as close to zero as possible; and, 2, in a sci-fi kind of idea, I don't want a possible Terminator scenario on our hands. And, to a further extent, I believe that if a soldier is sitting behind a computer controlling their drone, and is in a combat situation, it stops being real for them, and turns into a game, without the real-world consequences of needing to possibly kill someone really entering their minds, thus more indiscriminate murder. So, attempt to CMV.

I believe that it is morally wrong to put lethal weapons on drones and any other future (or present) non-human soldiers. CMV. If we have the ability to remove our troops from the battlefield and have them be replaced by "robots", in whatever shape that takes, I fully support this idea. But, we should then limit the lethal capabilities they possess. Tranquilize; render unconscious; incapacitate in some manner, absolutely. Kill, no. The reason I feel this way is two-fold: 1, we should look to limit the amount of civilian casualties (and even enemy combatants) to as close to zero as possible; and, 2, in a sci-fi kind of idea, I don't want a possible Terminator scenario on our hands. And, to a further extent, I believe that if a soldier is sitting behind a computer controlling their drone, and is in a combat situation, it stops being real for them, and turns into a game, without the real-world consequences of needing to possibly kill someone really entering their minds, thus more indiscriminate murder. So, attempt to CMV.

t3_4drn4l

CMV: Genderqueer is not a real sexual identity, it's a fashion trend like goth or hippie

I don't believe that 'genderqueer' is a real gender identity. It seems more like an attention seeking hipster trend than any real gender. Unlike dysphoric transsexuals who are clearly not faking, the only real requirements to be genderqueer seem to be that you have a strange haircut and radical leftist ideas. A few questions: 1) what even is 'genderqueer'? Unlike transgenders who want to be the other gender, what exactly is the difference between you and any other boy/girl? You have a bowl cut and dyed hair... is that really a defining point of your personality? 2) Why are genderqueer always radical leftists to begin with? There are gay and transsexual people who are very conservative and struggle to balance this with their identity (ex: Caitlyn Jenner, Ernst Rohm etc). However I am yet to see a *genderqueer* person like this. This suggests to me it is more of a political statement in line with their pre-existing point of view. 3) when you 'reject the gender binary' what are you rejecting? Male and female are established biological concepts applicable to 99.9% of the population (the exception being intersex people). Rejecting them would be like me rejecting the concept of time and space. It won't stop me ageing. Likewise, you can reject being male/female all you want, it doesn't change the reality that you are prone to ailments that effect men or women specifically (e.g. testicular cancer). Outside of biology, it really isn't so important anyway. Nowadays men and women can dress how and do what they want. If you want to wear a dress as a man, you can. No one will arrest you. Perhaps you should instead try to dispel the idea that only men/women do certain 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: Genderqueer is not a real sexual identity, it's a fashion trend like goth or hippie. I don't believe that 'genderqueer' is a real gender identity. It seems more like an attention seeking hipster trend than any real gender. Unlike dysphoric transsexuals who are clearly not faking, the only real requirements to be genderqueer seem to be that you have a strange haircut and radical leftist ideas. A few questions: 1) what even is 'genderqueer'? Unlike transgenders who want to be the other gender, what exactly is the difference between you and any other boy/girl? You have a bowl cut and dyed hair... is that really a defining point of your personality? 2) Why are genderqueer always radical leftists to begin with? There are gay and transsexual people who are very conservative and struggle to balance this with their identity (ex: Caitlyn Jenner, Ernst Rohm etc). However I am yet to see a *genderqueer* person like this. This suggests to me it is more of a political statement in line with their pre-existing point of view. 3) when you 'reject the gender binary' what are you rejecting? Male and female are established biological concepts applicable to 99.9% of the population (the exception being intersex people). Rejecting them would be like me rejecting the concept of time and space. It won't stop me ageing. Likewise, you can reject being male/female all you want, it doesn't change the reality that you are prone to ailments that effect men or women specifically (e.g. testicular cancer). Outside of biology, it really isn't so important anyway. Nowadays men and women can dress how and do what they want. If you want to wear a dress as a man, you can. No one will arrest you. Perhaps you should instead try to dispel the idea that only men/women do certain things.

t3_6z6op9

CMV: Low and Middle Class imigrants are net drains on the number of abailable jobs.

First, off i don't see anything wrong with increased competition. I believe that if an immigrant is better at a job he or she should get it. But, I often here that immigration is not a net loss of American jobs and this may br true, but it can only be the case for one of two reasons. 1.) They create more jobs than they take. This makes sense to me if one person comes over and starts a bussiness then their will be many jobs created from that. Their is also the increased consumption creating more demand, but I would find this hard to believe that this is the case for poorer imgrants. 2.) Immigrants take jobs that you cant give to americans. The idea is that these jobs are unfillable in the United States without immigrants. I dont like or entirely agree with this reasoning. The reason i dont like it is that explicitly states that we abuse immigrant labor to make it cheaper and that is good thing. The reason I don't agree with it is because we have not properly seen how high the pay is required to get americans into those jobs and if it is uneconomic at those wages. So for these reasons I find it hard to believe that poorer and especially middle class immigrants are not a net drain on jobs. Rich immigrants are left out because they have capital to start bussiness and they consume more so they can generate more demand for other jobs.

CMV: Low and Middle Class imigrants are net drains on the number of abailable jobs. First, off i don't see anything wrong with increased competition. I believe that if an immigrant is better at a job he or she should get it. But, I often here that immigration is not a net loss of American jobs and this may br true, but it can only be the case for one of two reasons. 1.) They create more jobs than they take. This makes sense to me if one person comes over and starts a bussiness then their will be many jobs created from that. Their is also the increased consumption creating more demand, but I would find this hard to believe that this is the case for poorer imgrants. 2.) Immigrants take jobs that you cant give to americans. The idea is that these jobs are unfillable in the United States without immigrants. I dont like or entirely agree with this reasoning. The reason i dont like it is that explicitly states that we abuse immigrant labor to make it cheaper and that is good thing. The reason I don't agree with it is because we have not properly seen how high the pay is required to get americans into those jobs and if it is uneconomic at those wages. So for these reasons I find it hard to believe that poorer and especially middle class immigrants are not a net drain on jobs. Rich immigrants are left out because they have capital to start bussiness and they consume more so they can generate more demand for other jobs.

t3_2o2r4t

CMV: The Police system is corrupt.

Hello, reddit. I currently hold a view that many others might hold or be against. I think that parts of the Police system are corrupt. You see, constantly in the news, stories about Police brutality and police are stopping civilians from recording footage of them. The Police are giving suspects, VERY little time to comply with them, and they end up beating the living shit out of them, tasing them, tear gassing, and pepper spraying, or hell, even multiple at once. And when the cases are being studied, they say "He/She acted appropriately" or "We'll give them 80 hour suspension for beating a man to death for no reason, and when he was compliant." Also the fact that police are breaking first amendment rights, by not letting civilians film it. There is another right they are breaking which is protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I've seen stories of Police knocking down doors without a warrant, and tazing those who deny them entry, because they do not have a warrant. What is the reasoning behind such acts? Is this right? ______________________________________________________ > *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 Police system is corrupt. Hello, reddit. I currently hold a view that many others might hold or be against. I think that parts of the Police system are corrupt. You see, constantly in the news, stories about Police brutality and police are stopping civilians from recording footage of them. The Police are giving suspects, VERY little time to comply with them, and they end up beating the living shit out of them, tasing them, tear gassing, and pepper spraying, or hell, even multiple at once. And when the cases are being studied, they say "He/She acted appropriately" or "We'll give them 80 hour suspension for beating a man to death for no reason, and when he was compliant." Also the fact that police are breaking first amendment rights, by not letting civilians film it. There is another right they are breaking which is protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I've seen stories of Police knocking down doors without a warrant, and tazing those who deny them entry, because they do not have a warrant. What is the reasoning behind such acts? Is this right? ______________________________________________________ > *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_6hz9ps

CMV:Saying 'Free speech only applies to government interference' is like saying 'But I'm a nice guy!!'

The common objection to the 'Nice Guy™' defence or vindication is that nice is the bare minimum,inoffensive thing you can say about someone, not recommending them on any level or making them attactive or intriguing or worthy. I also think the same about people who oppose free speech advocates objections to encroachments on free speech on the grounds that 'it only applies to government interference'.If the best justification you can find for suppressing free intercourse is that it technically not covered, this is a pretty poverty stricken basis to object with. Free Speech is an open philosophical debate about the place,limits and substance of free speech within a society..it is not just a textbook technical definition.The legal definition which differs from place to place is the current state of the deadlock and official consensus but in any given society there are significant minorities who want to expand or clamp down completely on free speech. There are lots of reasons to find the desire to suppress free expression of thought objectionable even if plausibly moral reasons are given for doing so: 1.Clampdowns always ultimately impact the powerless and minorities more 2.Clampdowns are almost always turned directly on minorities as soon as possible 3.The ability to even articulate the objections above and the ones to follow are obstructed or made impossible by restrictions 4.The premise of 'unacceptable thoughts' is a recipe for generating dishonesty, even in otherwise decent people 5.Explicit refusal to tolerate unpopular views creates backlashes that usually become conservative and reactionary 6.A narrow technical understanding and application of free speech is not supportive of the entailing principles..truth,truth to power, probity of institutional power, expression of psychological and cultural diversity etc I could go on but this is enough meat on this skeleton for now.

CMV:Saying 'Free speech only applies to government interference' is like saying 'But I'm a nice guy!!'. The common objection to the 'Nice Guy™' defence or vindication is that nice is the bare minimum,inoffensive thing you can say about someone, not recommending them on any level or making them attactive or intriguing or worthy. I also think the same about people who oppose free speech advocates objections to encroachments on free speech on the grounds that 'it only applies to government interference'.If the best justification you can find for suppressing free intercourse is that it technically not covered, this is a pretty poverty stricken basis to object with. Free Speech is an open philosophical debate about the place,limits and substance of free speech within a society..it is not just a textbook technical definition.The legal definition which differs from place to place is the current state of the deadlock and official consensus but in any given society there are significant minorities who want to expand or clamp down completely on free speech. There are lots of reasons to find the desire to suppress free expression of thought objectionable even if plausibly moral reasons are given for doing so: 1.Clampdowns always ultimately impact the powerless and minorities more 2.Clampdowns are almost always turned directly on minorities as soon as possible 3.The ability to even articulate the objections above and the ones to follow are obstructed or made impossible by restrictions 4.The premise of 'unacceptable thoughts' is a recipe for generating dishonesty, even in otherwise decent people 5.Explicit refusal to tolerate unpopular views creates backlashes that usually become conservative and reactionary 6.A narrow technical understanding and application of free speech is not supportive of the entailing principles..truth,truth to power, probity of institutional power, expression of psychological and cultural diversity etc I could go on but this is enough meat on this skeleton for now.

t3_4qp2ka

CMV: I haven't read or watched The Divergent series because it seems really boring

I first came across the series when I saw the trailer for the first movie, and thought it was like a discount Hunger Games; It hit all the same boring notes: Dystopian future, rebellious young people, discrimination, war, love triangle etc. I was also not drawn to anyone in the cast, just knew the girl was the same actress from The Fault in our Stars, and while I enjoyed that movie, I'm not a huge fan of her (not to say I dislike her, she's ok). I formed this opinion based solely on this movie jumping on the "Young Adult book series - inspired" movie bandwagon, but since I've never read the books or watched the movies, I know this opinion is unfounded. I don't have anyone in my friend circle that has read the books aside from young teenagers (14-16) who, according to their older siblings (who are my friends) just read it for the love triangle. I also want to change my opinion about this series because I really enjoy movies, so even though I know the series is generally badly rated, I would like to give it a chance if the plot is redeemable. (first post so I'm not sure if I keep the footnote) _____ > *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 haven't read or watched The Divergent series because it seems really boring. I first came across the series when I saw the trailer for the first movie, and thought it was like a discount Hunger Games; It hit all the same boring notes: Dystopian future, rebellious young people, discrimination, war, love triangle etc. I was also not drawn to anyone in the cast, just knew the girl was the same actress from The Fault in our Stars, and while I enjoyed that movie, I'm not a huge fan of her (not to say I dislike her, she's ok). I formed this opinion based solely on this movie jumping on the "Young Adult book series - inspired" movie bandwagon, but since I've never read the books or watched the movies, I know this opinion is unfounded. I don't have anyone in my friend circle that has read the books aside from young teenagers (14-16) who, according to their older siblings (who are my friends) just read it for the love triangle. I also want to change my opinion about this series because I really enjoy movies, so even though I know the series is generally badly rated, I would like to give it a chance if the plot is redeemable. (first post so I'm not sure if I keep the footnote)

t3_2h5fzy

CMV:The internet has made rote learning completely obsolete and education should be entirely focused on critical thinking.

With the advent of the internet, there is absolutely no need for people to have to memorize facts and formulas taught in current educational systems. I believe that most school curriculums and standardized tests still put far too much emphasis on memorization rather than actual thinking, even among school systems that are considered to be more advanced. (e.g. University and College level). Even though certain countries are actually trying to move towards a more critical thinking focused approach to learning, I think that the entire purpose of education in this day and age should be problem solving, with no expectation of students to have things memorized. Teachers should be primarily trained to create problems not disseminate easily searchable information. Standardized tests should focus solely on higher order problem solving and allow students to have access to basic facts (formulas for maths, dates and events for history) during exams. I don't think any amount of memorization will ever make a human being better than google or even the most basic of digital textbooks so why do we bother? Even subjects like Spanish or Art would be better served by these systems since their real-world use requires more than just memorization. I believe that education at all levels is completely outdated and needs a massive overhaul if we are to use our resources to their best advantage. Reddit, change my view. Edit: I just wanted to clarify, my view is not that people should not able to rapidly recall information without using external sources. I definitely wouldn't want my doctor to have to consult wikipedia every time I asked him a question. I am solely arguing from an educational standpoint. People should be thought and tested on concepts such as "Explain how the second World War effected the 1940's", which requires them to know that it ended in 1945, but only indirectly, in favor of being able to relate that fact to the real world. Edit 2: I just wanted to clarify what I mean by rote learning as defined by Wikipedia. "Rote learning is a memorization technique based on repetition. The idea is that one will be able to quickly recall the meaning of the material the more one repeats it." _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:The internet has made rote learning completely obsolete and education should be entirely focused on critical thinking. With the advent of the internet, there is absolutely no need for people to have to memorize facts and formulas taught in current educational systems. I believe that most school curriculums and standardized tests still put far too much emphasis on memorization rather than actual thinking, even among school systems that are considered to be more advanced. (e.g. University and College level). Even though certain countries are actually trying to move towards a more critical thinking focused approach to learning, I think that the entire purpose of education in this day and age should be problem solving, with no expectation of students to have things memorized. Teachers should be primarily trained to create problems not disseminate easily searchable information. Standardized tests should focus solely on higher order problem solving and allow students to have access to basic facts (formulas for maths, dates and events for history) during exams. I don't think any amount of memorization will ever make a human being better than google or even the most basic of digital textbooks so why do we bother? Even subjects like Spanish or Art would be better served by these systems since their real-world use requires more than just memorization. I believe that education at all levels is completely outdated and needs a massive overhaul if we are to use our resources to their best advantage. Reddit, change my view. Edit: I just wanted to clarify, my view is not that people should not able to rapidly recall information without using external sources. I definitely wouldn't want my doctor to have to consult wikipedia every time I asked him a question. I am solely arguing from an educational standpoint. People should be thought and tested on concepts such as "Explain how the second World War effected the 1940's", which requires them to know that it ended in 1945, but only indirectly, in favor of being able to relate that fact to the real world. Edit 2: I just wanted to clarify what I mean by rote learning as defined by Wikipedia. "Rote learning is a memorization technique based on repetition. The idea is that one will be able to quickly recall the meaning of the material the more one repeats it."

t3_73g5mq

CMV: OJ did it.

Lawyer here. Wife and I just finished People v. OJ (I know we're a little late to the party). I recall this verdict being read on television, and all us children shouting in excitement at his acquittal (I grew up in Buffalo too, so there's that). Over the years I read a few books on that trial, went to law school, and now have been practicing almost ten years. Hell, I even wrote a book about a black guy wrongfully accused of killing his wife... and in all that time, research, reading, and viewing I cannot, for the life of me, understand how OJ was acquitted. The evidence is so **overwhelming**. The guy clearly killed those two people *beyond* beyond a reasonable doubt. It also makes me question the black community, who overwhelmingly supported the OJ-is-innocent narrative despite this overwhelming evidence. But I'm open to change. So let's hear it. Despite the blood, the gloves' uniqueness, the cut, the timeline, and the Bronco hoopla, someone explain how he didn't do it. _____ > *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: OJ did it. Lawyer here. Wife and I just finished People v. OJ (I know we're a little late to the party). I recall this verdict being read on television, and all us children shouting in excitement at his acquittal (I grew up in Buffalo too, so there's that). Over the years I read a few books on that trial, went to law school, and now have been practicing almost ten years. Hell, I even wrote a book about a black guy wrongfully accused of killing his wife... and in all that time, research, reading, and viewing I cannot, for the life of me, understand how OJ was acquitted. The evidence is so **overwhelming**. The guy clearly killed those two people *beyond* beyond a reasonable doubt. It also makes me question the black community, who overwhelmingly supported the OJ-is-innocent narrative despite this overwhelming evidence. But I'm open to change. So let's hear it. Despite the blood, the gloves' uniqueness, the cut, the timeline, and the Bronco hoopla, someone explain how he didn't do it.

t3_1dzqaz

I believe that the new "score hiding" system is poorly done and only makes viewing comment threads more annoying. CMV

The intention is to allow people to not upvote other posts simply because they already have upvotes, but it didn't address the reason that upvoted posts gather more upvotes. No one looks at a comment and thinks, "Wow, 2140 other people liked this, certainly it's worth another!" Rather, the reason that upvoted posts accumulate upvotes is simply because they get seen more. People stop scrolling down at some point. And even with votes hidden, *reddit doesn't change the sort order*. Upvoted posts still gather upvotes like a torrent.

I believe that the new "score hiding" system is poorly done and only makes viewing comment threads more annoying. CMV. The intention is to allow people to not upvote other posts simply because they already have upvotes, but it didn't address the reason that upvoted posts gather more upvotes. No one looks at a comment and thinks, "Wow, 2140 other people liked this, certainly it's worth another!" Rather, the reason that upvoted posts accumulate upvotes is simply because they get seen more. People stop scrolling down at some point. And even with votes hidden, *reddit doesn't change the sort order*. Upvoted posts still gather upvotes like a torrent.

t3_48i978

CMV:I want to believe there is a God, but I don’t. Can anyone convince me why I should?

I do not believe that God exists because I am unaware of any reasonable evidence that God does exist. Saying because “we are here” is not convincing. I asked so many questions in Sunday bible studies class that they asked me to stop coming. I studied religion in college and it seemed like religion was more based on faith instead of reasoning. Having “faith” or “belief” that there is a God doesn’t make it true without some logical reasoning or evidence. Many believe religion helps people and forms a sense of community. I agree but does that mean God is real? Also, a recent poll found that “most British people think religion causes more harm than good according to a survey commissioned by the Huffington Post. Surprisingly, even among those who describe themselves as “very religious” 20 percent say that religion is harmful to society. For that we can probably thank the internet, which broadcasts everything from Isis beheadings, to stories about Catholic hospitals denying care to miscarrying women, to lists of wild and weird religious beliefs, to articles about psychological harms from Bible-believing Christianity.” I’m sure if there is a God, that we were not put on Earth as some kind of test to see if we are good or bad. _____ > *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 want to believe there is a God, but I don’t. Can anyone convince me why I should?. I do not believe that God exists because I am unaware of any reasonable evidence that God does exist. Saying because “we are here” is not convincing. I asked so many questions in Sunday bible studies class that they asked me to stop coming. I studied religion in college and it seemed like religion was more based on faith instead of reasoning. Having “faith” or “belief” that there is a God doesn’t make it true without some logical reasoning or evidence. Many believe religion helps people and forms a sense of community. I agree but does that mean God is real? Also, a recent poll found that “most British people think religion causes more harm than good according to a survey commissioned by the Huffington Post. Surprisingly, even among those who describe themselves as “very religious” 20 percent say that religion is harmful to society. For that we can probably thank the internet, which broadcasts everything from Isis beheadings, to stories about Catholic hospitals denying care to miscarrying women, to lists of wild and weird religious beliefs, to articles about psychological harms from Bible-believing Christianity.” I’m sure if there is a God, that we were not put on Earth as some kind of test to see if we are good or bad.

t3_28964m

CMV: Against Capital Punishment

I am generally against the use of the death penalty on moral reasons for practically every reason other than crimes against humanity, as I think killing another person is an issue that concerns humanity in general. I don't think it has moral use for other heinous crimes such as murder or rape in practically every circumstance. I can see why people here have the opposite opinion and so I'm willing to change my mind. I'm hoping to hear something new though, and not just an argument saying how bad some examples are. Edit: My moral reasons rest in the fact that killing a person is against humanity. Therefore capital punishment should be used for something that goes against humanity itself.

CMV: Against Capital Punishment. I am generally against the use of the death penalty on moral reasons for practically every reason other than crimes against humanity, as I think killing another person is an issue that concerns humanity in general. I don't think it has moral use for other heinous crimes such as murder or rape in practically every circumstance. I can see why people here have the opposite opinion and so I'm willing to change my mind. I'm hoping to hear something new though, and not just an argument saying how bad some examples are. Edit: My moral reasons rest in the fact that killing a person is against humanity. Therefore capital punishment should be used for something that goes against humanity itself.

t3_3l918h

CMV: The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21.

The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21 primarily for one simple reason. It would give all the kids who now join out of high school more time to weigh the consequences of their decision. Recruiters prey on these kids, their lack of experience and maturity, and many who join the service at this age live (or not) to regret their decision. A second, less important reason is that it would erase the hypocrisy of the current laws regarding drinking, wherein one can fight and die in war at 18, but cannot sip a bit of whiskey til the age of 21. Edit: No one has quite changed my mind, but you have also provided me with differing perspectives that expand my own. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to "well, what the hell else would I have done at 18? Sat around til 21?" I disagree with this mentality. Raising the age to 21 would effectively give a person who is considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join. A kid fresh out of high school has little to no real world experience, and, therefore, no perspective. The years between 18 and 21 could be used as an introductory period to a legal adulthood of 21. At 18, most people, in my experience, are not ready and do not feel capable of being adults. _____ > *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 age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21. The age at which a person is allowed to join the military should be raised to 21 primarily for one simple reason. It would give all the kids who now join out of high school more time to weigh the consequences of their decision. Recruiters prey on these kids, their lack of experience and maturity, and many who join the service at this age live (or not) to regret their decision. A second, less important reason is that it would erase the hypocrisy of the current laws regarding drinking, wherein one can fight and die in war at 18, but cannot sip a bit of whiskey til the age of 21. Edit: No one has quite changed my mind, but you have also provided me with differing perspectives that expand my own. Most of your arguments seem to boil down to "well, what the hell else would I have done at 18? Sat around til 21?" I disagree with this mentality. Raising the age to 21 would effectively give a person who is considering enlisting about 3 years real world experience before deciding whether they really want to join. A kid fresh out of high school has little to no real world experience, and, therefore, no perspective. The years between 18 and 21 could be used as an introductory period to a legal adulthood of 21. At 18, most people, in my experience, are not ready and do not feel capable of being adults.

t3_1zylpc

I'm an American and I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a terrible waste of blood and treasure. CMV

According the the 9/11 commission report the al-Qaeda attack on America on 9/11 cost them around $500,000 whereas the total amount project for both wars are estimated to become about 5 Trillion dollars after we include the potential medical costs for our veterans. The problem is that I don't feel any safer, I feel as though we have angered the rest of the entire world, and that is money that we could have used to fix our aging road/rail/bridge infrastructure. To me it seems the only people who came out good in this deal are the defense contractors. Someone please tell me that I'm mistaken and that someday history will judge us as heroes.

I'm an American and I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a terrible waste of blood and treasure. CMV. According the the 9/11 commission report the al-Qaeda attack on America on 9/11 cost them around $500,000 whereas the total amount project for both wars are estimated to become about 5 Trillion dollars after we include the potential medical costs for our veterans. The problem is that I don't feel any safer, I feel as though we have angered the rest of the entire world, and that is money that we could have used to fix our aging road/rail/bridge infrastructure. To me it seems the only people who came out good in this deal are the defense contractors. Someone please tell me that I'm mistaken and that someday history will judge us as heroes.

t3_1dqdlu

In most cases, suicide should be shunned and looked down upon.[Read description]

[CMV] In cases like: a) Major mental issues b) In physical pain and cant stop it c) lost use for most of their body d) Medical reasons A long them lines, suicide should be accepted and treated well. In other cases, 0 Remorse should be felt for the person who committed suicide. Only feel sorry for their family and friends. I think this for a few reasons such as; committing suicide leaves behind more pain than it cures. ask if you'd like more.

In most cases, suicide should be shunned and looked down upon.[Read description]. [CMV] In cases like: a) Major mental issues b) In physical pain and cant stop it c) lost use for most of their body d) Medical reasons A long them lines, suicide should be accepted and treated well. In other cases, 0 Remorse should be felt for the person who committed suicide. Only feel sorry for their family and friends. I think this for a few reasons such as; committing suicide leaves behind more pain than it cures. ask if you'd like more.

t3_3lgqk8

CMV:I think I have figured out a good compromise on illegal immigration. Change my View

I haven't really seen anyone trying to take a middle of the road approach to Illegal Immigration so here is my 3 step process to fix it. 1)Grant citizenship to everyone who is already here illegally. 2)Pass laws punishing companies that use illegal immigrants, to stop their reason for coming. 3)Amend the constitution so babies that are born to illegal immigrants are NOT granted citizen status. I think both sides win and both sides lose, which means, at least to me, it must be a good compromise. The side against Illigal immigration have to realize that the problem is not the fault of the people who come here illegally, but rather the people who set up the system in order to exploit the workers. If we are really to stop illegal immigration, we need to take away their ability to work here. (Consequently, if people are really against illegal immigration, they have to realize it might have an effect on their pocket books.) > *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 I have figured out a good compromise on illegal immigration. Change my View. I haven't really seen anyone trying to take a middle of the road approach to Illegal Immigration so here is my 3 step process to fix it. 1)Grant citizenship to everyone who is already here illegally. 2)Pass laws punishing companies that use illegal immigrants, to stop their reason for coming. 3)Amend the constitution so babies that are born to illegal immigrants are NOT granted citizen status. I think both sides win and both sides lose, which means, at least to me, it must be a good compromise. The side against Illigal immigration have to realize that the problem is not the fault of the people who come here illegally, but rather the people who set up the system in order to exploit the workers. If we are really to stop illegal immigration, we need to take away their ability to work here. (Consequently, if people are really against illegal immigration, they have to realize it might have an effect on their pocket books.) > *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_3rrhbz

[Mod Post] Official Meet the Mods Thread!

Hello, everyone! As discussed [earlier this week](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3rhzde/mod_post_meet_the_mods_this_friday_116/?ref=search_posts), we are having a Q&A today where you can "meet the mods." This Q&A will be **on-going** starting at **9am EST** **today, Friday, 11/6**. **[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/moderators)** is a list of current moderators. Feel free to ask us any questions about the subreddit and ourselves. We're all looking forward to getting to know you better and, hopefully, vice versa. Moderators will be distinguishing their comments so you know who is who. Some caveats! - While we're happy to accept generalized critiques, this is **not** the place to appeal individualized grievances, and such comments *will* be removed. Please formally appeal your comment or post if you'd like to do that. - Please keep personal identifying information to a minimum. - Rule 1 is suspended. - Rule 2 is *not* suspended. Please be respectful and courteous to anyone you're talking with. - Rule 5 is suspended unless it's spammy.

[Mod Post] Official Meet the Mods Thread!. Hello, everyone! As discussed [earlier this week](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3rhzde/mod_post_meet_the_mods_this_friday_116/?ref=search_posts), we are having a Q&A today where you can "meet the mods." This Q&A will be **on-going** starting at **9am EST** **today, Friday, 11/6**. **[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/moderators)** is a list of current moderators. Feel free to ask us any questions about the subreddit and ourselves. We're all looking forward to getting to know you better and, hopefully, vice versa. Moderators will be distinguishing their comments so you know who is who. Some caveats! - While we're happy to accept generalized critiques, this is **not** the place to appeal individualized grievances, and such comments *will* be removed. Please formally appeal your comment or post if you'd like to do that. - Please keep personal identifying information to a minimum. - Rule 1 is suspended. - Rule 2 is *not* suspended. Please be respectful and courteous to anyone you're talking with. - Rule 5 is suspended unless it's spammy.

t3_3pzvrw

CMV: Pro Se representation should be more transparent with regards to the local rules of the court.

I am one of the millions of Americans who are non custodial parents of children that do not get a fair shake in the family court system. The issue as I see it, is that the custodial parent holds all the cards and the non custodial parent is dealt the 7-2 offsuit (Poker term for worst possible starting hand). There is absolutely no reason the custodial parent should ever have to go to court to get anything enforced because the CSEA (Child Support Enforcement Agency) will do that bidding free of charge by way of administrative review every 36 months. Legal fees for something as small as a contempt charge brought against the custodial parent can run into the thousands of dollars. It is our constitutional right to represent ourselves in court, however the learning curve for a simple motion and/or affidavit is so convoluted and complex that the layperson has to literally spend hours reading just the rules of the local court (saying nothing of the legal precedents and legal justification of your claim). If there is as much as a typo on your motion, your case can be dismissed and you're out the filing fee (Which in my case is $250). Not only do laws (especially in family court) differ greatly from state to state, but from county to county. I understand that having an attorney is the best possible option to avoid Pro Se pitfalls as I've just described, however for those of us who have legitimate claims, being a Pro Se litigant is not a small undertaking. So Change my View Reddit, Pro Se litigants should not have to get run around information and have clear and concise directions to have the ability to get their motion in front of a judge and/or magistrate _____ > *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: Pro Se representation should be more transparent with regards to the local rules of the court. I am one of the millions of Americans who are non custodial parents of children that do not get a fair shake in the family court system. The issue as I see it, is that the custodial parent holds all the cards and the non custodial parent is dealt the 7-2 offsuit (Poker term for worst possible starting hand). There is absolutely no reason the custodial parent should ever have to go to court to get anything enforced because the CSEA (Child Support Enforcement Agency) will do that bidding free of charge by way of administrative review every 36 months. Legal fees for something as small as a contempt charge brought against the custodial parent can run into the thousands of dollars. It is our constitutional right to represent ourselves in court, however the learning curve for a simple motion and/or affidavit is so convoluted and complex that the layperson has to literally spend hours reading just the rules of the local court (saying nothing of the legal precedents and legal justification of your claim). If there is as much as a typo on your motion, your case can be dismissed and you're out the filing fee (Which in my case is $250). Not only do laws (especially in family court) differ greatly from state to state, but from county to county. I understand that having an attorney is the best possible option to avoid Pro Se pitfalls as I've just described, however for those of us who have legitimate claims, being a Pro Se litigant is not a small undertaking. So Change my View Reddit, Pro Se litigants should not have to get run around information and have clear and concise directions to have the ability to get their motion in front of a judge and/or magistrate

t3_1rb1xy

I believe that if two people go on a first date and they both know there won't be a second date, the man should not feel obligated to pay the check by himself and there's nothing wrong with splitting the check. CMV

I believe that a man should pay the check if he wants to see the woman again on a second date. But if he doesn't want a second date, there's nothing wrong with splitting the check. It doesn't make him any less of a gentleman to ask to pay half. I think women have unfairly made men think that if they don't pay, they won't have any success with women. If the woman was not cool or nice on a date, men should stand up for themselves and refuse to be pressured to pay for someone who was not at least pleasant to spend time with. I don't buy the argument that "the person asking for the date should always pay." That's a self-serving rule because men are the ones who ask for the dates probably 95% of the time.

I believe that if two people go on a first date and they both know there won't be a second date, the man should not feel obligated to pay the check by himself and there's nothing wrong with splitting the check. CMV. I believe that a man should pay the check if he wants to see the woman again on a second date. But if he doesn't want a second date, there's nothing wrong with splitting the check. It doesn't make him any less of a gentleman to ask to pay half. I think women have unfairly made men think that if they don't pay, they won't have any success with women. If the woman was not cool or nice on a date, men should stand up for themselves and refuse to be pressured to pay for someone who was not at least pleasant to spend time with. I don't buy the argument that "the person asking for the date should always pay." That's a self-serving rule because men are the ones who ask for the dates probably 95% of the time.

t3_6cwrm8

CMV: Liberals in the West have an agenda to reform Islam to their liking. Thus, Muslims should not ally themselves with the Left.

I will split up liberal advocates for reforming Islam into the following categories: 1. Celebrities: People like Sam Harris and Bill Maher are well-known liberals who have often portrayed orthodox Islam as an uncivilized, backwards, ideology that must be stopped at all costs. These people host shows and podcasts with millions of views combined. Their ideas are no more mainstream than allowing gay marriage at this point. Furthermore, they strongly support Muslims who are trying to form Islam, such as Maajid Nawaz, who wrote a book with Sam Harris to make the case as to why Islam should be reformed. 2. Academics: The vast majority of liberal-leaning academics in Middle Eastern and religious departments in colleges and universities constantly push for reformation of Islam, and these professors are given more voice than other professors who have opposing views. A classical example of this is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 3. The entertainment industry: Movies and TV shows portray only 2 types of Muslims: terrorists and Muslims who forgo integral aspects of their religion and drink beer, eat pork, have premarital sex, etc. This is a false dichotomy and one that persuades the average Westerner that the only type of Muslim that is acceptable is a non-practicing one who is Muslim only in name. Thus, every Muslim should be reformed to be like that. Practicing Muslims are never seen because they do not want people to think that "Oh, these practicing Muslims are alright!". Either way, Muslims will be forced to make a choice between sticking to their values and traditions, and giving up their rights. Thus, they should see the Left as they do the Right: as political enemies. Edit: Several redditors have pointed out to me that non-practicing Muslims have no problems allying themselves with the Left. Thus, my argument is now only applicable to practicing Muslims. I'm not quite sure if this qualifies for deltas, but if it does then it's due to mere technicality. _____ > *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: Liberals in the West have an agenda to reform Islam to their liking. Thus, Muslims should not ally themselves with the Left. I will split up liberal advocates for reforming Islam into the following categories: 1. Celebrities: People like Sam Harris and Bill Maher are well-known liberals who have often portrayed orthodox Islam as an uncivilized, backwards, ideology that must be stopped at all costs. These people host shows and podcasts with millions of views combined. Their ideas are no more mainstream than allowing gay marriage at this point. Furthermore, they strongly support Muslims who are trying to form Islam, such as Maajid Nawaz, who wrote a book with Sam Harris to make the case as to why Islam should be reformed. 2. Academics: The vast majority of liberal-leaning academics in Middle Eastern and religious departments in colleges and universities constantly push for reformation of Islam, and these professors are given more voice than other professors who have opposing views. A classical example of this is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 3. The entertainment industry: Movies and TV shows portray only 2 types of Muslims: terrorists and Muslims who forgo integral aspects of their religion and drink beer, eat pork, have premarital sex, etc. This is a false dichotomy and one that persuades the average Westerner that the only type of Muslim that is acceptable is a non-practicing one who is Muslim only in name. Thus, every Muslim should be reformed to be like that. Practicing Muslims are never seen because they do not want people to think that "Oh, these practicing Muslims are alright!". Either way, Muslims will be forced to make a choice between sticking to their values and traditions, and giving up their rights. Thus, they should see the Left as they do the Right: as political enemies. Edit: Several redditors have pointed out to me that non-practicing Muslims have no problems allying themselves with the Left. Thus, my argument is now only applicable to practicing Muslims. I'm not quite sure if this qualifies for deltas, but if it does then it's due to mere technicality.

t3_720830

CMV: Xbox is the weakest of the curent consoles.

As it is now the X box is the weakest of the curent gaming platforms, there are few reasons to chose it over a switch PC or play station. Most of the curent gaming platforms have some advantage over the others to give you a reason to buy them, the play station has lots of exclusives and a powerful console, the PC can be upgraded as much as you want and has a near endless library of games to chose from as well as versatility, the switch has portability as well as an expanding line up of games, while the X box has none of that. The x box has almost no exclusives, the last major one I can remember is halo 5 and that was in 2015 and wasn't reviewed that well, if they want customers they need to do better than that. The Xbox one X (an even stupider name than Wii U) is underwhelming, not as powerful as anyone hoped and will soon be out performed by PCs far cheaper than it. What's the point of buying an X box, if you want exclusives get a PS4, if you want power build a PC. The only reason to buy an x box is if you are a fanatic fan of one of the few exclusives they release. _____ > *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: Xbox is the weakest of the curent consoles. As it is now the X box is the weakest of the curent gaming platforms, there are few reasons to chose it over a switch PC or play station. Most of the curent gaming platforms have some advantage over the others to give you a reason to buy them, the play station has lots of exclusives and a powerful console, the PC can be upgraded as much as you want and has a near endless library of games to chose from as well as versatility, the switch has portability as well as an expanding line up of games, while the X box has none of that. The x box has almost no exclusives, the last major one I can remember is halo 5 and that was in 2015 and wasn't reviewed that well, if they want customers they need to do better than that. The Xbox one X (an even stupider name than Wii U) is underwhelming, not as powerful as anyone hoped and will soon be out performed by PCs far cheaper than it. What's the point of buying an X box, if you want exclusives get a PS4, if you want power build a PC. The only reason to buy an x box is if you are a fanatic fan of one of the few exclusives they release.

t3_5orz6v

CMV: People with lower credit should get lower interest rates, people with better credit should get higher interest rates.

People who have bad credit scores are charged outrageous interest because they poorly handled a previous loan/line account. The higher interest rates may eventually make the customer default and now the bank is out of that money and aren't collecting that interest that they thought they'd receive. If these customers were charged less interest they are more likely to pay off their loan or line by the end of their term. Now, the bank has received all the money lent AND made the interest back. Customers who have better credit should receive higher rates. These people are more likely to pay off their loans BEFORE the term has ended and ultimately paid less interest if paid off early. Now, the bank has collected that money lent and gained a decent portion of interest as well.

CMV: People with lower credit should get lower interest rates, people with better credit should get higher interest rates. People who have bad credit scores are charged outrageous interest because they poorly handled a previous loan/line account. The higher interest rates may eventually make the customer default and now the bank is out of that money and aren't collecting that interest that they thought they'd receive. If these customers were charged less interest they are more likely to pay off their loan or line by the end of their term. Now, the bank has received all the money lent AND made the interest back. Customers who have better credit should receive higher rates. These people are more likely to pay off their loans BEFORE the term has ended and ultimately paid less interest if paid off early. Now, the bank has collected that money lent and gained a decent portion of interest as well.

t3_24ni6f

CMV: I think the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built for environmental reasons, and protesters are fighting against their own interests.

The Keystone XL pipeline is an oil pipeline that is intended to connect the Alberta tar sands to refineries in Texas. Tar sands are one of the least environmentally friendly forms of petroleum because it takes a lot of energy to refine them into light hydrocarbons, like gasoline, and refining them releases a lot of greenhouse gasses and air pollutants. The pipeline is intended to go through a lot of protected wilderness and protected lands, and there is always the chance of breaks and spillage from the pipeline. Opponents of the pipeline claim that if we don't build it, then the Alberta tar sands won't get produced. However.... As it currently stands, the Alberta tar sands are already being drilled and produced, but instead of being shipped by pipeline, most of them are being shipped by train. This will not actually slow down drilling, but instead overloads the train lines, which are more environmentally dangerous than pipelines. For one thing, it takes a lot more energy to ship oil by train than by pipe. For another, trains are much more likely to cause oil spills, fires, and loss of life than pipelines. For instance, the [Lac-Megantic train derailment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_derailment), last year in Quebec, carrying Bakken crude oil, in which 72 train cars derailed, spilling over 2 million gallons of oil, killing 42 people and destroying half of a town. A pipeline doesn't carry nearly this high a risk. In addition, a lot of Alberta tar sands crude is being shipped overseas for processing in places like China, where the environmental regulations in the refining process may be much lower, and USA and Canada don't even get the benefit of using the petroleum. Sending the petroleum to Texas for refining would be a benefit to the US economy because we would actually keep most of it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built for environmental reasons, and protesters are fighting against their own interests. The Keystone XL pipeline is an oil pipeline that is intended to connect the Alberta tar sands to refineries in Texas. Tar sands are one of the least environmentally friendly forms of petroleum because it takes a lot of energy to refine them into light hydrocarbons, like gasoline, and refining them releases a lot of greenhouse gasses and air pollutants. The pipeline is intended to go through a lot of protected wilderness and protected lands, and there is always the chance of breaks and spillage from the pipeline. Opponents of the pipeline claim that if we don't build it, then the Alberta tar sands won't get produced. However.... As it currently stands, the Alberta tar sands are already being drilled and produced, but instead of being shipped by pipeline, most of them are being shipped by train. This will not actually slow down drilling, but instead overloads the train lines, which are more environmentally dangerous than pipelines. For one thing, it takes a lot more energy to ship oil by train than by pipe. For another, trains are much more likely to cause oil spills, fires, and loss of life than pipelines. For instance, the [Lac-Megantic train derailment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_derailment), last year in Quebec, carrying Bakken crude oil, in which 72 train cars derailed, spilling over 2 million gallons of oil, killing 42 people and destroying half of a town. A pipeline doesn't carry nearly this high a risk. In addition, a lot of Alberta tar sands crude is being shipped overseas for processing in places like China, where the environmental regulations in the refining process may be much lower, and USA and Canada don't even get the benefit of using the petroleum. Sending the petroleum to Texas for refining would be a benefit to the US economy because we would actually keep most of it.

t3_1q680f

[US] The impending "ban" on trans fat is disruptive, unnecessary, and contributes to cultural psychological hazards. CMV.

The average American ate close to six grams of trans fat a day in a 2006 study. That number has come down closer to one to two grams as of 2012. If the numbers I've read [80% of our trans fat is artificial] are accurate, we're nearing the end of the curve. The pressure over the last couple decades to remove trans fat from items of mass consumption [fast food, margarine] has been a positive change, and it has been effective. I believe the major impact of removing trans fats from the GRAS list will be felt by smaller producers who can't adapt as quickly, and by people who enjoy foreign imports, which may have less pressure to change their recipe. I can't imagine these products constituting a serious hazard as the trend continues, with or without the eventual GRAS removal. Even some of the heavier trans fat items, like some soups and candy bars, contain less than 0.5g of trans fat [which they aren't required to disclose on the nutrition labels -- a different and perhaps more realistic problem to attack]; it would take four or more of these items in a day to hit the 2006 American Heart Association's 2kCal dietary recommendation upper limit for trans fat [2 grams]. This is why Americans can't have nice things like absinthe or Kinder Surprise eggs. If consuming something in irresponsible excess would cause death or injury, we ban it. That perspective doesn't only hurt the people who make unhealthy consumptions in moderation; it gives the impression that anything legal is safe or acceptable. This puts common sense and responsibility, skills I believe are developed through practice and education, on a back burner. Many people knew before trans fats took a spotlight that fast food was unhealthy, but how many looked for alternatives or advocated changes? I do care for the 7000 annual lives that the trans fat GRAS removal claims could be saved [from today's point; I could only speculate how many would be saved when the ban's effected], but if we're going to ban everything unhealthy, let's pretend for a moment that we're serious about going down this road, and contemplate saving hundreds of thousands of [human] lives annually by banning meat [would cite, but formatting here is weird]. CMV.

[US] The impending "ban" on trans fat is disruptive, unnecessary, and contributes to cultural psychological hazards. CMV. The average American ate close to six grams of trans fat a day in a 2006 study. That number has come down closer to one to two grams as of 2012. If the numbers I've read [80% of our trans fat is artificial] are accurate, we're nearing the end of the curve. The pressure over the last couple decades to remove trans fat from items of mass consumption [fast food, margarine] has been a positive change, and it has been effective. I believe the major impact of removing trans fats from the GRAS list will be felt by smaller producers who can't adapt as quickly, and by people who enjoy foreign imports, which may have less pressure to change their recipe. I can't imagine these products constituting a serious hazard as the trend continues, with or without the eventual GRAS removal. Even some of the heavier trans fat items, like some soups and candy bars, contain less than 0.5g of trans fat [which they aren't required to disclose on the nutrition labels -- a different and perhaps more realistic problem to attack]; it would take four or more of these items in a day to hit the 2006 American Heart Association's 2kCal dietary recommendation upper limit for trans fat [2 grams]. This is why Americans can't have nice things like absinthe or Kinder Surprise eggs. If consuming something in irresponsible excess would cause death or injury, we ban it. That perspective doesn't only hurt the people who make unhealthy consumptions in moderation; it gives the impression that anything legal is safe or acceptable. This puts common sense and responsibility, skills I believe are developed through practice and education, on a back burner. Many people knew before trans fats took a spotlight that fast food was unhealthy, but how many looked for alternatives or advocated changes? I do care for the 7000 annual lives that the trans fat GRAS removal claims could be saved [from today's point; I could only speculate how many would be saved when the ban's effected], but if we're going to ban everything unhealthy, let's pretend for a moment that we're serious about going down this road, and contemplate saving hundreds of thousands of [human] lives annually by banning meat [would cite, but formatting here is weird]. CMV.

t3_5daz1x

CMV: Exclusivity is implied when a sexual relationship begins. (Caveats)

Caveats: The relationship is romantic in nature, not just friends having sex. They were both single when they started going out. It's sometimes okay to have sex with someone else before the first time together, even after dates. I had a girl say to me one that "nobody is exclusive at the beginning" This was kind of a surprise to hear. I'm the type to get really into one person so I can't imagine having more than one partner. But I feel like I missed this social norm. I thought the norm was exclusivity unless stated otherwise. To me. If someone is not exclusive after sex and you find out later, it takes pretty much any romance you thought you had and throws it in the trash. They didn't actually care about you. Edit: I'm back to answer the ones I missed. I'm going over the difference between romantic and casual a lot. I thought it was clear but lota of people think I'm talking about any sex. Maybe they didn't read the caveats. I'm talking about people dating. DATING.

CMV: Exclusivity is implied when a sexual relationship begins. (Caveats). Caveats: The relationship is romantic in nature, not just friends having sex. They were both single when they started going out. It's sometimes okay to have sex with someone else before the first time together, even after dates. I had a girl say to me one that "nobody is exclusive at the beginning" This was kind of a surprise to hear. I'm the type to get really into one person so I can't imagine having more than one partner. But I feel like I missed this social norm. I thought the norm was exclusivity unless stated otherwise. To me. If someone is not exclusive after sex and you find out later, it takes pretty much any romance you thought you had and throws it in the trash. They didn't actually care about you. Edit: I'm back to answer the ones I missed. I'm going over the difference between romantic and casual a lot. I thought it was clear but lota of people think I'm talking about any sex. Maybe they didn't read the caveats. I'm talking about people dating. DATING.

t3_1vi8ey

I believe that raising the minimum wage is more or less irrelevant as the rise of automation in a wide variety of jobs which require little to no education/training will drastically shrink the pool of available employment opportunities for the lower/middle classes. CMV.

First off, I totally support raising the minimum wage. My point centers more on the fact (in my mind) that even if you raise what you are paying the bottom income bracket, if there's not enough demand for employment from people with limited skill sets, a modest increase in the minimum wage will be irrelevant. This drop in demand would be the result in the exponential pace at which technology is increasing, which could increase per-capita productivity dramatically and decrease the number of positions which require a human. Some examples/musings: [Applebees is adding tablets which allow customers to order their food with drastically reduced human interaction.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/12/03/applebees-intel-tablet-rollout/) Applebees says they wont reduce their number of staff, but I don't really believe that; long term, corporations and franchises cut costs wherever they can. Even if they don't cut the number of waitstaff, they would likely cut their hours. [Vending machines exist for everything from coffee to 'Mexican' food to french fries to hot dogs.](http://www.delish.com/food-fun/unusual-vending-machine-foods) Redbox put blockbuster out of business; food vending machines could definitely put a dent in fast food, an industry where minimum wage pay is very prevalent. More advanced and efficient algorithms and advances in technology in general (such as the development of AIs, a migration from physical to digital marketplaces) combined with a shrinking world could lead to multiple industries simply needing less warm bodies who require payment, get sick, go on strike, and so on. Give me some hope. CMV.

I believe that raising the minimum wage is more or less irrelevant as the rise of automation in a wide variety of jobs which require little to no education/training will drastically shrink the pool of available employment opportunities for the lower/middle classes. CMV. First off, I totally support raising the minimum wage. My point centers more on the fact (in my mind) that even if you raise what you are paying the bottom income bracket, if there's not enough demand for employment from people with limited skill sets, a modest increase in the minimum wage will be irrelevant. This drop in demand would be the result in the exponential pace at which technology is increasing, which could increase per-capita productivity dramatically and decrease the number of positions which require a human. Some examples/musings: [Applebees is adding tablets which allow customers to order their food with drastically reduced human interaction.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2013/12/03/applebees-intel-tablet-rollout/) Applebees says they wont reduce their number of staff, but I don't really believe that; long term, corporations and franchises cut costs wherever they can. Even if they don't cut the number of waitstaff, they would likely cut their hours. [Vending machines exist for everything from coffee to 'Mexican' food to french fries to hot dogs.](http://www.delish.com/food-fun/unusual-vending-machine-foods) Redbox put blockbuster out of business; food vending machines could definitely put a dent in fast food, an industry where minimum wage pay is very prevalent. More advanced and efficient algorithms and advances in technology in general (such as the development of AIs, a migration from physical to digital marketplaces) combined with a shrinking world could lead to multiple industries simply needing less warm bodies who require payment, get sick, go on strike, and so on. Give me some hope. CMV.

t3_4iwsn0

CMV: Choosing not to use your turn signal makes you an inconsiderate ass.

Some people are not in the habit of using a turn signal. Is there any reason why I shouldn't cheerfully curse those people for being needlessly inconsiderate when I encounter them on the road? I understand that sometimes you realize too late that you need to turn because you're distracted or you're navigating a new route. We've all been in that situation. I'm talking about people who just generally don't use a turn signal. Signaling a turn is a matter of safety, but more often it is simply a matter of courtesy. For instance, let's say I'm half a block behind you on a one way street with two lanes. It is more advantageous for me to be in the left lane as I need to make a left hand turn two blocks up. Without signaling, you slow and turn into the gated parking garage of a condominium (a place you must have been to before). While you are turning, the light changes, and I have to spend approximately a minute or more of my time sitting at a traffic light that I could have avoided had I known you were turning (as I would have gone around you while I still could). You've just inconvenienced me because you couldn't be bothered to move your pinky finger one inch to the left and down. Why should I not place a curse on your head? To be clear, I'm not advocating road rage. I can effectively curse inconsiderate drivers in an upbeat and positive manner. I am asking someone to explain to me why choosing not to use a turn signal makes you anything other than an inconsiderate ass who deserves a curse. Follow-up: Thanks for the zen experience, 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: Choosing not to use your turn signal makes you an inconsiderate ass. Some people are not in the habit of using a turn signal. Is there any reason why I shouldn't cheerfully curse those people for being needlessly inconsiderate when I encounter them on the road? I understand that sometimes you realize too late that you need to turn because you're distracted or you're navigating a new route. We've all been in that situation. I'm talking about people who just generally don't use a turn signal. Signaling a turn is a matter of safety, but more often it is simply a matter of courtesy. For instance, let's say I'm half a block behind you on a one way street with two lanes. It is more advantageous for me to be in the left lane as I need to make a left hand turn two blocks up. Without signaling, you slow and turn into the gated parking garage of a condominium (a place you must have been to before). While you are turning, the light changes, and I have to spend approximately a minute or more of my time sitting at a traffic light that I could have avoided had I known you were turning (as I would have gone around you while I still could). You've just inconvenienced me because you couldn't be bothered to move your pinky finger one inch to the left and down. Why should I not place a curse on your head? To be clear, I'm not advocating road rage. I can effectively curse inconsiderate drivers in an upbeat and positive manner. I am asking someone to explain to me why choosing not to use a turn signal makes you anything other than an inconsiderate ass who deserves a curse. Follow-up: Thanks for the zen experience, CMV!

t3_1byg3e

I genuinely don't believe that feminism is for equality. CMV

[This post just cinched it for me today.](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1bv6wh/radical_feminists_pull_the_fire_alarm_at_the/) I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh, those aren't *real* feminists" whenever feminists are caught doing something hateful (and in this case illegal). I've come to believe that at best, feminism is only-pro-women and at worst, feminism is anti-man. The best argument I've ever heard was along the lines of 'helping women helps men too' which just sounds like a con straight out of Animal Farm. Abortion and Birth Control are completely one-sided. It has nothing to do with being equal to men. And complaining about how girl gamers are treated, how women are objectified in the media, Slut Shaming, and a lack of representation for women in politics just shows a gross lack of understanding about any of these subjects. All gamers treat all other gamers terribly (regardless of gender), EVERYONE is objectified in the media (regardless of gender), men are both slut shamed (it's called player shaming) AND virgin shamed, and women are represented in politics as more women vote than men and that's just how democracy works. I mean, feminism definitely had a place 30 and 40 years ago but, in the US at least, it's really run its course. There's nothing valid left to fight for. And Reddit has really soured me on the whole thing because all the feminist subreddits (from /r/shitredditsays to /r/feminism to /r/feminisms ) have the whole "agree with us or you get banned" attitude. And the list of types of organizations that censor skepticism is very short. Hell, /r/Christianity doesn't like when people attack them for being anti-gay-marriage but they always respond and explain and I've seldom seen a removed comment from there. And what's worst of all is that if you *disagree* with a feminist, you automatically "hate all women". I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Change my view.

I genuinely don't believe that feminism is for equality. CMV. [This post just cinched it for me today.](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1bv6wh/radical_feminists_pull_the_fire_alarm_at_the/) I'm sick and tired of hearing "oh, those aren't *real* feminists" whenever feminists are caught doing something hateful (and in this case illegal). I've come to believe that at best, feminism is only-pro-women and at worst, feminism is anti-man. The best argument I've ever heard was along the lines of 'helping women helps men too' which just sounds like a con straight out of Animal Farm. Abortion and Birth Control are completely one-sided. It has nothing to do with being equal to men. And complaining about how girl gamers are treated, how women are objectified in the media, Slut Shaming, and a lack of representation for women in politics just shows a gross lack of understanding about any of these subjects. All gamers treat all other gamers terribly (regardless of gender), EVERYONE is objectified in the media (regardless of gender), men are both slut shamed (it's called player shaming) AND virgin shamed, and women are represented in politics as more women vote than men and that's just how democracy works. I mean, feminism definitely had a place 30 and 40 years ago but, in the US at least, it's really run its course. There's nothing valid left to fight for. And Reddit has really soured me on the whole thing because all the feminist subreddits (from /r/shitredditsays to /r/feminism to /r/feminisms ) have the whole "agree with us or you get banned" attitude. And the list of types of organizations that censor skepticism is very short. Hell, /r/Christianity doesn't like when people attack them for being anti-gay-marriage but they always respond and explain and I've seldom seen a removed comment from there. And what's worst of all is that if you *disagree* with a feminist, you automatically "hate all women". I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Change my view.

t3_6lk4nq

CMV: Cigarettes are particularly and undoubtedly awful for your health, but cigars and pipes are not a significant health risk

I've been looking into this recently for a few different reasons that aren't relevant, but what I'm coming to believe is that while cigarettes are definitely awful for your health, cigars and pipes simply are not the same thing. The anti-smoking content I've been presented in my life is almost entirely anti-cigarette instead. Cigarettes include a litany of additives that make them much more addictive than straight tobacco products, and are much more deadly because of this additives. Cigars and pipes almost never (if at all) include additives of any kind, they're just tobacco. Let me be clear about one thing: *tobacco is bad for you.* That's absolutely the case, being exposed to **too much** tobacco will definitely cause cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke among other things. There are thousands of studies to demonstrate this. Using cigars or pipes in reasonable moderation, however, has never been shown to have any significant health risk and in some cases has shown to increase longevity of life (this is not my stance, but a few studies have come to this conclusion). I'm interested to get these replies, because in spite of my research thusfar and how convincing it has been, this is an issue I do **not** want to be on the wrong side of. Edit: I should mention that I am considering the risks when cigars and pipes are not inhaled. I understand that some people do, but I'm neglecting them because they are more similar to cigarette smokers in many respects than non-inhaling tobacco users.

CMV: Cigarettes are particularly and undoubtedly awful for your health, but cigars and pipes are not a significant health risk. I've been looking into this recently for a few different reasons that aren't relevant, but what I'm coming to believe is that while cigarettes are definitely awful for your health, cigars and pipes simply are not the same thing. The anti-smoking content I've been presented in my life is almost entirely anti-cigarette instead. Cigarettes include a litany of additives that make them much more addictive than straight tobacco products, and are much more deadly because of this additives. Cigars and pipes almost never (if at all) include additives of any kind, they're just tobacco. Let me be clear about one thing: *tobacco is bad for you.* That's absolutely the case, being exposed to **too much** tobacco will definitely cause cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke among other things. There are thousands of studies to demonstrate this. Using cigars or pipes in reasonable moderation, however, has never been shown to have any significant health risk and in some cases has shown to increase longevity of life (this is not my stance, but a few studies have come to this conclusion). I'm interested to get these replies, because in spite of my research thusfar and how convincing it has been, this is an issue I do **not** want to be on the wrong side of. Edit: I should mention that I am considering the risks when cigars and pipes are not inhaled. I understand that some people do, but I'm neglecting them because they are more similar to cigarette smokers in many respects than non-inhaling tobacco users.

t3_1ux3yh

CMV : Attractive male + flirty = sexy. Okay-looking male + flirty = creepy.

Person A is a player. He doesn't cheat, lie or have diseases, but he does treat women like they're disposable. He's really good looking and has sex with scores of women. Person B is average-at-best-looking. He sits home and faps, and wishes he could get with lots of women, views them as sex objects. Person A is more respected by society than Person B despite them having the same mentality. Just the result is different in that one of them actually succeeds. It's the same difference that a guy yelling profanities on the street has with a guy who yells profanities in a booth while recording a platinum-selling rap album. Of course if a woman doesn't welcome a guys advances, he should stop pursuing her. But the point is, I feel like if an okay-looking guy and a hot guy were to act the same way around most women, one would be the creep and the other would be okay because he's hot. Not to absolve men either but most of us will sleep with any girl, so long as there's nothing direly wrong with her. CMV

CMV : Attractive male + flirty = sexy. Okay-looking male + flirty = creepy. Person A is a player. He doesn't cheat, lie or have diseases, but he does treat women like they're disposable. He's really good looking and has sex with scores of women. Person B is average-at-best-looking. He sits home and faps, and wishes he could get with lots of women, views them as sex objects. Person A is more respected by society than Person B despite them having the same mentality. Just the result is different in that one of them actually succeeds. It's the same difference that a guy yelling profanities on the street has with a guy who yells profanities in a booth while recording a platinum-selling rap album. Of course if a woman doesn't welcome a guys advances, he should stop pursuing her. But the point is, I feel like if an okay-looking guy and a hot guy were to act the same way around most women, one would be the creep and the other would be okay because he's hot. Not to absolve men either but most of us will sleep with any girl, so long as there's nothing direly wrong with her. CMV

t3_4mzb44

CMV: I am against an assault weapons ban.

This is the definition of assault weapon I am talkong about: > Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon I do not think the banning of such a weapon would be effective, and that it would only hurt law abiding civilians. 1) It would be banning a weapon that is not a current threat Out of the 11961 murders in the US during 2015, only 248 occured with rifles of any kind. To put this into perspective 1567 murders occured with knives, 435 with blunt objects, and 5562 occured with handguns. I do not believe that to be enough of a problem to ban them. 2) It would not ban equally effective rifles A Ruger Mini 14 is a semiautomatic 5.56 carbine that uses a box magazine, yet is not considered an assault weapon even though for all intents and purposes it is just as effective as a AR15 which is one. Annother similar case is with the M1A and the AR10. All of these weapons were modeled after guns used by the US military and are effective designs. 3) The cost of such a ban would outweigh the benifits Even if such a ban reduced the number of rifle deaths by 100%, I do not see a way we could confiscate millions of rifles cheaply enough to be worthwhile. Mini 14: https://imgur.com/gallery/zMtKFZA M1A: https://imgur.com/gallery/PPcKwP5 AR 15 and AR 10: https://imgur.com/gallery/iMo8k5E Murder by weapon type: https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I am against an assault weapons ban. This is the definition of assault weapon I am talkong about: > Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon I do not think the banning of such a weapon would be effective, and that it would only hurt law abiding civilians. 1) It would be banning a weapon that is not a current threat Out of the 11961 murders in the US during 2015, only 248 occured with rifles of any kind. To put this into perspective 1567 murders occured with knives, 435 with blunt objects, and 5562 occured with handguns. I do not believe that to be enough of a problem to ban them. 2) It would not ban equally effective rifles A Ruger Mini 14 is a semiautomatic 5.56 carbine that uses a box magazine, yet is not considered an assault weapon even though for all intents and purposes it is just as effective as a AR15 which is one. Annother similar case is with the M1A and the AR10. All of these weapons were modeled after guns used by the US military and are effective designs. 3) The cost of such a ban would outweigh the benifits Even if such a ban reduced the number of rifle deaths by 100%, I do not see a way we could confiscate millions of rifles cheaply enough to be worthwhile. Mini 14: https://imgur.com/gallery/zMtKFZA M1A: https://imgur.com/gallery/PPcKwP5 AR 15 and AR 10: https://imgur.com/gallery/iMo8k5E Murder by weapon type: https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

t3_1h2hwd

I think the auto-tune portion of "Some Nights" by fun. is completely unnecessary and ruins what is otherwise a very nice single. CMV so I can enjoy it again.

[This](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkBeOisNM0&t=4m11s) is the portion of the song I am referring to in the title. I know that auto-tune is sometimes used to correct minor mistakes in recordings and to help less talented artists appear more technically proficient, but the A capella segment from the [opening ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkBeOisNM0&t=1m2s) of "Some Nights" suggests that the artists can sing well enough. Does anyone know why the group chose to auto-tune this riff? Was it just because the notes they wanted were too far out of Nate Ruess's range, even though he sings well enough in lower octaves? Or have consumers become so used to the artificial, robotic tone of auto-tune that they just don't notice it anymore, or perhaps even prefer it at times to a human voice? I really like the single and enjoy listening to it when it comes on the radio, but every time it gets to the auto-tune portion, I sigh and think about changing the channel. Is there anyone who likes the song not just in spite of, but because of the auto-tune riff at the end? If so, why? Is there some reason why the auto-tune version of that riff sounds better than it would if a singer with an impressive range sang the notes naturally? Can someone explain why this annoying riff is integral to the song?

I think the auto-tune portion of "Some Nights" by fun. is completely unnecessary and ruins what is otherwise a very nice single. CMV so I can enjoy it again. [This](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkBeOisNM0&t=4m11s) is the portion of the song I am referring to in the title. I know that auto-tune is sometimes used to correct minor mistakes in recordings and to help less talented artists appear more technically proficient, but the A capella segment from the [opening ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkBeOisNM0&t=1m2s) of "Some Nights" suggests that the artists can sing well enough. Does anyone know why the group chose to auto-tune this riff? Was it just because the notes they wanted were too far out of Nate Ruess's range, even though he sings well enough in lower octaves? Or have consumers become so used to the artificial, robotic tone of auto-tune that they just don't notice it anymore, or perhaps even prefer it at times to a human voice? I really like the single and enjoy listening to it when it comes on the radio, but every time it gets to the auto-tune portion, I sigh and think about changing the channel. Is there anyone who likes the song not just in spite of, but because of the auto-tune riff at the end? If so, why? Is there some reason why the auto-tune version of that riff sounds better than it would if a singer with an impressive range sang the notes naturally? Can someone explain why this annoying riff is integral to the song?

t3_1i8val

I believe that "piracy" shouldn't be illegal and that, furthermore, company and artist who can't adapt their business models should be left to die (economically). CMV.

As stated in the title, it is my most sincere belief that piracy, as in "thepiratebay" piracy, shouldn't be illegal. There are several reasons for this. - For better or worst, we live within a free market system. That entails that business need to adapt and live with their time. Protecting outdated ways will slow the progress of mankind as a hole. - Many people, including myself, can not afford culture but shouldn't be left out of society for that reason. Barriers like access to computers or other devices is already enough of a limit. - People living in countries without access to foreign culture. Access to movies, music, shows, paintings, etc from different point of the globe is often difficult for people living in smaller, more isolated nations. - It allows for cultural exchange, contributing to world peace and forwarding the cause of humankind. It also allow many people to learn foreign languages, like English or Japanese. - By allowing for non-commercial usage of cultural production only, artist are still protected from abuse and from having their creation stolen. Which, mind you, is the goal of copyright. - Finally, I'd conclude by saying that it's been proven that people are more than willing to pay for culture. Websites like Ulule and Kickstarter are good examples of this.

I believe that "piracy" shouldn't be illegal and that, furthermore, company and artist who can't adapt their business models should be left to die (economically). CMV. As stated in the title, it is my most sincere belief that piracy, as in "thepiratebay" piracy, shouldn't be illegal. There are several reasons for this. - For better or worst, we live within a free market system. That entails that business need to adapt and live with their time. Protecting outdated ways will slow the progress of mankind as a hole. - Many people, including myself, can not afford culture but shouldn't be left out of society for that reason. Barriers like access to computers or other devices is already enough of a limit. - People living in countries without access to foreign culture. Access to movies, music, shows, paintings, etc from different point of the globe is often difficult for people living in smaller, more isolated nations. - It allows for cultural exchange, contributing to world peace and forwarding the cause of humankind. It also allow many people to learn foreign languages, like English or Japanese. - By allowing for non-commercial usage of cultural production only, artist are still protected from abuse and from having their creation stolen. Which, mind you, is the goal of copyright. - Finally, I'd conclude by saying that it's been proven that people are more than willing to pay for culture. Websites like Ulule and Kickstarter are good examples of this.

t3_48cei7

CMV: Rock music will (or should) die soon

First, I was disappointed that this wasn't a cytomegalovirus thread, but that's not why we're here. As a casual music nerd, I find that most of the time I spend listening to rock music is centered on old bands, the kind of bands considered to be classics by the music community. Examples include The Velvet Underground, R.E.M. (IRS years, of course), The Smiths, et cetera. It seems that only rarely will I find a current band that has found a new way to play rock music that is interesting and enjoyable. I'm not talking about niche groups that only a small group of people find listenable. I'm limiting the conversation to groups that the entire music community could agree on, the kind of groups that could join the pantheon of the all-time greats of the past. My fear is that rock music has a finite number of ways for musicians to imitate, and we are running out. For example, recently I listened to the new Courtney Barnett album, which was good, but didn't feel like it was adding anything new to rock music. Should rock move over for other genres? Have I simply not looked hard enough? Please change my mind that rock and roll is not doomed. _____ > *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: Rock music will (or should) die soon. First, I was disappointed that this wasn't a cytomegalovirus thread, but that's not why we're here. As a casual music nerd, I find that most of the time I spend listening to rock music is centered on old bands, the kind of bands considered to be classics by the music community. Examples include The Velvet Underground, R.E.M. (IRS years, of course), The Smiths, et cetera. It seems that only rarely will I find a current band that has found a new way to play rock music that is interesting and enjoyable. I'm not talking about niche groups that only a small group of people find listenable. I'm limiting the conversation to groups that the entire music community could agree on, the kind of groups that could join the pantheon of the all-time greats of the past. My fear is that rock music has a finite number of ways for musicians to imitate, and we are running out. For example, recently I listened to the new Courtney Barnett album, which was good, but didn't feel like it was adding anything new to rock music. Should rock move over for other genres? Have I simply not looked hard enough? Please change my mind that rock and roll is not doomed.

t3_1q5pp8

I think sexual orientation is a product of environment, so as a straight person, I could care less about gay marriage. CMV.

I'm straight. Always been straight, always will be straight. But I've met a lot of gay people and have been close friends with a few. I get the idea that people should be able to be with whoever they want. But I've heard too many stories of girls and guys who were violated by older men at a young age, or who didn't have fathers growing up but looked toward strong women-figures as role models, who grew up attracted to people of the same gender. Am I wrong, or is there a gay person out there who can honestly say they had a 100% healthy childhood and grew up in a strong close-knit family and had good relationships with their fathers and mothers alike? I'm not trying to say that anybody who was raised in a broken home or didn't have much of a family turns out gay, but a lot of gay people seem to have really deep and distressing psychological and emotional issues. I don't want to be bigoted, but I feel like this type of opinion makes me seem like it. And because of it, I just don't care if gay people can get married. Am I wrong?

I think sexual orientation is a product of environment, so as a straight person, I could care less about gay marriage. CMV. I'm straight. Always been straight, always will be straight. But I've met a lot of gay people and have been close friends with a few. I get the idea that people should be able to be with whoever they want. But I've heard too many stories of girls and guys who were violated by older men at a young age, or who didn't have fathers growing up but looked toward strong women-figures as role models, who grew up attracted to people of the same gender. Am I wrong, or is there a gay person out there who can honestly say they had a 100% healthy childhood and grew up in a strong close-knit family and had good relationships with their fathers and mothers alike? I'm not trying to say that anybody who was raised in a broken home or didn't have much of a family turns out gay, but a lot of gay people seem to have really deep and distressing psychological and emotional issues. I don't want to be bigoted, but I feel like this type of opinion makes me seem like it. And because of it, I just don't care if gay people can get married. Am I wrong?

t3_63f2np

CMV: If an ISP sells your data, you deserve a cut of the profit.

My position is quite simple. My browser history is mine. I made it. If an ISP is going to sell it, then I deserve a portion of the proceeds. I've had similar debates before and one thing that comes up is: it would only be fractions of a penny. When an ISP sells personal data they don't sell it person by person. They consolidate their data into blocks of hundreds of thousands of individuals and sell that. The data of one person isn't worth much at all (depends on the person I guess) but the data of one of these blocks is. So for me to claw out the value of just my data, may only be pennies and my cut of those pennies might not even be half. However, I dislike the idea that I am just suppose to accept that someone else gets to sell the product of my work. It's like someone trying to sell the dust from your footsteps. If they're going to do it, I deserve a share of the money. I'm the one doing all the walking. **EDIT** I can be very stubborn. I wouldn't be here on the internet bitching about pennies if I were not a silly, bitter person. While my mind has not been changed, all the people participating have valid persuasive criticisms. In responding, many required me to think and re-think my position. To just stop being an old man yelling at clouds is also compelling. Thank you for the discussion. _____ > *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: If an ISP sells your data, you deserve a cut of the profit. My position is quite simple. My browser history is mine. I made it. If an ISP is going to sell it, then I deserve a portion of the proceeds. I've had similar debates before and one thing that comes up is: it would only be fractions of a penny. When an ISP sells personal data they don't sell it person by person. They consolidate their data into blocks of hundreds of thousands of individuals and sell that. The data of one person isn't worth much at all (depends on the person I guess) but the data of one of these blocks is. So for me to claw out the value of just my data, may only be pennies and my cut of those pennies might not even be half. However, I dislike the idea that I am just suppose to accept that someone else gets to sell the product of my work. It's like someone trying to sell the dust from your footsteps. If they're going to do it, I deserve a share of the money. I'm the one doing all the walking. **EDIT** I can be very stubborn. I wouldn't be here on the internet bitching about pennies if I were not a silly, bitter person. While my mind has not been changed, all the people participating have valid persuasive criticisms. In responding, many required me to think and re-think my position. To just stop being an old man yelling at clouds is also compelling. Thank you for the discussion.

t3_1nbgl6

I believe that low fertility rates of bright people will have disastrous consequences. CMV.

Today there are more jobs than ever which require relatively high levels of intelligence and education. Think of doctors, engineers, scientists, managers, programmers and so on. Many of these jobs did not even exist 1000 years ago, but today they are crucial for society as we know it. Without them, there would be no progress and our living standards would decline rapidly. However, not everybody can do these jobs. Even if everybody gets a great education early on, many people just don't have what it takes to do these tasks. Personally I think that there is a large genetic component to the abilities that are required for these jobs. But even if you deny that there is any genetic contribution, we're still left with the observation that children of academics are much more likely to end up in one of the professions I mentioned before, than children of people without a high-school degree. Now what really worries me, is that in every study I've looked at, level of education is inversely correlated with fertility, meaning educated people have fewer children than uneducated people. This is true within most countries, and also when comparing countries to each other: The higher the level of education in a country, the fewer children are born there. This is the opposite of what has persisted for most of human history, when better education and higher status meant more children. Saying these things makes many people uncomfortable, probably because it's considered rude to draw attention to the fact that some people are smarter than others. But I think it is obvious that smart, educated people are the most important resource for advanced societies and for progress. That's why we value education so much. And that's why I think it is very unwise to let reproduction become the job of the uneducated. This seriously concerns me, so please show me how I'm wrong! And by the way, I am aware that you can be smart without being educated and be good at an important job without being either. I was describing general tendencies, not absolute rules. Edit: It has been noted that I do not provide evidence for my claims, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

I believe that low fertility rates of bright people will have disastrous consequences. CMV. Today there are more jobs than ever which require relatively high levels of intelligence and education. Think of doctors, engineers, scientists, managers, programmers and so on. Many of these jobs did not even exist 1000 years ago, but today they are crucial for society as we know it. Without them, there would be no progress and our living standards would decline rapidly. However, not everybody can do these jobs. Even if everybody gets a great education early on, many people just don't have what it takes to do these tasks. Personally I think that there is a large genetic component to the abilities that are required for these jobs. But even if you deny that there is any genetic contribution, we're still left with the observation that children of academics are much more likely to end up in one of the professions I mentioned before, than children of people without a high-school degree. Now what really worries me, is that in every study I've looked at, level of education is inversely correlated with fertility, meaning educated people have fewer children than uneducated people. This is true within most countries, and also when comparing countries to each other: The higher the level of education in a country, the fewer children are born there. This is the opposite of what has persisted for most of human history, when better education and higher status meant more children. Saying these things makes many people uncomfortable, probably because it's considered rude to draw attention to the fact that some people are smarter than others. But I think it is obvious that smart, educated people are the most important resource for advanced societies and for progress. That's why we value education so much. And that's why I think it is very unwise to let reproduction become the job of the uneducated. This seriously concerns me, so please show me how I'm wrong! And by the way, I am aware that you can be smart without being educated and be good at an important job without being either. I was describing general tendencies, not absolute rules. Edit: It has been noted that I do not provide evidence for my claims, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

t3_4f8m3t

CMV: Relationships with large intelligence gaps are unlikely to be fulfilling

I know that there are many types of intelligence and that it's hard to objectively weigh one type against another. But, in terms of overall intelligence, or intelligence in certain areas, the person with more intellectual power is unlikely to be fulfilled when their partner can't help them grow in that way. Someone who isn't as well versed or naturally gifted in the same areas may frustrate their partner by not providing enough stimulation, leading their partner to resent them over time. For example, someone who is extremely passionate about certain fields of science would not likely be happy trying to carry out a relationship with someone who has a difficult time learning those fields. Also, if you flip it, someone who is content with not knowing about certain fields may become frustrated and resent themselves for not being able to understand what their partner is trying to tell them. It is currently my view that people should look for someone that has similar intelligence levels and have at least some of the same intelligence types in order to have a satisfying relationship. CMV? Edit: One thing I find interesting about these responses is that there are plenty of people willing to admit how much smarter they think they are than their partners, but no one is saying how much smarter their partners are than them. I guess the jealousy aspect isn't as big as I thought it would be. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Relationships with large intelligence gaps are unlikely to be fulfilling. I know that there are many types of intelligence and that it's hard to objectively weigh one type against another. But, in terms of overall intelligence, or intelligence in certain areas, the person with more intellectual power is unlikely to be fulfilled when their partner can't help them grow in that way. Someone who isn't as well versed or naturally gifted in the same areas may frustrate their partner by not providing enough stimulation, leading their partner to resent them over time. For example, someone who is extremely passionate about certain fields of science would not likely be happy trying to carry out a relationship with someone who has a difficult time learning those fields. Also, if you flip it, someone who is content with not knowing about certain fields may become frustrated and resent themselves for not being able to understand what their partner is trying to tell them. It is currently my view that people should look for someone that has similar intelligence levels and have at least some of the same intelligence types in order to have a satisfying relationship. CMV? Edit: One thing I find interesting about these responses is that there are plenty of people willing to admit how much smarter they think they are than their partners, but no one is saying how much smarter their partners are than them. I guess the jealousy aspect isn't as big as I thought it would be.

t3_56dd4n

CMV: Having a large percentage of the population become Vegetarian will result in more waste.

First, some definitions: * Vegetarian: Somebody who doesn't eat animal meat. Eggs/Milk/Honey/Gelatin are OK. Leather products are OK. Pets are OK. * Vegan: Somebody who doesn't consume animal products. Eggs/Milk/Honey/Gelatin are not OK. Leather not OK. Pets not OK. Now some stats (I'll stick to just the US): * 3.2% of the population consider themselves vegetarian * 0.5% consider themselves vegan. [Source](http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/vegetarianism-in-america) So in my mind, a vegetarian society is one where everybody (or most people) still consumes animal products, they just don't eat the meat once it finally dies. In my mind this is unsustainable because it's egregiously wasteful. Nobody in their right mind will let 1500 lbs of beef just rot after the cow dies. Sure, some will be used in cat/dog food and leather production. But if milk/egg demand stays where it is now, we'll still have tons of wasted, perfectly edible meat leftover. This isn't true in a vegan society, as over time there will be fewer and fewer cows and chickens. This, I submit, is the most efficient plan but least tasty (in my opinion). It also isn't true in our current omnivore society because the 3.2% that don't use that *final bit* will be covered by the rest of the population. However, I think there exists a number, x%, where there simply won't be enough meat eaters to eat all the leftovers. Something like 75% vegetarian, 5% vegan, 20% meat eater. This will result in a lot of wasted meat. So, to sum up, encouraging more people to become vegetarian is good up until a certain percentage point. After we reach that point, it would be better to encourage them to become vegan/omnivore instead. A society with a large percentage of omnivorous or a large percentage of vegans is not wasteful. A society with a large number of vegetarians is wasteful. 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: Having a large percentage of the population become Vegetarian will result in more waste. First, some definitions: * Vegetarian: Somebody who doesn't eat animal meat. Eggs/Milk/Honey/Gelatin are OK. Leather products are OK. Pets are OK. * Vegan: Somebody who doesn't consume animal products. Eggs/Milk/Honey/Gelatin are not OK. Leather not OK. Pets not OK. Now some stats (I'll stick to just the US): * 3.2% of the population consider themselves vegetarian * 0.5% consider themselves vegan. [Source](http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/vegetarianism-in-america) So in my mind, a vegetarian society is one where everybody (or most people) still consumes animal products, they just don't eat the meat once it finally dies. In my mind this is unsustainable because it's egregiously wasteful. Nobody in their right mind will let 1500 lbs of beef just rot after the cow dies. Sure, some will be used in cat/dog food and leather production. But if milk/egg demand stays where it is now, we'll still have tons of wasted, perfectly edible meat leftover. This isn't true in a vegan society, as over time there will be fewer and fewer cows and chickens. This, I submit, is the most efficient plan but least tasty (in my opinion). It also isn't true in our current omnivore society because the 3.2% that don't use that *final bit* will be covered by the rest of the population. However, I think there exists a number, x%, where there simply won't be enough meat eaters to eat all the leftovers. Something like 75% vegetarian, 5% vegan, 20% meat eater. This will result in a lot of wasted meat. So, to sum up, encouraging more people to become vegetarian is good up until a certain percentage point. After we reach that point, it would be better to encourage them to become vegan/omnivore instead. A society with a large percentage of omnivorous or a large percentage of vegans is not wasteful. A society with a large number of vegetarians is wasteful. Please change my view.

t3_694nng

CMV: Stephen Colbert's "Cock holster" comment wasn't homophobic at all.

Stephen Colbert recently said this about Trump... “You talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster." The internet is in an uproar and hashtags like #firecolbert are pretty prevalent at the moment. Critics are accusing him of homophobia. How is this homophobia? Yes, a man giving another man a blowjob is a gay sex act, but by saying that, Colbert is not attacking gays at all. He's lampooning Trump and Putin's relationship, which is considered inappropriately close by much of the country after Trump's constant praise of Putin during his campaign and the allegations of Russian interference in our election, by comparing it to a sexual relationship. If Russia's leader was female, and Colbert made a joke likening Trump's praise and perceived affiliation with her to a sexual relationship, the joke would work in the same way. To me, this indicates that the joke didn't target homosexuals in any way. You could argue that likening close relations between world leaders to sexual relationships is offensive across the board, but that has nothing to do with homophobia... _____ > *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: Stephen Colbert's "Cock holster" comment wasn't homophobic at all. Stephen Colbert recently said this about Trump... “You talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster." The internet is in an uproar and hashtags like #firecolbert are pretty prevalent at the moment. Critics are accusing him of homophobia. How is this homophobia? Yes, a man giving another man a blowjob is a gay sex act, but by saying that, Colbert is not attacking gays at all. He's lampooning Trump and Putin's relationship, which is considered inappropriately close by much of the country after Trump's constant praise of Putin during his campaign and the allegations of Russian interference in our election, by comparing it to a sexual relationship. If Russia's leader was female, and Colbert made a joke likening Trump's praise and perceived affiliation with her to a sexual relationship, the joke would work in the same way. To me, this indicates that the joke didn't target homosexuals in any way. You could argue that likening close relations between world leaders to sexual relationships is offensive across the board, but that has nothing to do with homophobia...

t3_24c1j7

CMV: I believe that if mental disorders are to be taken seriously "reverse" disorders must be created too.

People who become drug addicts or criminals are often diagnosed with mental disorders. These activities are considered by our society as being negative and fringe but we as a society are being conditioned to not hold the people responsible because it wasn't their fault but it was their disorders fault. For this reason, how can mental disorders be taken seriously if we only diagnose those on the negative fringe and never those on the positive fringe. Specifically if if you look at many successful people they show the same dedication to their work (workaholic) that an addict might show to their drug. If we do not hold addicts responsible for their actions (because of their mental disorder) how can we praise those who are successful for their actions? Basically I feel like our society has come to a point where we are trying to get the best of both worlds. We tell people that they are who they want to become, and that hard work normally leads to success but at the same time attribute failure (and never success) to factors out of a persons control (mentally). Not having a mental disorder (at least not diagnosed) I can never know what it might be like but to deal with these factors outside your own control. But with mental health education becoming more and more prevalent people are attributing more and more of their problems to things not controllable by themselves. In addition, some mental disorders are specifically noted to be caused by a "chemical imbalance" but aren't all "disorders" caused by either poor "wiring" or "chemical imbalances." If you accept that disorders are caused by things out of a persons control, to what extent can anyone attribute their success to themselves rather then their own "intact" or even "upgraded" wiring. To get back to the original CMV, I believe that we should start to diagnose those who are extremely successful with mental disorders based on their work-life balance. I’m not saying that it is practical but in a more theoretical sense, I believe that it should be done if only for equity for those less fortunate with their wiring. ______________ edit: I do not believe that the specific terminology is relevant, but rather if those who are successful (specifically where it is an easy observable product of their talents) are a product of their brain's "wiring" as much as an addict or otherwise psychologically disordered person.

CMV: I believe that if mental disorders are to be taken seriously "reverse" disorders must be created too. People who become drug addicts or criminals are often diagnosed with mental disorders. These activities are considered by our society as being negative and fringe but we as a society are being conditioned to not hold the people responsible because it wasn't their fault but it was their disorders fault. For this reason, how can mental disorders be taken seriously if we only diagnose those on the negative fringe and never those on the positive fringe. Specifically if if you look at many successful people they show the same dedication to their work (workaholic) that an addict might show to their drug. If we do not hold addicts responsible for their actions (because of their mental disorder) how can we praise those who are successful for their actions? Basically I feel like our society has come to a point where we are trying to get the best of both worlds. We tell people that they are who they want to become, and that hard work normally leads to success but at the same time attribute failure (and never success) to factors out of a persons control (mentally). Not having a mental disorder (at least not diagnosed) I can never know what it might be like but to deal with these factors outside your own control. But with mental health education becoming more and more prevalent people are attributing more and more of their problems to things not controllable by themselves. In addition, some mental disorders are specifically noted to be caused by a "chemical imbalance" but aren't all "disorders" caused by either poor "wiring" or "chemical imbalances." If you accept that disorders are caused by things out of a persons control, to what extent can anyone attribute their success to themselves rather then their own "intact" or even "upgraded" wiring. To get back to the original CMV, I believe that we should start to diagnose those who are extremely successful with mental disorders based on their work-life balance. I’m not saying that it is practical but in a more theoretical sense, I believe that it should be done if only for equity for those less fortunate with their wiring. ______________ edit: I do not believe that the specific terminology is relevant, but rather if those who are successful (specifically where it is an easy observable product of their talents) are a product of their brain's "wiring" as much as an addict or otherwise psychologically disordered person.

t3_30ijtn

CMV: Fast food joints should be completely automated

Work in fast food places is one of the most mundane and monotonous. It could and should be totally or nearly totally automated. Let's start with cooking, no one will notice if robots will start flipping burgers. Next step should be cashiers. Ideally every fast food place should have 1 on duty operator, that will just oversee things and do stuff that can't be done by robots. Reasons I think this is good idea is that it would make fast food even more affordable and it will push economies even closer to state of post scarcity. Also it would promote and popularize wide automation to end consumer.

CMV: Fast food joints should be completely automated. Work in fast food places is one of the most mundane and monotonous. It could and should be totally or nearly totally automated. Let's start with cooking, no one will notice if robots will start flipping burgers. Next step should be cashiers. Ideally every fast food place should have 1 on duty operator, that will just oversee things and do stuff that can't be done by robots. Reasons I think this is good idea is that it would make fast food even more affordable and it will push economies even closer to state of post scarcity. Also it would promote and popularize wide automation to end consumer.

t3_21hap3

CMV: I think Bill Belichick's proposal to move kicking extra-points to the 25 yard-line is a shitty, sucky idea.

I am certainly not opposed to rule changes, but I feel like they typically should only happen if they either increase the safety of the game, or are common-sense changes that improve the quality of the game. This year they are raising the goalpost polls by five feet to make it easier for refs to determine if they kick was good. Sure. Makes sense. 15 years ago they allowed teams to challenge plays. Hell yes. But Belichick seems to want change for changes sake. Yes, extra points are made 99 out of 100 attempts, but that's just how it is. That's the NFL. It would change the strategy of the game and possibly make it more exciting, but...get off my lawn!! This isn't the XFL. I don't want my favorite sport messed with. CMV.

CMV: I think Bill Belichick's proposal to move kicking extra-points to the 25 yard-line is a shitty, sucky idea. I am certainly not opposed to rule changes, but I feel like they typically should only happen if they either increase the safety of the game, or are common-sense changes that improve the quality of the game. This year they are raising the goalpost polls by five feet to make it easier for refs to determine if they kick was good. Sure. Makes sense. 15 years ago they allowed teams to challenge plays. Hell yes. But Belichick seems to want change for changes sake. Yes, extra points are made 99 out of 100 attempts, but that's just how it is. That's the NFL. It would change the strategy of the game and possibly make it more exciting, but...get off my lawn!! This isn't the XFL. I don't want my favorite sport messed with. CMV.

t3_2tz2rv

CMV: Tinder provides a reality check for women on the relationship market, and that regular users are setting themselves up for emotional failure for future relations.

Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! Technology has given us the capability to peruse people in our immediate areas in the format of a menu for the possiblity of new beginnings. Attraction, being the initial part of any new friendship, and the consent of the swipe right already has removed what was traditionally a glance, emotional feedback and then attempting at bonding. The question is, people that are successful in using the system of Tinder and related products, what detrimental effects will this have on their ability to maintain relationships down the line after they have finished meating the market? The emotional "damage" of previous excursions must have a negative effect on maintaining steady relations and monogomy _____ > *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: Tinder provides a reality check for women on the relationship market, and that regular users are setting themselves up for emotional failure for future relations. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! Technology has given us the capability to peruse people in our immediate areas in the format of a menu for the possiblity of new beginnings. Attraction, being the initial part of any new friendship, and the consent of the swipe right already has removed what was traditionally a glance, emotional feedback and then attempting at bonding. The question is, people that are successful in using the system of Tinder and related products, what detrimental effects will this have on their ability to maintain relationships down the line after they have finished meating the market? The emotional "damage" of previous excursions must have a negative effect on maintaining steady relations and monogomy

t3_6sqvr3

CMV: We should annihilate North Korea

North Korea has been threatening us for decades. Regardless of their the intent to carry it out or not, they continue to develop increasingly powerful weapons of war which can be used against us. I can understand why they might want to threaten to attack us - It helps with their internal politics. I understand why they want nukes - They feel that having Nuclear missiles acts as a deterrent. Egypt, Iraq, and Syria were overthrown, in part because they didn't have nukes. They view having nukes as an effective way to prevent us from destroying them. Destroying N.Korea would prove to other countries around the world that Nukes won't stop us. But they keep escalating, and it seems that eventually they'll feel cornered enough that they'll attack us. Each year we delay bombing them, the war gets more expensive, both in terms of lives and treasure. If we aggressively bomb them, we can fix this situation. All their leaders will die. If we're OK with civilian casulaties, we can just wipe out all their cities, so we don't need to worry about a power vacuum, or a failed state. They don't have any strong allies - China wants to protect them because they don't want refugees. We can use bombs to ensure that there aren't any. Russia won't defend them. No one is willing to go to war with the USA to defend North Korea. NK could retaliate against Seoul, but that's only a concern in a prolonged war - If we unleash our arsenal against them, then we can wipe out all their cities, all their bases, and every place they could launch a missile from. They'd be dead before they could retaliate. It seems like we're just pussyfooting around, tying year after to patch the problem, rather than ever really just killing them and fixing it.

CMV: We should annihilate North Korea. North Korea has been threatening us for decades. Regardless of their the intent to carry it out or not, they continue to develop increasingly powerful weapons of war which can be used against us. I can understand why they might want to threaten to attack us - It helps with their internal politics. I understand why they want nukes - They feel that having Nuclear missiles acts as a deterrent. Egypt, Iraq, and Syria were overthrown, in part because they didn't have nukes. They view having nukes as an effective way to prevent us from destroying them. Destroying N.Korea would prove to other countries around the world that Nukes won't stop us. But they keep escalating, and it seems that eventually they'll feel cornered enough that they'll attack us. Each year we delay bombing them, the war gets more expensive, both in terms of lives and treasure. If we aggressively bomb them, we can fix this situation. All their leaders will die. If we're OK with civilian casulaties, we can just wipe out all their cities, so we don't need to worry about a power vacuum, or a failed state. They don't have any strong allies - China wants to protect them because they don't want refugees. We can use bombs to ensure that there aren't any. Russia won't defend them. No one is willing to go to war with the USA to defend North Korea. NK could retaliate against Seoul, but that's only a concern in a prolonged war - If we unleash our arsenal against them, then we can wipe out all their cities, all their bases, and every place they could launch a missile from. They'd be dead before they could retaliate. It seems like we're just pussyfooting around, tying year after to patch the problem, rather than ever really just killing them and fixing it.

t3_2zu35d

CMV: I'd rather fight a 100 duck-sized horses

1. A horse sized duck is quite terrifying. If you've even been attacked by a swan you know the ferocity of a pissed off anatidae. That shit is scary. 2. If we assume the speed of a horse compared to a duck is related to their relative size it'll be easy to briskly walk away from the fight if things go south. 3. It'll be easy to subdue at least a few of the tiny horses and take them home, Breeding miniature horses would be extremely lucrative, just think of all the little girls that could now afford their own tiny pony. Edit 1: Cool, Geld! precious, precious geld... I'd blow it all on /r/blackjack and /r/hookers Edit 2: CMV Status: * ~30% Convinced by the argument that potentially killing 100 cute horses is way more emotionally stressful than killing one duck-like abomination. Would have been 60% but I divided by 2 assuming a 50/50 chance of safely capturing them or escaping. * +~15% Convinced by the argument that fighting 100 targets is potentially more difficult than fighting one. especially if they're relentless and escape is not an option. The omissions of what weapons are available makes it even more difficult. * +~0.01% convinced by the argument that a horse-sized duck defies biology's code of conduct, It is assumed the duck is fully functional by whatever voodoo witch thought it's a good idea to conjure such a beast. = ~45.01 _____ > *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'd rather fight a 100 duck-sized horses. 1. A horse sized duck is quite terrifying. If you've even been attacked by a swan you know the ferocity of a pissed off anatidae. That shit is scary. 2. If we assume the speed of a horse compared to a duck is related to their relative size it'll be easy to briskly walk away from the fight if things go south. 3. It'll be easy to subdue at least a few of the tiny horses and take them home, Breeding miniature horses would be extremely lucrative, just think of all the little girls that could now afford their own tiny pony. Edit 1: Cool, Geld! precious, precious geld... I'd blow it all on /r/blackjack and /r/hookers Edit 2: CMV Status: * ~30% Convinced by the argument that potentially killing 100 cute horses is way more emotionally stressful than killing one duck-like abomination. Would have been 60% but I divided by 2 assuming a 50/50 chance of safely capturing them or escaping. * +~15% Convinced by the argument that fighting 100 targets is potentially more difficult than fighting one. especially if they're relentless and escape is not an option. The omissions of what weapons are available makes it even more difficult. * +~0.01% convinced by the argument that a horse-sized duck defies biology's code of conduct, It is assumed the duck is fully functional by whatever voodoo witch thought it's a good idea to conjure such a beast. = ~45.01

t3_2u0rrx

CMV: Afrocentric beliefs, or any other racial equivalent is somewhat irrational

Well... This has been on my chest for a long time, so I am trying to reclaim a new perspective on something that has been baffling me for years. I[19 M] am a black teenager/young adult( whichever you prefer). I am nothing special, grew up in the inner city and experienced some trials and tribulations. However, I am quite different from the my friends and family in this one area. Cutting to the chase, I never identified with my culture a huge amount. I don't have any underlying issues with being black, I don't embrace it and I don't reject it, because that seems logical right? But I keep encountering this pro "black pride" or "African-American" centered worldview of my peers and even older adults. For example, the majority of my black peers centrally surround themselves within black communities, they only have black friends and significant others, only listen to hip-hop and rap, only wear nike's and embrace values and tendencies of other black people. To make a long post even longer, although I have for several reasons indicated to family and friends that I have never, and probably will never desire a romantic relationship with a black women, they either a)ignore me or b) repeatedly try to fix me up with black women, and make a point to repeatedly bring the topic up. It's horrible! I am at my wits end because even when I try to have a conversation about anything, it comes back to this "Afrocentric" mentality. Me and my grandparents will have a conversation about presidents. I will casually point out that I personally am intrigued President Truman's Re-election campaign. Geuss what? They will immediately without fail, disregard whatever I said and say "but what do you think of Barack Obama". What blows my mind even more, I hear young, and fairly intelligent friends say things along the lines as "I can't stand republicans" or "black are on the rise", or some other ignorant bs, about a topic they know nothing about. Please CMV... for my sanity, why does the problem subsist and why can't I manage to understand my peers and family in this one area? _____ > *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: Afrocentric beliefs, or any other racial equivalent is somewhat irrational. Well... This has been on my chest for a long time, so I am trying to reclaim a new perspective on something that has been baffling me for years. I[19 M] am a black teenager/young adult( whichever you prefer). I am nothing special, grew up in the inner city and experienced some trials and tribulations. However, I am quite different from the my friends and family in this one area. Cutting to the chase, I never identified with my culture a huge amount. I don't have any underlying issues with being black, I don't embrace it and I don't reject it, because that seems logical right? But I keep encountering this pro "black pride" or "African-American" centered worldview of my peers and even older adults. For example, the majority of my black peers centrally surround themselves within black communities, they only have black friends and significant others, only listen to hip-hop and rap, only wear nike's and embrace values and tendencies of other black people. To make a long post even longer, although I have for several reasons indicated to family and friends that I have never, and probably will never desire a romantic relationship with a black women, they either a)ignore me or b) repeatedly try to fix me up with black women, and make a point to repeatedly bring the topic up. It's horrible! I am at my wits end because even when I try to have a conversation about anything, it comes back to this "Afrocentric" mentality. Me and my grandparents will have a conversation about presidents. I will casually point out that I personally am intrigued President Truman's Re-election campaign. Geuss what? They will immediately without fail, disregard whatever I said and say "but what do you think of Barack Obama". What blows my mind even more, I hear young, and fairly intelligent friends say things along the lines as "I can't stand republicans" or "black are on the rise", or some other ignorant bs, about a topic they know nothing about. Please CMV... for my sanity, why does the problem subsist and why can't I manage to understand my peers and family in this one area?

t3_1ja408

I believe that effective gun control may be possible, but that we're going about it the wrong way. Please CMV

First, let us assume for the sake of discussion that the purpose of any gun control law is to enhance the general safety of people, not to enhance the control over them by the government. Most people agree that a law abiding citizen who controls his weapon properly is not a danger to himself or others. While no weapon is 100% safe, when treated properly it approaches 100% more closely than many other aspects of our lives. Living itself is not 100% safe, and that should never be our collective goal. I feel that reasonable people have an issue with guns not controlled by law abiding citizens. I believe that if we could somehow reduce the number of illegal weapons the number of incidents of firearms being used purposefully against other people would drop. Furthermore, all weapons were originally legal weapons. They were either lost, sold, or stolen from manufacturers. Firearms sold are still legal until they are lost, stolen, or sold illegally. I suspect that illegal weapons become legal weapons at a slower rate than legal weapons becoming illegal. Therefore, the number of illegal weapons will rise continually as long as and in proportion to the number of legal guns produced and still in existence. If laws could be written seeking to mitigate the conversion rate of guns from legal to illegal, this seems like a better approach than to restrict owners or types of weapons. I am not offering a specific solution or way to make this happen, if you want me to do that elect me to congress. I'm simply suggesting that a change in approach may be a way to satisfy both sides of this issue. Please, CMV

I believe that effective gun control may be possible, but that we're going about it the wrong way. Please CMV. First, let us assume for the sake of discussion that the purpose of any gun control law is to enhance the general safety of people, not to enhance the control over them by the government. Most people agree that a law abiding citizen who controls his weapon properly is not a danger to himself or others. While no weapon is 100% safe, when treated properly it approaches 100% more closely than many other aspects of our lives. Living itself is not 100% safe, and that should never be our collective goal. I feel that reasonable people have an issue with guns not controlled by law abiding citizens. I believe that if we could somehow reduce the number of illegal weapons the number of incidents of firearms being used purposefully against other people would drop. Furthermore, all weapons were originally legal weapons. They were either lost, sold, or stolen from manufacturers. Firearms sold are still legal until they are lost, stolen, or sold illegally. I suspect that illegal weapons become legal weapons at a slower rate than legal weapons becoming illegal. Therefore, the number of illegal weapons will rise continually as long as and in proportion to the number of legal guns produced and still in existence. If laws could be written seeking to mitigate the conversion rate of guns from legal to illegal, this seems like a better approach than to restrict owners or types of weapons. I am not offering a specific solution or way to make this happen, if you want me to do that elect me to congress. I'm simply suggesting that a change in approach may be a way to satisfy both sides of this issue. Please, CMV

t3_1mm1y2

I believe it's hypocritical to believe in freedom on the internet, but not freedom to own guns. CMV

In short, I believe that if you think the government has no place in the regulation of the internet, it's hypocritical to believe that they have a duty to regulate or even ban firearms. My reasoning is this: many believe that guns need to be regulated or banned because of gun violence/accidents/massacres, and that proper legislation can prevent them. The internet, on the other hand, undoubtedly procures just as much harm as firearms do. After all, many firearms are illegally bought and sold on the internet. There are kiddie porn sites, black market sites, sites for cannibals, etc etc. If you think that proper regulation could end gun violence, then couldn't proper regulation end those sorts of activities on the internet? Or do you just not care about those sorts of illegal activities? That's the hypocrisy I see. CMV.

I believe it's hypocritical to believe in freedom on the internet, but not freedom to own guns. CMV. In short, I believe that if you think the government has no place in the regulation of the internet, it's hypocritical to believe that they have a duty to regulate or even ban firearms. My reasoning is this: many believe that guns need to be regulated or banned because of gun violence/accidents/massacres, and that proper legislation can prevent them. The internet, on the other hand, undoubtedly procures just as much harm as firearms do. After all, many firearms are illegally bought and sold on the internet. There are kiddie porn sites, black market sites, sites for cannibals, etc etc. If you think that proper regulation could end gun violence, then couldn't proper regulation end those sorts of activities on the internet? Or do you just not care about those sorts of illegal activities? That's the hypocrisy I see. CMV.

t3_1g02fr

I believe that Cake Day should be removed because people take advantage of it. CMV

Reason 1 - Most posts on Cake Day are about either their Cake Day or how they couldn't think about something for their Cake Day. They don't add any real substance to the Reddit Community. Reason 2 - In one of the FAQ that Reddit has put out, they ascertain that Karma is simply a by-product of being awesome. Cake Days, however, are designed specifically for someone to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis. If Reddit doesn't want to make getting Karma the main reason for posting something, why have a Cake Day, that does exactly that?

I believe that Cake Day should be removed because people take advantage of it. CMV. Reason 1 - Most posts on Cake Day are about either their Cake Day or how they couldn't think about something for their Cake Day. They don't add any real substance to the Reddit Community. Reason 2 - In one of the FAQ that Reddit has put out, they ascertain that Karma is simply a by-product of being awesome. Cake Days, however, are designed specifically for someone to procure Karma in the case that they typically do not get much of it on daily basis. If Reddit doesn't want to make getting Karma the main reason for posting something, why have a Cake Day, that does exactly that?

t3_3cc2va

CMV: PC is vastly superior to console for gaming, or for any task.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to honestly believe that a console is better than PC. If you ask me what's one thing that console does better, I would say it's the fact that in games where you drive, you can choose how fast to go. (I.e. you can push the trigger as hard or as softly as you wish, which in turn makes you drive at different speeds. While with a keyboard, you can only push the button all the way or not at all. But of course, PC can use controllers, so it's a wash. But I would like to debate someone on this topic. CMV! Edit: I made a complete ass out of myself. Deltas were awarded so no point in commenting on this anymore. _____ > *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: PC is vastly superior to console for gaming, or for any task. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to honestly believe that a console is better than PC. If you ask me what's one thing that console does better, I would say it's the fact that in games where you drive, you can choose how fast to go. (I.e. you can push the trigger as hard or as softly as you wish, which in turn makes you drive at different speeds. While with a keyboard, you can only push the button all the way or not at all. But of course, PC can use controllers, so it's a wash. But I would like to debate someone on this topic. CMV! Edit: I made a complete ass out of myself. Deltas were awarded so no point in commenting on this anymore.

t3_72nod2

CMV: Natalie Portman is not a good actress

She's a perfectly competent actress. I'm sure she works hard and is smart and educated with her Ivy League degree. But has she ever *added* anything to a role? Would any of her characters have been notably worse if any other nice looking decent actress had been playing them instead? IMO, no. Here are a couple examples of what I mean: - Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie was great and it would not have been the same movie if Depp hadn't played his character the way he did - RDJ as Tony Stark. This one goes with out saying. Everyone loves Iron Man and RDJ. - Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday. One of my all time favorite characters and it has so much to do with the way Kilmer played the part - Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood. Obviously Day-Lewis' acting recognition is renowned, and he's great in everything. But I don't feel Natalie Portman has ever played a role where you're just like, "holy shit she was awesome," like I was with Day-Lewis' in this movie. _____ > *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: Natalie Portman is not a good actress. She's a perfectly competent actress. I'm sure she works hard and is smart and educated with her Ivy League degree. But has she ever *added* anything to a role? Would any of her characters have been notably worse if any other nice looking decent actress had been playing them instead? IMO, no. Here are a couple examples of what I mean: - Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie was great and it would not have been the same movie if Depp hadn't played his character the way he did - RDJ as Tony Stark. This one goes with out saying. Everyone loves Iron Man and RDJ. - Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday. One of my all time favorite characters and it has so much to do with the way Kilmer played the part - Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood. Obviously Day-Lewis' acting recognition is renowned, and he's great in everything. But I don't feel Natalie Portman has ever played a role where you're just like, "holy shit she was awesome," like I was with Day-Lewis' in this movie.

t3_6wtzgd

CMV: People aren't "born that way" in reference to sexual orientation

I remember my first college psychology class, in which the professor opined that people were "born that way," that it was all in the genes, and that sexual orientation was out of our control. She cited a study about genetically identical twins. If one twin was gay, then the other was much more likely than usual to also be gay. This proved the genetic cause of sexual orientation, she said. Even then, it was immediately clear to me that it proved exactly the opposite. Or, perhaps "opposite" is a bit too strong. It's not that the study proved that there was no genetic factor, but the very fact that there were genetically identical people of different sexual orientations (remember, more twins than usual were of the same sexual orientation, but not all of them) proved that there was more going on than genetics. Technically, it proves there's more going on than genetics and the womb environment. At the same time, it suggests a genetic component, right? A greater predisposition to a certain sexual orientation. That seems very likely to me. Nonetheless, it seems very clear that something else is also going on, and that sexual orientation is not set at the point of birth. _____ > *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: People aren't "born that way" in reference to sexual orientation. I remember my first college psychology class, in which the professor opined that people were "born that way," that it was all in the genes, and that sexual orientation was out of our control. She cited a study about genetically identical twins. If one twin was gay, then the other was much more likely than usual to also be gay. This proved the genetic cause of sexual orientation, she said. Even then, it was immediately clear to me that it proved exactly the opposite. Or, perhaps "opposite" is a bit too strong. It's not that the study proved that there was no genetic factor, but the very fact that there were genetically identical people of different sexual orientations (remember, more twins than usual were of the same sexual orientation, but not all of them) proved that there was more going on than genetics. Technically, it proves there's more going on than genetics and the womb environment. At the same time, it suggests a genetic component, right? A greater predisposition to a certain sexual orientation. That seems very likely to me. Nonetheless, it seems very clear that something else is also going on, and that sexual orientation is not set at the point of birth.

t3_2smu72

CMV: I think the All about that bass music video is a basically a direct ripoff of kyary pamyu pamyu

The most obvious is right here at [2:18](http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk?t=2m18s) reminds me of the [two dancers blinded with hairnets here in kyary's video](http://youtu.be/GivkxpAVVC4) . [This](http://youtu.be/9Y6H-YjsE9Q?list=PLGHibfjk4hGd-w-_DHvRyF2cm6gKoEf17), and in particular [this](http://youtu.be/jcIOg_m-bp4). Why because the last video clearlily uses male dancers with wigs which is important because the black women in the all about bass music video looks particularly masculine which goes along the lines of the video's message that everyone irregardless of body shape is beautiful. I think the kyary videos showed that they can offset the weirdness that people feel seeing a masculine looking person in a dress by giving them a weird wig. There are other things as well. A lot of kyary's videos use that particular shade of pink we see in megan's video. [Aspecially kyary's first video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzC4hFK5P3g&list=PLDAO5lp2rLHEd6Z2Mmyd9vqEk2QHm4S3F). Krary's videoc. In kyary's videos unlike other music videos they don't cut to another scene every 30 seconds. There isn't any confusing sub plots. It's a video about how complex karay's perosnality is. Which is great template for megan's video,because megan's video is more of an informational then most music videos. Karay's template requires a strong central personality to justify the extended amount of time the camera spends on megan. Which is easy for megan cause in america all you have to do is sway your hips in sassy way and that's "personality". Karay has to wear a skirt with eye balls and have things like birds come out of her mouth inorder to sell herself as an interesting person. Megan doesn't have to wast time doing that so she can spend unlike Karay most of her music video's time selling her audience an idea in an unusually cohesive way. [For example here's blackeye's where is the love](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc) a music video that's trying to sell us the idea that people should have empathy for one another. That shouldn't be too hard of any idea, but it look at the video. Look at how fast the music video scrolls to various scenes. We go from the getto, to the city,to the grocery store, and there all putting ? markes on things The video has to make direct references to poverty,police brutalty,child abuse,violence in media,...and you get my point. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think the All about that bass music video is a basically a direct ripoff of kyary pamyu pamyu. The most obvious is right here at [2:18](http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk?t=2m18s) reminds me of the [two dancers blinded with hairnets here in kyary's video](http://youtu.be/GivkxpAVVC4) . [This](http://youtu.be/9Y6H-YjsE9Q?list=PLGHibfjk4hGd-w-_DHvRyF2cm6gKoEf17), and in particular [this](http://youtu.be/jcIOg_m-bp4). Why because the last video clearlily uses male dancers with wigs which is important because the black women in the all about bass music video looks particularly masculine which goes along the lines of the video's message that everyone irregardless of body shape is beautiful. I think the kyary videos showed that they can offset the weirdness that people feel seeing a masculine looking person in a dress by giving them a weird wig. There are other things as well. A lot of kyary's videos use that particular shade of pink we see in megan's video. [Aspecially kyary's first video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzC4hFK5P3g&list=PLDAO5lp2rLHEd6Z2Mmyd9vqEk2QHm4S3F). Krary's videoc. In kyary's videos unlike other music videos they don't cut to another scene every 30 seconds. There isn't any confusing sub plots. It's a video about how complex karay's perosnality is. Which is great template for megan's video,because megan's video is more of an informational then most music videos. Karay's template requires a strong central personality to justify the extended amount of time the camera spends on megan. Which is easy for megan cause in america all you have to do is sway your hips in sassy way and that's "personality". Karay has to wear a skirt with eye balls and have things like birds come out of her mouth inorder to sell herself as an interesting person. Megan doesn't have to wast time doing that so she can spend unlike Karay most of her music video's time selling her audience an idea in an unusually cohesive way. [For example here's blackeye's where is the love](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc) a music video that's trying to sell us the idea that people should have empathy for one another. That shouldn't be too hard of any idea, but it look at the video. Look at how fast the music video scrolls to various scenes. We go from the getto, to the city,to the grocery store, and there all putting ? markes on things The video has to make direct references to poverty,police brutalty,child abuse,violence in media,...and you get my point.

t3_1fl3hd

I think "The Union: The business behind getting high" was a poorly made documentary with misguided facts. CMV

I watched "The Union" with a friend who has tried to convince me countless times why marijuana shouldn't hold a lot of negativity and why it should become legal. After watching the documentary, I thought it was a poorly made, bias documentary with misguided facts about marijuana. I am willing to change my view, but I need true facts and documented sources.

I think "The Union: The business behind getting high" was a poorly made documentary with misguided facts. CMV. I watched "The Union" with a friend who has tried to convince me countless times why marijuana shouldn't hold a lot of negativity and why it should become legal. After watching the documentary, I thought it was a poorly made, bias documentary with misguided facts about marijuana. I am willing to change my view, but I need true facts and documented sources.

t3_2ryto3

CMV: I see no real downside to NSA survelliance

A better title for this post would be "CMV: The benefits of NSA surveillance outweigh the downsides." I chose a shitty title, my bad. All these terrorist attacks have got me thinking lately about how much Snowden's revelations may have damaged US intelligence capabilities... I read "No Place to Hide," I supported Snowden like everyone else. But after all these terrorist attacks, I seriously think the benefits outweigh the negatives. People always attack the surveillance programs for making it easy for a totalitarian government to take over America, such as if some horrible president was elected and used his power to crush the opposition party and all protesters. I think that with all the power the government has today, with the strength of the military and intelligence, a totalitarian leader could easily take over the US today even without NSA surveillance. Our military is so powerful that it could easily establish an autocratic government and martial law if it wanted to. If you argue that congress or the military would put a stop to that, then by extension they are also able to put a stop to a rogue president establishing an authoritarian autocracy. The point is, the risk is already there, so a bit of surveillance won't increase the risks that much more. After all, they've been doing it since at least 2001, and we've been fine so far. Additionally, it really does help intercept terrorism. My uncle, a captain in the army, was actually alerted of an impending ambush in Iraq by an intercepted phone call, and he told me that the NSA truly helps save lives over there. We committed to this endeavor against terrorism, and I think we have responsibility as a people to support our troops... god knows how war-weary they are after over 10 years of conflict. We are all on the same team, after all. My understanding is that the NSA programs only collect surveillance data and store it into a database. Most data never even gets seen by human eyes, except for that of suspected terrorists. And whatever paranoia people may have about the definition of terrorism being too "expansive," the actual amount of people monitored is incredibly small... a fraction of a percent of the total population. I can almost certainly guarantee that you, reading this, are not a target for surveillance. I think there is a reason that so many smart Americans actually support the NSA programs, which is that normal life is impossible with constant terrorism, and as working citizens of America who contribute to our economy, we only stand to gain security from these programs at a small expense to privacy. _____ > *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 see no real downside to NSA survelliance. A better title for this post would be "CMV: The benefits of NSA surveillance outweigh the downsides." I chose a shitty title, my bad. All these terrorist attacks have got me thinking lately about how much Snowden's revelations may have damaged US intelligence capabilities... I read "No Place to Hide," I supported Snowden like everyone else. But after all these terrorist attacks, I seriously think the benefits outweigh the negatives. People always attack the surveillance programs for making it easy for a totalitarian government to take over America, such as if some horrible president was elected and used his power to crush the opposition party and all protesters. I think that with all the power the government has today, with the strength of the military and intelligence, a totalitarian leader could easily take over the US today even without NSA surveillance. Our military is so powerful that it could easily establish an autocratic government and martial law if it wanted to. If you argue that congress or the military would put a stop to that, then by extension they are also able to put a stop to a rogue president establishing an authoritarian autocracy. The point is, the risk is already there, so a bit of surveillance won't increase the risks that much more. After all, they've been doing it since at least 2001, and we've been fine so far. Additionally, it really does help intercept terrorism. My uncle, a captain in the army, was actually alerted of an impending ambush in Iraq by an intercepted phone call, and he told me that the NSA truly helps save lives over there. We committed to this endeavor against terrorism, and I think we have responsibility as a people to support our troops... god knows how war-weary they are after over 10 years of conflict. We are all on the same team, after all. My understanding is that the NSA programs only collect surveillance data and store it into a database. Most data never even gets seen by human eyes, except for that of suspected terrorists. And whatever paranoia people may have about the definition of terrorism being too "expansive," the actual amount of people monitored is incredibly small... a fraction of a percent of the total population. I can almost certainly guarantee that you, reading this, are not a target for surveillance. I think there is a reason that so many smart Americans actually support the NSA programs, which is that normal life is impossible with constant terrorism, and as working citizens of America who contribute to our economy, we only stand to gain security from these programs at a small expense to privacy.

t3_68zgok

CMV: Freedom of speech is overrated

I personally have never understood the concept of freedom of speech. Of course you should be able to say/express your opinion. My problem with freedom of speech is that, you are allowed to say whatevero you want without actual "evidence" or reason of saying it. For example, lets say Person X is at a protest and is saying that all whites are racist. I believe someone has the legal right to punish you (a small fine or something). That is not too good of an example but I hope you understand. The claim in the example I gave is clearly untrue and the only reason one would say something like it is bigotry towards white people. Basically what I'm saying is, if you are making claims publicly that have zero evidence backing them and that have only malicious intent (i.e. offending someone, creating more division in society) you deserve to be punished. EDIT: Just to clarify things. I AM NOT saying that the government should be able to restrict peoples speech. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to fine another person if they have been insulted and the statement has not been a valid claim backed by evidence, because that means the intent of the claim was purely malicious. This to me should be considered as a form of abuse, since words do hurt. Since a lot of people I see say that its not free speech if you are not allowed to offend someone. Keep in mind I am not an expert. Im just a student who doesnt understand the hysteria around freedom of speech. EDIT 2: My view has been changed. The reason I made this post is because I have seen quite a lot of people saying that slander laws infringe on their right to free speech. I WAS WRONG and thought that "true" freedom of speech DOESN'T include slander laws, which I have been proven wrong about. Thank you for all the replies. I got a lot more replies than I thought I would XD

CMV: Freedom of speech is overrated. I personally have never understood the concept of freedom of speech. Of course you should be able to say/express your opinion. My problem with freedom of speech is that, you are allowed to say whatevero you want without actual "evidence" or reason of saying it. For example, lets say Person X is at a protest and is saying that all whites are racist. I believe someone has the legal right to punish you (a small fine or something). That is not too good of an example but I hope you understand. The claim in the example I gave is clearly untrue and the only reason one would say something like it is bigotry towards white people. Basically what I'm saying is, if you are making claims publicly that have zero evidence backing them and that have only malicious intent (i.e. offending someone, creating more division in society) you deserve to be punished. EDIT: Just to clarify things. I AM NOT saying that the government should be able to restrict peoples speech. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to fine another person if they have been insulted and the statement has not been a valid claim backed by evidence, because that means the intent of the claim was purely malicious. This to me should be considered as a form of abuse, since words do hurt. Since a lot of people I see say that its not free speech if you are not allowed to offend someone. Keep in mind I am not an expert. Im just a student who doesnt understand the hysteria around freedom of speech. EDIT 2: My view has been changed. The reason I made this post is because I have seen quite a lot of people saying that slander laws infringe on their right to free speech. I WAS WRONG and thought that "true" freedom of speech DOESN'T include slander laws, which I have been proven wrong about. Thank you for all the replies. I got a lot more replies than I thought I would XD

t3_1gpfod

I believe that having children should require a license. CMV.

The licensing process should be designed in such a way to (as much as possible) weed out people who are drug addicts, violent in nature, mentally ill in a way that could likely be damaging to a child, or do not have the means to support a child. This will help lead to a situation where fewer children are raised in bad situations caused by having parents who weren't qualified to be parents. CMV.

I believe that having children should require a license. CMV. The licensing process should be designed in such a way to (as much as possible) weed out people who are drug addicts, violent in nature, mentally ill in a way that could likely be damaging to a child, or do not have the means to support a child. This will help lead to a situation where fewer children are raised in bad situations caused by having parents who weren't qualified to be parents. CMV.

t3_34792n

CMV: There is absolute universal truth

I believe that there are scientific facts that are absolutely and universally true, regardless of time, place, perspective, dimension. For instance, I think that a formulation of Newton's laws of motion could be made and presented to any potential being in any part or time in the universe, and they would agree that they are fundamentally true, if limited. I believe that there is a physically real universe, and that the scientific laws that have been discovered are (fairly) accurate descriptions of this actual reality. And if specified carefully, these laws can contain universal truth. I realised this probably isn't a very controversial opinion on reddit, considering its userbase. But I was discussing it with a friend recently (who vehemently disagrees) and I'd like more perspectives! _____ > *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 absolute universal truth. I believe that there are scientific facts that are absolutely and universally true, regardless of time, place, perspective, dimension. For instance, I think that a formulation of Newton's laws of motion could be made and presented to any potential being in any part or time in the universe, and they would agree that they are fundamentally true, if limited. I believe that there is a physically real universe, and that the scientific laws that have been discovered are (fairly) accurate descriptions of this actual reality. And if specified carefully, these laws can contain universal truth. I realised this probably isn't a very controversial opinion on reddit, considering its userbase. But I was discussing it with a friend recently (who vehemently disagrees) and I'd like more perspectives!

t3_4zfg98

CMV: Patriotism/National Pride is useless, and often harmful, in current society

EDIT: This thread is now closed. I'm glad that so many people gave their input, but none of it has really convinced me to change my mind, and most new replies are bringing up repeating points by now. Maybe patriotism just doesn't fit my way of thinking :/ Thanks for joining in --- Original Post: I've never understood why I should support, celebrate, or agree with something just because of a shared nationality. On the more "harmless but useless" side of the spectrum, sports(wo)men performing great feats, scientists making groundbreaking discoveries, and artists creating masterpieces, are all impressive regardless of the nationality. (Obviously, at this end, I don't *object* to others' national pride, i just don't feel the need for it personally) On the more harmful side, this way of thinking, that "the outsider" is inferior, or less deserving of support, is the root of racism, sexism, homophobia, and led to the likes of Adolf Hitler, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump rising in the political ranks, all of whom have based their political stances on the idea of maintaining national identity and superiority in the face of supposed adversity from "the other" (jews, immigrants, and muslims, respectively). Of course, there are examples in between these two, but i think just these two extremes illustrate my point well enough. What benefit is there to having a sense of patriotism or national identity - for oneself, or anyone else? CLARIFYING EDIT: I'm not saying National Pride is inherently bad 100% of the time, but i do believe the good side of it is entirely outdated, and we should focus instead on forwarding our advancement as a race, rather than limiting ourselves to mere nations. Should we not ALL be proud of Bolt's speed, or Ledecky's swimming prowess? Should we not ALL be excited that Hawking is among us and making such great advancements in physics? _____ > *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: Patriotism/National Pride is useless, and often harmful, in current society. EDIT: This thread is now closed. I'm glad that so many people gave their input, but none of it has really convinced me to change my mind, and most new replies are bringing up repeating points by now. Maybe patriotism just doesn't fit my way of thinking :/ Thanks for joining in --- Original Post: I've never understood why I should support, celebrate, or agree with something just because of a shared nationality. On the more "harmless but useless" side of the spectrum, sports(wo)men performing great feats, scientists making groundbreaking discoveries, and artists creating masterpieces, are all impressive regardless of the nationality. (Obviously, at this end, I don't *object* to others' national pride, i just don't feel the need for it personally) On the more harmful side, this way of thinking, that "the outsider" is inferior, or less deserving of support, is the root of racism, sexism, homophobia, and led to the likes of Adolf Hitler, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump rising in the political ranks, all of whom have based their political stances on the idea of maintaining national identity and superiority in the face of supposed adversity from "the other" (jews, immigrants, and muslims, respectively). Of course, there are examples in between these two, but i think just these two extremes illustrate my point well enough. What benefit is there to having a sense of patriotism or national identity - for oneself, or anyone else? CLARIFYING EDIT: I'm not saying National Pride is inherently bad 100% of the time, but i do believe the good side of it is entirely outdated, and we should focus instead on forwarding our advancement as a race, rather than limiting ourselves to mere nations. Should we not ALL be proud of Bolt's speed, or Ledecky's swimming prowess? Should we not ALL be excited that Hawking is among us and making such great advancements in physics?

t3_5atn32

CMV: The entirety of the Republican position on "Obamacare" A.K.A the 'Affordable' Healthcare Act is nothing but smoke and mirrors

Hey there, CMV, long time no talk. I know, I know, another election post. At least this one is tangential. We've now had almost 7 years since the ACA was passed in October of 2009. In that time, according to the CDC and Census data, for the first three months of 2016 the uninsured rate is 8.6% down from 9.2% last year, and from 15.7% before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. [Source](http://obamacarefacts.com/uninsured-rates/) There are currently an estimated 322,762,018 people in the US; therefore, we've insured nearly 23 *million* additional people in this country. In that time, insurance premiums have skyrocketed - **but, actually, still at a slower rate than they were previously increasing by**. > Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent. [Source](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/) All of that said, the Republican response to the growing pain felt by the average American family with regards to healthcare costs has been to place the blame squarely on Democrats and the ACA; I feel that this is not only disingenuous but dishonest, *because there is no real alternative that has been advanced by anyone with an (R) next to their name.* I have seen exactly two concrete policy proposals from Republicans in the last seven years. 1: Allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. I have yet to see what the magical benefits of competition would be, considering that there are a limited number of insurance companies offering insurance to begin with. Even if this were to become possible, there's not a lot of convincing evidence that it would do very much; [Source](http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/300711-insurers-arent-interested-in-selling-obamacare-across-state-lines) 2: Allow easier access to HSA accounts. While saving more and not taxing citizens for their healthcare sounds like a great idea, Americans are already struggling to afford healthcare; this isn't going to do anything to reduce those costs, merely prevent a few dollars from going to the federal and state governments. For people who already receive tax refunds every year, this does exactly nothing. That said, can anyone describe why repealing the ACA is a responsible move? Or how it would be replaced by something that has any reasonable chance of actually improving the healthcare landscape in the US? Finally, if the previous state of nature in the US healthcare system is preferable, what do you do with people who would be unable to afford basic healthcare services, numbering in the tens of millions? Thanks all. _____ > *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 entirety of the Republican position on "Obamacare" A.K.A the 'Affordable' Healthcare Act is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Hey there, CMV, long time no talk. I know, I know, another election post. At least this one is tangential. We've now had almost 7 years since the ACA was passed in October of 2009. In that time, according to the CDC and Census data, for the first three months of 2016 the uninsured rate is 8.6% down from 9.2% last year, and from 15.7% before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. [Source](http://obamacarefacts.com/uninsured-rates/) There are currently an estimated 322,762,018 people in the US; therefore, we've insured nearly 23 *million* additional people in this country. In that time, insurance premiums have skyrocketed - **but, actually, still at a slower rate than they were previously increasing by**. > Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent. [Source](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/) All of that said, the Republican response to the growing pain felt by the average American family with regards to healthcare costs has been to place the blame squarely on Democrats and the ACA; I feel that this is not only disingenuous but dishonest, *because there is no real alternative that has been advanced by anyone with an (R) next to their name.* I have seen exactly two concrete policy proposals from Republicans in the last seven years. 1: Allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. I have yet to see what the magical benefits of competition would be, considering that there are a limited number of insurance companies offering insurance to begin with. Even if this were to become possible, there's not a lot of convincing evidence that it would do very much; [Source](http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/300711-insurers-arent-interested-in-selling-obamacare-across-state-lines) 2: Allow easier access to HSA accounts. While saving more and not taxing citizens for their healthcare sounds like a great idea, Americans are already struggling to afford healthcare; this isn't going to do anything to reduce those costs, merely prevent a few dollars from going to the federal and state governments. For people who already receive tax refunds every year, this does exactly nothing. That said, can anyone describe why repealing the ACA is a responsible move? Or how it would be replaced by something that has any reasonable chance of actually improving the healthcare landscape in the US? Finally, if the previous state of nature in the US healthcare system is preferable, what do you do with people who would be unable to afford basic healthcare services, numbering in the tens of millions? Thanks all.

t3_36xqll

CMV: It is incredibly hypocritical and cognitively dissonant for Americans to criticize the use of slave labor in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar The cognitive dissonance in Americans

There is currently a picture making the rounds on the internet that criticizes Coke(among other companies) for supporting the world cup in Qatar, presumably because they are using slaves from India to build the stadiums. You can view the picture here if you haven't seen it yet. https://i.imgur.com/6WHbsFa.png I think its incredibly hypocritical for people from a country that was built by slavery, to post from their iPhones or Mac Books made with parts that are produced from slave labor, about how terrible it is that Qatar is using slaves, all without offering one cent to improve the situation. The cognitive dissonance in Americans who fail to realize they are only in a position to criticize because of the slave labor the country used to become a world power is really incredible. Their complaints would be softened if they actually offered to help these poorer countries, with money or workers, but they simply expect other countries to shy away from slavery because "times have changed." That's a fair critique, but similarly to people who oppose both abortions and welfare, it just doesn't work in practice. If you want to criticize a country that is much poorer than you for using the same tactics you did to get rich, at the very least you have to be willing to subsidize their costs so as to make slavery ineffective. I believe that people who are criticizing Qatar today are wildly hypocritical and suffering heavily from cognitive dissonance, 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: It is incredibly hypocritical and cognitively dissonant for Americans to criticize the use of slave labor in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar The cognitive dissonance in Americans. There is currently a picture making the rounds on the internet that criticizes Coke(among other companies) for supporting the world cup in Qatar, presumably because they are using slaves from India to build the stadiums. You can view the picture here if you haven't seen it yet. https://i.imgur.com/6WHbsFa.png I think its incredibly hypocritical for people from a country that was built by slavery, to post from their iPhones or Mac Books made with parts that are produced from slave labor, about how terrible it is that Qatar is using slaves, all without offering one cent to improve the situation. The cognitive dissonance in Americans who fail to realize they are only in a position to criticize because of the slave labor the country used to become a world power is really incredible. Their complaints would be softened if they actually offered to help these poorer countries, with money or workers, but they simply expect other countries to shy away from slavery because "times have changed." That's a fair critique, but similarly to people who oppose both abortions and welfare, it just doesn't work in practice. If you want to criticize a country that is much poorer than you for using the same tactics you did to get rich, at the very least you have to be willing to subsidize their costs so as to make slavery ineffective. I believe that people who are criticizing Qatar today are wildly hypocritical and suffering heavily from cognitive dissonance, CMV.

t3_5rp1j3

CMV: The US created the worldwide immigration crisis by funding ISIS in Syria to overthrow the Assad government.

The US government has pushed for the resettlement of refugees into the United States from Syria since day one. We were told to have compassion and to accept all people coming from Syria no matter who they might be. If someone has opposed the resettlement process for any reason, they have been labeled a "bigot" or "xenophobe". Why did the government so quickly condemn those opposing this view and push all countries around the world to do the same? The fact is the US wanted to overthrow the Syrian government so they could prop up a "straw man" leader. Our strategy to do this was to supply with weapons and cash the rebels on the ground. Who are these rebels? ISIS and Al Qaeda. We have been sending millions in cash and arms to ISIS in Syria so they could overthrow Assad with hopes the US would come in after the bloodbath, call Assad bad, act like we dont know anything about it, and push for a new president that we approve of. I have read multiple reports of the chemical weapons that were used against Syrians were actually from the US, which would explain why Obama allowed the massacre to continue. So, the US is taking refugees from a genocide that they started. Its our fault. CMV reddit. _____ > *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 US created the worldwide immigration crisis by funding ISIS in Syria to overthrow the Assad government. The US government has pushed for the resettlement of refugees into the United States from Syria since day one. We were told to have compassion and to accept all people coming from Syria no matter who they might be. If someone has opposed the resettlement process for any reason, they have been labeled a "bigot" or "xenophobe". Why did the government so quickly condemn those opposing this view and push all countries around the world to do the same? The fact is the US wanted to overthrow the Syrian government so they could prop up a "straw man" leader. Our strategy to do this was to supply with weapons and cash the rebels on the ground. Who are these rebels? ISIS and Al Qaeda. We have been sending millions in cash and arms to ISIS in Syria so they could overthrow Assad with hopes the US would come in after the bloodbath, call Assad bad, act like we dont know anything about it, and push for a new president that we approve of. I have read multiple reports of the chemical weapons that were used against Syrians were actually from the US, which would explain why Obama allowed the massacre to continue. So, the US is taking refugees from a genocide that they started. Its our fault. CMV reddit.

t3_1l3cf1

I Believe the Optimal Storage Place for Eggs is the Refrigerator. CMV.

Almost no-one else I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, and yet none of them seem to be able to give me a good answer as to why that is the case. Before now, people have said 'the eggs absorb the smells in the fridge', as chefs have apparently said something to that effect on TV. I have never seen or tasted any evidence of this fact however. They've also argued that because supermarkets don't put the eggs in refrigerators, that they obviously shouldn't go there. However, I'm of the mind that they sell quick enough that they don't need to. In my experience refrigerating eggs keeps them fresh for longer and doesn't change the taste. So is there any real argument for keeping them out of the refrigerator? I would like to know, so pleeeease CMV! EDIT: To clarify, limited refrigerator space is a good argument for keeping eggs out, however I know plenty of people do it despite having plenty of room in the refrigerator! Also, I live in the UK, so eggs do not get washed before getting into the supermarket.

I Believe the Optimal Storage Place for Eggs is the Refrigerator. CMV. Almost no-one else I know stores eggs in the refrigerator, and yet none of them seem to be able to give me a good answer as to why that is the case. Before now, people have said 'the eggs absorb the smells in the fridge', as chefs have apparently said something to that effect on TV. I have never seen or tasted any evidence of this fact however. They've also argued that because supermarkets don't put the eggs in refrigerators, that they obviously shouldn't go there. However, I'm of the mind that they sell quick enough that they don't need to. In my experience refrigerating eggs keeps them fresh for longer and doesn't change the taste. So is there any real argument for keeping them out of the refrigerator? I would like to know, so pleeeease CMV! EDIT: To clarify, limited refrigerator space is a good argument for keeping eggs out, however I know plenty of people do it despite having plenty of room in the refrigerator! Also, I live in the UK, so eggs do not get washed before getting into the supermarket.

t3_6mtnsm

CMV: Jean Meslier, one of the first post-Classical atheists, was a supporter of terrorism.

Jean Meslier was a 18th century French catholic priest who was revealed to be an atheist by the discovery of *Testament*. One of his more famous quotes is: > Je voudrais, et ce sera le dernier et le plus ardent de mes souhaits, je voudrais que le dernier des rois fût étranglé avec les boyaux du dernier prêtre. which can be translated to English in the following way: > I would like to and this would be the last and most ardent of my wishes — I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the guts of the last priest Here we see him make a call to indiscriminate violence implicitly to achieve a political and religious aim. This is a textbook definition of terrorism. Given that the indiscriminate violence was his last and most ardent wish, it is clear that he was a supporter of this violence which constitutes an act of terrorism as people rarely wish for things that they do not support. EDIT: I will my best to respond to as many people as possible. But I like to take my time for each answer so there might be a few which slip through the tracts. _____ > *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: Jean Meslier, one of the first post-Classical atheists, was a supporter of terrorism. Jean Meslier was a 18th century French catholic priest who was revealed to be an atheist by the discovery of *Testament*. One of his more famous quotes is: > Je voudrais, et ce sera le dernier et le plus ardent de mes souhaits, je voudrais que le dernier des rois fût étranglé avec les boyaux du dernier prêtre. which can be translated to English in the following way: > I would like to and this would be the last and most ardent of my wishes — I would like the last of the kings to be strangled by the guts of the last priest Here we see him make a call to indiscriminate violence implicitly to achieve a political and religious aim. This is a textbook definition of terrorism. Given that the indiscriminate violence was his last and most ardent wish, it is clear that he was a supporter of this violence which constitutes an act of terrorism as people rarely wish for things that they do not support. EDIT: I will my best to respond to as many people as possible. But I like to take my time for each answer so there might be a few which slip through the tracts.

t3_22lqph

CMV: To improve school attendance, make child tax credit conditional

Children who do not attend school do not do as well as children who do. They earn lower grades, are less likely to graduate and earn lower incomes. Michigan cuts welfare payments to families whose children miss 10 days of school in one year, http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/michigan_families_could_lose_w.html But welfare families are only a small portion of all families whose children miss school. More families would be affected if the child tax credit and dependant deduction were conditional on school attendance. Once a year each school would report on the attendance of each child. The school would need the SSN of all students. Then the parents who claimed these children on their prior year income tax return would receive notice on attendance and whether they can claim the credit this year. **EDIT**: Only unexcused absences would count for losing the tax credit and most illnesses would be an excused absence. **EDIT**: The family is a unit. Americans are so obsessed with individualism and how the actions of a child could unfairly affect others in the family. _____ > *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: To improve school attendance, make child tax credit conditional. Children who do not attend school do not do as well as children who do. They earn lower grades, are less likely to graduate and earn lower incomes. Michigan cuts welfare payments to families whose children miss 10 days of school in one year, http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/michigan_families_could_lose_w.html But welfare families are only a small portion of all families whose children miss school. More families would be affected if the child tax credit and dependant deduction were conditional on school attendance. Once a year each school would report on the attendance of each child. The school would need the SSN of all students. Then the parents who claimed these children on their prior year income tax return would receive notice on attendance and whether they can claim the credit this year. **EDIT**: Only unexcused absences would count for losing the tax credit and most illnesses would be an excused absence. **EDIT**: The family is a unit. Americans are so obsessed with individualism and how the actions of a child could unfairly affect others in the family.

t3_62wz7k

CMV: RNG can be a good mechanic, even in competitive gaming

Okay so, I'm not completely sold out on RNG mechanics, but playing the Game of Thrones board game made me consider RNG mechanics (for those that don't know, the GoT board game has an optional RNG mechanic that adds up to +3 in combat strenght, where numbers don't usually go above 10. This is the only random mechanic in the game). I think there are some cases where RNG hides over the fact that the game is not deep at all (like RISK, Monopoly and to some extent Fire Emblem, although I fucking love FE), but I think in a well-designed game it adds a layer of depth to it. 1) In games where snowballing is a thing (so many of them), it prevents snowballing since there is a chance for the losing team to make a comeback - the winner thus has to keep plan B in case plan A gets fucked by the RNG, thus he has to stratigize further in order to keep his advantage instead of just pushing a single plan. 2) It forces adaptation on a completely new level and makes risk-taking much more prevalent, since there is a chance of something going wrong without your control. In Smash Bros. games, for example, people would have to work around items randomly appearing, and this could open a huge amount of possibilities in the game. 3) It makes capitalizing on advantages much more important - in the aforementioned GoT example, you can get in very rare cases a +3 in combat strenght, but it's not going to matter much if you have the possibility to go in with 10 strenght while your opponent has 4. 4) It makes it more exciting for the audience, and this is really important for games that are pushing for a big competitive scene (like League of Legends). I don't advocate for abuse of RNG, it doesn't even have to be true RNG (like LoL's crit chance) but I think it does have a place in competitive gaming.

CMV: RNG can be a good mechanic, even in competitive gaming. Okay so, I'm not completely sold out on RNG mechanics, but playing the Game of Thrones board game made me consider RNG mechanics (for those that don't know, the GoT board game has an optional RNG mechanic that adds up to +3 in combat strenght, where numbers don't usually go above 10. This is the only random mechanic in the game). I think there are some cases where RNG hides over the fact that the game is not deep at all (like RISK, Monopoly and to some extent Fire Emblem, although I fucking love FE), but I think in a well-designed game it adds a layer of depth to it. 1) In games where snowballing is a thing (so many of them), it prevents snowballing since there is a chance for the losing team to make a comeback - the winner thus has to keep plan B in case plan A gets fucked by the RNG, thus he has to stratigize further in order to keep his advantage instead of just pushing a single plan. 2) It forces adaptation on a completely new level and makes risk-taking much more prevalent, since there is a chance of something going wrong without your control. In Smash Bros. games, for example, people would have to work around items randomly appearing, and this could open a huge amount of possibilities in the game. 3) It makes capitalizing on advantages much more important - in the aforementioned GoT example, you can get in very rare cases a +3 in combat strenght, but it's not going to matter much if you have the possibility to go in with 10 strenght while your opponent has 4. 4) It makes it more exciting for the audience, and this is really important for games that are pushing for a big competitive scene (like League of Legends). I don't advocate for abuse of RNG, it doesn't even have to be true RNG (like LoL's crit chance) but I think it does have a place in competitive gaming.

t3_2g6mpl

CMV: I'm 17, I've been smoking less than 6 cigarettes a week for 3 years and I don't think its bad.

Basically, I get panic attacks. Ever since I was a little kid, I would experience them. Sometimes I would black out and not know where I was. This worsened when I was able to drive. I have found myself ran completely out of gas, on the side of an interstate miles from home. Whenever I smoke, it calms me down. It helps me get a clear mind and it helps me think. The reason I don't see it as an addiction is because it's never required. I can think well on my own, but whenever it gets out of hand, I just smoke one cigarette and it completely calms me down. I can go without smoking. For some reason, I'm just not addicted like I see how some others are addicted. I've also read why/how smoking is bad for you and none of it seems to scare me. And then I only smoke socially. The most I've ever had in one week was 6, and I just don't see it as a problem. 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'm 17, I've been smoking less than 6 cigarettes a week for 3 years and I don't think its bad. Basically, I get panic attacks. Ever since I was a little kid, I would experience them. Sometimes I would black out and not know where I was. This worsened when I was able to drive. I have found myself ran completely out of gas, on the side of an interstate miles from home. Whenever I smoke, it calms me down. It helps me get a clear mind and it helps me think. The reason I don't see it as an addiction is because it's never required. I can think well on my own, but whenever it gets out of hand, I just smoke one cigarette and it completely calms me down. I can go without smoking. For some reason, I'm just not addicted like I see how some others are addicted. I've also read why/how smoking is bad for you and none of it seems to scare me. And then I only smoke socially. The most I've ever had in one week was 6, and I just don't see it as a problem. CMV

t3_2inuq9

CMV: If a business has two individual bathrooms, both should be unisex bathrooms

The bathrooms I'm describing are the ones where there's a single door and a small room with a toilet, sink, and trashcan that are used by one person at a time. I don't think there's any reason to divide them by gender. By equipment, they're identical I believe it's pretty uncommon for them to have urinals. Frequently the women's restroom will have a short line I have to wait in, while the men's stall is completely unoccupied. Occasionally I'll jump the line and use the men's restroom anyway, but people will give you strange looks. I've had men point out that they could not so easily do the same thing if there were a line at the men's room, and I think that's a really good point. If a business wants to provide a baby changing table, they could simply install one and mark it on the door avoiding the issue of either paying for two or only installing one in the women's room and leaving dads with infants out of luck. It's also beneficial to trans individuals who may feel uncomfortable using a gendered restroom. I really can't think of any reason why this isn't more frequently seen. CMV! Edit: Two counterpoints in response to common arguments: 1. From a management bathroom cleaning point of view, a unisex bathroom could be an advantage. Let's say a women's bathroom dirties by 10 dirt units every hour, the men's restroom by 8 dirt units every hour, and the restrooms are cleaned every 4 hours. That means you're more likely to get a customer complaint and have an employee need to go clean the women's room in hour 3, wasting some time. If you have unisex bathrooms it would even out and they each dirty at 9 units per hour, so it's easier to keep them both equally clean. 2. It doesn't make good business sense to have anyone tied up in a line. If there are 3 women waiting to pee and the men's stall is free, I don't want those women waiting around I want them browsing my store, paying the bill and freeing up a table, getting to their movie, etc. This argument also only favors men. Edit 2: For all the talk of how terrifying women's bathrooms apparently are, I now feel like a hardened bad ass for using them all these years.

CMV: If a business has two individual bathrooms, both should be unisex bathrooms. The bathrooms I'm describing are the ones where there's a single door and a small room with a toilet, sink, and trashcan that are used by one person at a time. I don't think there's any reason to divide them by gender. By equipment, they're identical I believe it's pretty uncommon for them to have urinals. Frequently the women's restroom will have a short line I have to wait in, while the men's stall is completely unoccupied. Occasionally I'll jump the line and use the men's restroom anyway, but people will give you strange looks. I've had men point out that they could not so easily do the same thing if there were a line at the men's room, and I think that's a really good point. If a business wants to provide a baby changing table, they could simply install one and mark it on the door avoiding the issue of either paying for two or only installing one in the women's room and leaving dads with infants out of luck. It's also beneficial to trans individuals who may feel uncomfortable using a gendered restroom. I really can't think of any reason why this isn't more frequently seen. CMV! Edit: Two counterpoints in response to common arguments: 1. From a management bathroom cleaning point of view, a unisex bathroom could be an advantage. Let's say a women's bathroom dirties by 10 dirt units every hour, the men's restroom by 8 dirt units every hour, and the restrooms are cleaned every 4 hours. That means you're more likely to get a customer complaint and have an employee need to go clean the women's room in hour 3, wasting some time. If you have unisex bathrooms it would even out and they each dirty at 9 units per hour, so it's easier to keep them both equally clean. 2. It doesn't make good business sense to have anyone tied up in a line. If there are 3 women waiting to pee and the men's stall is free, I don't want those women waiting around I want them browsing my store, paying the bill and freeing up a table, getting to their movie, etc. This argument also only favors men. Edit 2: For all the talk of how terrifying women's bathrooms apparently are, I now feel like a hardened bad ass for using them all these years.

t3_21efqo

CMV: I believe that national pride and patriotism are just a rebranding of racism. We should not teach children to be proud of their heritage.

While there is nothing wrong with telling your children where they came from, asking them to be proud is simply ridiculous. Nobody should be proud of their heritage because they achieved nothing. I count myself lucky to be born in Australia but am not proud of it. It is by no means an accomplishment. I believe people should be judged on their achievements, not the achievements of their ancestors or their felloe citizens. We should teach our children to be proud of the accomplishments of only themselves and the people that they have influenced. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that national pride and patriotism are just a rebranding of racism. We should not teach children to be proud of their heritage. While there is nothing wrong with telling your children where they came from, asking them to be proud is simply ridiculous. Nobody should be proud of their heritage because they achieved nothing. I count myself lucky to be born in Australia but am not proud of it. It is by no means an accomplishment. I believe people should be judged on their achievements, not the achievements of their ancestors or their felloe citizens. We should teach our children to be proud of the accomplishments of only themselves and the people that they have influenced.

t3_23g966

CMV:High schools should be given an incentive to compete with other high schools to give the highest quality education.

As of now, American high schools do not have much motivation to improve. The more often the students show up and are in a desk all day, the more money the government gives to the school. Students are usually defaulted to the high school closest to their residence and sometimes that school has very poor quality. Students and parents should be given the rankings of all local high schools to decide which one is best for the student. The poorly ranked schools will work hard to improve, thus improving the quality of education in many schools simultaneously. The US places 17th in the world for education and I believe there are changes that can be made to increase our international ranking. Here is a blog post further elaborating on my opinion: http://thinkdifferentbedifferent.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/5-flaws-of-the-american-education-system/ _____ > *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:High schools should be given an incentive to compete with other high schools to give the highest quality education. As of now, American high schools do not have much motivation to improve. The more often the students show up and are in a desk all day, the more money the government gives to the school. Students are usually defaulted to the high school closest to their residence and sometimes that school has very poor quality. Students and parents should be given the rankings of all local high schools to decide which one is best for the student. The poorly ranked schools will work hard to improve, thus improving the quality of education in many schools simultaneously. The US places 17th in the world for education and I believe there are changes that can be made to increase our international ranking. Here is a blog post further elaborating on my opinion: http://thinkdifferentbedifferent.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/5-flaws-of-the-american-education-system/

t3_22ichk

CMV: I should not pay taxes if I can avoid it and get away with it

My intention is to pay as little taxes as possible in legal and illegal ways. I try to shop online as often as possible, this both reduces the price and the amount of VAT ("sales tax") paid. I am thinking about starting an offshore (legal) company as a way to significantly reduce my taxes paid. There is also various possible illegal ways to pay less tax, to declare less income, to sell contraband etc. I'll pursue these whenever I think the risk of getting caught is low enough. Why? Some of taxes go to things I subjectively consider to be a detriment to society: * Wars * Torture * Wiretapping of non-suspects * Government waste * Harassment and violence against peaceful drug users I think these are negative externalities of government and of my taxes paid. But what about the positive externalities, you say? Well, if I should pay for those, I can pay to those directly. Schools for instance, have bank accounts. I can deposit money to their bank account, and no part of the payment will directly pay for wars or torture. Some objections I expect in reply to this: *If everyone stopped paying taxes, society would collapse!* If everyone in the entire world decided to have dinner in my kitchen, it would be pretty terrible too. People would starve! We would all be crushed! The floor would cave! This doesn't mean I shouldn't eat dinner at home. *The good outweigh the bad, utilitarianism* I do NOT think the good outweigh the bad. Also, I can pay for most of the good stuff without paying for the bad. *You are selfish!* Yes. Some degree of selfishness isn't only accepted by most in society, but is also expected. Is it unreasonably seflish of me to buy a winter jacket when there are people starving on the other side of the world? I obviously value my comfortable living more than the survival of some other humans. But is this unreasonable? Most wouldn't consider buying a winter jacket to be an unreasonably selfish act. *You paying less taxes doesn't stop the wars, torture, waste etc* This is probably true. But I atleast get to choose where some more of my money go. So I still consider it to be a net benefit. *But what about the poor!* I looked at the government budget for the government in my country, and about 1% could be attributed to benefits and welfare for people deemed to be in need of the money. If I paid $100 less in taxes and donated $2 of those to charity, the amount going to the poor would increase by 80% (assuming 90% efficiency in the charities, which is the minimum to get certified as a charity around here) and still have $98 extra to spend on something I deem beneficial. Something for my family, perhaps? What am I missing? Why should I pay tax when I don't approve of some of the things it's used for?

CMV: I should not pay taxes if I can avoid it and get away with it. My intention is to pay as little taxes as possible in legal and illegal ways. I try to shop online as often as possible, this both reduces the price and the amount of VAT ("sales tax") paid. I am thinking about starting an offshore (legal) company as a way to significantly reduce my taxes paid. There is also various possible illegal ways to pay less tax, to declare less income, to sell contraband etc. I'll pursue these whenever I think the risk of getting caught is low enough. Why? Some of taxes go to things I subjectively consider to be a detriment to society: * Wars * Torture * Wiretapping of non-suspects * Government waste * Harassment and violence against peaceful drug users I think these are negative externalities of government and of my taxes paid. But what about the positive externalities, you say? Well, if I should pay for those, I can pay to those directly. Schools for instance, have bank accounts. I can deposit money to their bank account, and no part of the payment will directly pay for wars or torture. Some objections I expect in reply to this: *If everyone stopped paying taxes, society would collapse!* If everyone in the entire world decided to have dinner in my kitchen, it would be pretty terrible too. People would starve! We would all be crushed! The floor would cave! This doesn't mean I shouldn't eat dinner at home. *The good outweigh the bad, utilitarianism* I do NOT think the good outweigh the bad. Also, I can pay for most of the good stuff without paying for the bad. *You are selfish!* Yes. Some degree of selfishness isn't only accepted by most in society, but is also expected. Is it unreasonably seflish of me to buy a winter jacket when there are people starving on the other side of the world? I obviously value my comfortable living more than the survival of some other humans. But is this unreasonable? Most wouldn't consider buying a winter jacket to be an unreasonably selfish act. *You paying less taxes doesn't stop the wars, torture, waste etc* This is probably true. But I atleast get to choose where some more of my money go. So I still consider it to be a net benefit. *But what about the poor!* I looked at the government budget for the government in my country, and about 1% could be attributed to benefits and welfare for people deemed to be in need of the money. If I paid $100 less in taxes and donated $2 of those to charity, the amount going to the poor would increase by 80% (assuming 90% efficiency in the charities, which is the minimum to get certified as a charity around here) and still have $98 extra to spend on something I deem beneficial. Something for my family, perhaps? What am I missing? Why should I pay tax when I don't approve of some of the things it's used for?

t3_1rgnrz

we live in a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist, imperialist society. and all of these converge to keep a particular class of people in power. CMV.

1. white supremacist - george zim verdict, stop and frisk, the patriot act, prison system, all these are instances of institutionalized racism against non-whites and blacks. 2. patriarchal - we live in a system of society in which is built by men, for the maintenance of power for men. 3. heteronormativity is the prevalent culture in all aspects of society, from individual relationships to institutional structures. capitalism. we use capital, monopolized currency, within a state framework. 4. imperialist, we invade countries, place dictators, neo-colonize, buy/loan land, mass incarceration, assassin, bomb, etc. any external entity who doesn't agree with the system proposed by those who have access to power here. All this comes together to form 'the united states of america and co' which is a tool used by a particular class of people to maintain their stranglehold on power.

we live in a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist, imperialist society. and all of these converge to keep a particular class of people in power. CMV. 1. white supremacist - george zim verdict, stop and frisk, the patriot act, prison system, all these are instances of institutionalized racism against non-whites and blacks. 2. patriarchal - we live in a system of society in which is built by men, for the maintenance of power for men. 3. heteronormativity is the prevalent culture in all aspects of society, from individual relationships to institutional structures. capitalism. we use capital, monopolized currency, within a state framework. 4. imperialist, we invade countries, place dictators, neo-colonize, buy/loan land, mass incarceration, assassin, bomb, etc. any external entity who doesn't agree with the system proposed by those who have access to power here. All this comes together to form 'the united states of america and co' which is a tool used by a particular class of people to maintain their stranglehold on power.

t3_3an1qk

CMV: People who don't control their barking dogs are entitled and a nuisance to everyone around them

I have a neighbor, an elderly woman with money and an insanely annoying dog. The dog barks at everything that moves, from the front window, for long hours. I have gone to the house and told the woman how irritating it is to have to listen to her dog bark, and her reply was "Oh, I've had that dog for eight years, I'm just used to it. You can't teach an old dog new tricks!" This is not the only nuisance. There are dogs that bark whenever I come to the door, tied-up dogs that bark as I try to enter the supermarket, dogs that bark incessantly at cats on their morning walk... and these owners do nothing about it. They just tug a bit on the leash or say "no", but it doesn't do anything except relieve blame. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't dogs easy to train? My cat scratched on furniture when I got her from the pound, so I started spraying her with water when she did. Then I bought cat scratchers. Now I don't have a cat that scratches furniture. It can't be that hard. My theory is that people just get lazy, give up, and shoulder their dog's annoying habits on the good graces of everyone else. They try disciplining their dogs for a couple days and when it doesn't work, they just think, "Meh, if I can get used to it, strangers can get used to it too." Dogs that cannot be taught how to be quiet should have muzzles, and if you can't afford to control your pet's behavior, you should not be owning a pet. _____ > *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 who don't control their barking dogs are entitled and a nuisance to everyone around them. I have a neighbor, an elderly woman with money and an insanely annoying dog. The dog barks at everything that moves, from the front window, for long hours. I have gone to the house and told the woman how irritating it is to have to listen to her dog bark, and her reply was "Oh, I've had that dog for eight years, I'm just used to it. You can't teach an old dog new tricks!" This is not the only nuisance. There are dogs that bark whenever I come to the door, tied-up dogs that bark as I try to enter the supermarket, dogs that bark incessantly at cats on their morning walk... and these owners do nothing about it. They just tug a bit on the leash or say "no", but it doesn't do anything except relieve blame. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't dogs easy to train? My cat scratched on furniture when I got her from the pound, so I started spraying her with water when she did. Then I bought cat scratchers. Now I don't have a cat that scratches furniture. It can't be that hard. My theory is that people just get lazy, give up, and shoulder their dog's annoying habits on the good graces of everyone else. They try disciplining their dogs for a couple days and when it doesn't work, they just think, "Meh, if I can get used to it, strangers can get used to it too." Dogs that cannot be taught how to be quiet should have muzzles, and if you can't afford to control your pet's behavior, you should not be owning a pet.

t3_2loyuf

CMV: It is 100% morally wrong that prisons have the horrible conditions that they do.

Just a quick note that I am American, so I am talking about American prisons here. My argument is actually really quite simple, so simple that I'm surprised I don't really hear it more often. At this point in time, we would surely all agree that there is at least one innocent person in prison, and in fact you can be pretty sure there are thousands of innocent people in prison. We know that we have killed innocent people with the death penalty, and this is a somewhat common argument for why the death penalty is wrong: one innocent life is too many. So why should this argument not extend to horrible prison conditions? The justice system needs to account for the fact that it will make mistakes. It's bizarre, we structure our system of punishment under an assumption that we will always be correct in our guilty verdicts. But obviously this is not true... Right now, there are thousands of innocent people facing months or years of tedious boredom, unsafe social environments, awful and unhealthy food, etc. Our desire to see criminals punished absolutely should not supersede basic civil liberties for those unlucky innocents who end up in prison. The existence of those people in the prison system is justification enough that prisons should be relatively comfortable experiences where the goal is to remove and rehabilitate, rather than cruel and dehumanizing experiences where the goal is to punish. I don't need to make any arguments about how actual guilty people should be treated in prison, because the fact of the matter is we have to take the innocent people into account too. As it stands now, you as an innocent person can be imprisoned in horrible conditions. If a person did this, it would be kidnapping and gross negligence. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is 100% morally wrong that prisons have the horrible conditions that they do. Just a quick note that I am American, so I am talking about American prisons here. My argument is actually really quite simple, so simple that I'm surprised I don't really hear it more often. At this point in time, we would surely all agree that there is at least one innocent person in prison, and in fact you can be pretty sure there are thousands of innocent people in prison. We know that we have killed innocent people with the death penalty, and this is a somewhat common argument for why the death penalty is wrong: one innocent life is too many. So why should this argument not extend to horrible prison conditions? The justice system needs to account for the fact that it will make mistakes. It's bizarre, we structure our system of punishment under an assumption that we will always be correct in our guilty verdicts. But obviously this is not true... Right now, there are thousands of innocent people facing months or years of tedious boredom, unsafe social environments, awful and unhealthy food, etc. Our desire to see criminals punished absolutely should not supersede basic civil liberties for those unlucky innocents who end up in prison. The existence of those people in the prison system is justification enough that prisons should be relatively comfortable experiences where the goal is to remove and rehabilitate, rather than cruel and dehumanizing experiences where the goal is to punish. I don't need to make any arguments about how actual guilty people should be treated in prison, because the fact of the matter is we have to take the innocent people into account too. As it stands now, you as an innocent person can be imprisoned in horrible conditions. If a person did this, it would be kidnapping and gross negligence.

t3_1kvfqg

I believe homeschooling is bad for children and should be outlawed at a State level. CMV

As a child who was homeschooled I can testify for the lack of structure and substance. 75% of homechool families are on a faith basis with the mother being the primary instructor. Most have no college degrees or any teaching experience. Homeschooling also leads to an extreme decline in social skills due to seclusion in the home and prolongs the stage of a child that believes whatever their parents say. Homeschooling and unschooling are detrimental to the education of society. As a result I believe we need to end this so called freedom.

I believe homeschooling is bad for children and should be outlawed at a State level. CMV. As a child who was homeschooled I can testify for the lack of structure and substance. 75% of homechool families are on a faith basis with the mother being the primary instructor. Most have no college degrees or any teaching experience. Homeschooling also leads to an extreme decline in social skills due to seclusion in the home and prolongs the stage of a child that believes whatever their parents say. Homeschooling and unschooling are detrimental to the education of society. As a result I believe we need to end this so called freedom.

t3_1f5s4z

No one can influence peoples view's and opinions. CMV

I believe that in order for a person to think, act or behave in a certain way that they have to in some way shape or form have a rudimentary want to behave in such a manner. No outside stimuli can influence people.

No one can influence peoples view's and opinions. CMV. I believe that in order for a person to think, act or behave in a certain way that they have to in some way shape or form have a rudimentary want to behave in such a manner. No outside stimuli can influence people.

t3_2ks6px

CMV: Mushroom picking is a perfectly reasonable hobby.

I like to pick wild mushrooms for consumption, as a hobby. I am relatively knowledgeable about mushrooms, but not an expert by any means. I know what all deadly mushroom species look like, and what many common poisonous species look like. In addition, I only consume wild mushrooms that are virtually impossible to misidentify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boletus_edulis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanterelle And a few others. I would never touch a mushroom that I am even remotely unsure about. Yet, whenever I tell people that I eat wild mushrooms, they tell me to stop, that I am crazy, and that I will eventually kill myself. Are they, perhaps, right? 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: Mushroom picking is a perfectly reasonable hobby. I like to pick wild mushrooms for consumption, as a hobby. I am relatively knowledgeable about mushrooms, but not an expert by any means. I know what all deadly mushroom species look like, and what many common poisonous species look like. In addition, I only consume wild mushrooms that are virtually impossible to misidentify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boletus_edulis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanterelle And a few others. I would never touch a mushroom that I am even remotely unsure about. Yet, whenever I tell people that I eat wild mushrooms, they tell me to stop, that I am crazy, and that I will eventually kill myself. Are they, perhaps, right? Am I missing something?

t3_5ftevt

CMV: I believe the term (not the concept) 'Fake News' is one of the most dangerous and destructive forces against free speech we have seen in a long time.

The term 'Fake News' is one of the most dangerous and destructive forces against free speech we have seen in a long time. The several major news outlets that make use of the term seem to have set out on a smear campaign against alternative, online news media in an attempt to cling onto their market shares. In that way, the term does more damage (in the form of suppressing alternative viewpoints and analyses) than good (in the form of suppressing actual propagation of lies). It is an Orwellian form of information control, that allows a few, easily corruptible, journalists and Facebook employees to supervise, alter, and manipulate what the broad public knows and doesn't know, which can easily be abused to ensure that we only see articles and stories that conform to the political agenda that *they* wish to promote. _____ > *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 the term (not the concept) 'Fake News' is one of the most dangerous and destructive forces against free speech we have seen in a long time. The term 'Fake News' is one of the most dangerous and destructive forces against free speech we have seen in a long time. The several major news outlets that make use of the term seem to have set out on a smear campaign against alternative, online news media in an attempt to cling onto their market shares. In that way, the term does more damage (in the form of suppressing alternative viewpoints and analyses) than good (in the form of suppressing actual propagation of lies). It is an Orwellian form of information control, that allows a few, easily corruptible, journalists and Facebook employees to supervise, alter, and manipulate what the broad public knows and doesn't know, which can easily be abused to ensure that we only see articles and stories that conform to the political agenda that *they* wish to promote.

t3_2epuml

CMV:You shouldn't trust people who are too nice.

In advance im sorry about my broken english but i really wanted your guys insight about this subject which makes me paranoid around nice people. I had a rough childhood and i grew up in a low class and violent part at tehran-iran my friends at that neighborhood were ids who swear and get in fights with each other all the time even some of them were thieves but they would never stole anything from neighborhood and friends, they would die for each other if a guy liked a girl or he had a sister others wouldn't even look at her it was comradery at its best but you know they would do some fucked up things and they were uneducated but they were harmless as a friend and the thief ones they never forced anyone to take their things they snatched things or broke in the houses(it do not justify their extremely bad behavior and they should get punished my point is something else) i mean they were them selves poor kids some with no father and mother with low education and hard life but once you talked with them you were safe they would sacrifice their life for you as a friend , things got better in my life and we moved to a good part of tehran and i found new friends, they speaked well and they always were extremely classy and from wealthy families but guess what they were pieces of shit not because they treated me bad because i saw how they treat each other they was nicest persons in front of each other but once that person left they said nastiest things about him-her, a woman was just a sexual thing they fucked each others girls and they didn't even care, not just them but their parents were like them (not all of them) they would always play mind games with you and after a while i never could trust them. i always thought this classy nice people were like royals in movies but when i got close to them they were this giant pussies who were good to your face and for show off who would back stab you and say dirtiest things behind you and do worst kind of stuff.This culture crash(?) made me paranoid and skeptical to nice 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:You shouldn't trust people who are too nice. In advance im sorry about my broken english but i really wanted your guys insight about this subject which makes me paranoid around nice people. I had a rough childhood and i grew up in a low class and violent part at tehran-iran my friends at that neighborhood were ids who swear and get in fights with each other all the time even some of them were thieves but they would never stole anything from neighborhood and friends, they would die for each other if a guy liked a girl or he had a sister others wouldn't even look at her it was comradery at its best but you know they would do some fucked up things and they were uneducated but they were harmless as a friend and the thief ones they never forced anyone to take their things they snatched things or broke in the houses(it do not justify their extremely bad behavior and they should get punished my point is something else) i mean they were them selves poor kids some with no father and mother with low education and hard life but once you talked with them you were safe they would sacrifice their life for you as a friend , things got better in my life and we moved to a good part of tehran and i found new friends, they speaked well and they always were extremely classy and from wealthy families but guess what they were pieces of shit not because they treated me bad because i saw how they treat each other they was nicest persons in front of each other but once that person left they said nastiest things about him-her, a woman was just a sexual thing they fucked each others girls and they didn't even care, not just them but their parents were like them (not all of them) they would always play mind games with you and after a while i never could trust them. i always thought this classy nice people were like royals in movies but when i got close to them they were this giant pussies who were good to your face and for show off who would back stab you and say dirtiest things behind you and do worst kind of stuff.This culture crash(?) made me paranoid and skeptical to nice people.

t3_32akhy

CMV: I think Boxers AND Briefs are the best male underwear

Many men argue over whether boxers or briefs are better, but for at least a few years I have been wearing both at once, by which I mean I put on briefs and then wear boxers over them before putting on jeans or whatever pants I may be wearing. Why you may ask? Well, I have issues with briefs and with boxers that are solved by wearing both, which I will tabulate for you: Bonus| Boxers| Briefs| Both ---|---|----|---- Prevents Balls Sticking to Leg| X| ✓| ✓ Cushions leg from sharp items in pocket | ✓| X| ✓ Prevents accidentally exposing dick| X| X| ✓ Acceptable to be seen in by friends| ✓| X| ✓ Hides random boners| X| ✓| ✓ * With boxers and briefs, one can be worn as an impromptu swimsuit and the other can be changed into when done swimming * It provides more modesty than either so I feel comfortable changing in public * Lower cotton-on-cotton friction coefficient helps prevent accidental wedgies Nobody seems to wear both like I do, though, so maybe my views are skewed. Just thought I would put it out there and see if anything changes my mind. EDIT: I have decided to re-visit boxer briefs and will report back. Thanks for your input.

CMV: I think Boxers AND Briefs are the best male underwear. Many men argue over whether boxers or briefs are better, but for at least a few years I have been wearing both at once, by which I mean I put on briefs and then wear boxers over them before putting on jeans or whatever pants I may be wearing. Why you may ask? Well, I have issues with briefs and with boxers that are solved by wearing both, which I will tabulate for you: Bonus| Boxers| Briefs| Both ---|---|----|---- Prevents Balls Sticking to Leg| X| ✓| ✓ Cushions leg from sharp items in pocket | ✓| X| ✓ Prevents accidentally exposing dick| X| X| ✓ Acceptable to be seen in by friends| ✓| X| ✓ Hides random boners| X| ✓| ✓ * With boxers and briefs, one can be worn as an impromptu swimsuit and the other can be changed into when done swimming * It provides more modesty than either so I feel comfortable changing in public * Lower cotton-on-cotton friction coefficient helps prevent accidental wedgies Nobody seems to wear both like I do, though, so maybe my views are skewed. Just thought I would put it out there and see if anything changes my mind. EDIT: I have decided to re-visit boxer briefs and will report back. Thanks for your input.

t3_20uua2

Russia's actions in Crimea constitute a War Crime, CMV

Firstly, I must explain the specific actions I am talking about. Russia moved troops into Crimea without permission from the Ukrainian government and without declaring war or otherwise giving notice prior to this action. This action is one of clear hostility towards the sovereignity of Ukraine. Certain parts of international law are considered to be customary international law; they apply to all states whether ratified by them or not. One of these is the Hague Convention of 1907 as agreed upon at the Nuremburg Trials. Section III (Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities) Article 1 states “The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.” Breaching the Hague Convention is a War Crime, and Russia has breached the Hague Convention. Several arguments against this idea have already been given to me, so I will respond to them now such that I do not repeat myself. **“Yanukovych is still the acting President of Ukraine as he was not constitutionally removed from power, and has granted permission for Russian troops to enter Ukraine”** While Russian troops entering Ukraine with permission would be acceptable (Indeed, they were allowed within their own naval bases), Yanukovych would not have authority to do so under either the 2004 or 2010 Constitution. Article 85: “The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine comprises:” ... “approving decisions on providing military assistance to other states, on sending units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to another state, or on admitting units of armed forces of other states on to the territory of Ukraine;” Therefore, only the Parliament can permit Russian troops into Ukraine, and it has not done so. **“The Crimean Government authorized Russian troops to enter Ukraine”** The Crimean Government does not have the authority to do that, only the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine does, as has been shown above. **“USA/Israel/whoever is also committing war crimes”** Irrelevant, this topic is about whether Russia is committing one or not. To Change My View, a valid legal basis for Russia to either move troops into Crimea with permission from the correct Authority, or evidence that they declared war or otherwise notified Ukraine of the impeding occupation before they begun moving troops into Crimea, is probably required. _____ > *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!*

Russia's actions in Crimea constitute a War Crime, CMV. Firstly, I must explain the specific actions I am talking about. Russia moved troops into Crimea without permission from the Ukrainian government and without declaring war or otherwise giving notice prior to this action. This action is one of clear hostility towards the sovereignity of Ukraine. Certain parts of international law are considered to be customary international law; they apply to all states whether ratified by them or not. One of these is the Hague Convention of 1907 as agreed upon at the Nuremburg Trials. Section III (Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities) Article 1 states “The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.” Breaching the Hague Convention is a War Crime, and Russia has breached the Hague Convention. Several arguments against this idea have already been given to me, so I will respond to them now such that I do not repeat myself. **“Yanukovych is still the acting President of Ukraine as he was not constitutionally removed from power, and has granted permission for Russian troops to enter Ukraine”** While Russian troops entering Ukraine with permission would be acceptable (Indeed, they were allowed within their own naval bases), Yanukovych would not have authority to do so under either the 2004 or 2010 Constitution. Article 85: “The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine comprises:” ... “approving decisions on providing military assistance to other states, on sending units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to another state, or on admitting units of armed forces of other states on to the territory of Ukraine;” Therefore, only the Parliament can permit Russian troops into Ukraine, and it has not done so. **“The Crimean Government authorized Russian troops to enter Ukraine”** The Crimean Government does not have the authority to do that, only the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine does, as has been shown above. **“USA/Israel/whoever is also committing war crimes”** Irrelevant, this topic is about whether Russia is committing one or not. To Change My View, a valid legal basis for Russia to either move troops into Crimea with permission from the correct Authority, or evidence that they declared war or otherwise notified Ukraine of the impeding occupation before they begun moving troops into Crimea, is probably required.

t3_1sxuec

[MOD POST] CMV's Best of 2013!

**This is Mod post 41. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1pznnm/mod_post_introducing_our_wiki_page_system_for/), or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.** *** Hello, /r/changemyview! Every year, the admins host a "best of" competition and allow subreddits to create their own categories for its users to decide who wins ([see here for details](http://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/1stn1j/community_best_of_2013_awards/)). Have a good think about who/what you want to nominate ([have a look through our archives if you are unsure](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/top/?sort=top&t=year)), and report back here by replying to the moderator comments below. The winner of each category will receive 1 month of [**Reddit Gold**](http://www.reddit.com/gold/about/), courtesy of the admins. **Categories** * **Most Thought-Provoking/Stimulating Submission:** What was the best thread this year, in your opinion? * **Best Overall Commenter (Viewchanger?):** Who has played a big part in discussions? Who always has something interesting to say? Have they changed many views? (The amount of deltas earned doesn't necessarily matter, but will probably be common amongst the nominees). * **The Best Comment on CMV:** What was the "best" comment of the year? Did it get a lot of praise/attention? Was it inspiring/thought-provoking? (It is **not** necessary for it to have been submitted to either /r/bestof, /r/DepthHub or for it to have even received much attention). * **Most worthy Delta from OP**: What was the most deserving delta you've seen awarded by an OP? What was the most heart-warming view-change you've seen? Did you expect the OP to change their view? **Things to keep in mind** * One nomination per comment, and take care to comment in reply to the category you're nominating for. * Nominations can only consider posts and data from the year 2013 (not a problem, seeing as CMV was created this year). * The nomination must have a clear winner. It must be a single person who has **not deleted their account** (i.e, /u/161719) or removed themselves from their submission. This includes posts and comments which have since been removed or deleted. * Please include as much data as possible when nominating, and make a good case. * Winners will be chosen by highest number of upvotes. Downvotes will be ignored. * Be nice! This is all in good fun. Regards, The moderators of /r/changemyview.

[MOD POST] CMV's Best of 2013!. **This is Mod post 41. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1pznnm/mod_post_introducing_our_wiki_page_system_for/), or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.** *** Hello, /r/changemyview! Every year, the admins host a "best of" competition and allow subreddits to create their own categories for its users to decide who wins ([see here for details](http://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/1stn1j/community_best_of_2013_awards/)). Have a good think about who/what you want to nominate ([have a look through our archives if you are unsure](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/top/?sort=top&t=year)), and report back here by replying to the moderator comments below. The winner of each category will receive 1 month of [**Reddit Gold**](http://www.reddit.com/gold/about/), courtesy of the admins. **Categories** * **Most Thought-Provoking/Stimulating Submission:** What was the best thread this year, in your opinion? * **Best Overall Commenter (Viewchanger?):** Who has played a big part in discussions? Who always has something interesting to say? Have they changed many views? (The amount of deltas earned doesn't necessarily matter, but will probably be common amongst the nominees). * **The Best Comment on CMV:** What was the "best" comment of the year? Did it get a lot of praise/attention? Was it inspiring/thought-provoking? (It is **not** necessary for it to have been submitted to either /r/bestof, /r/DepthHub or for it to have even received much attention). * **Most worthy Delta from OP**: What was the most deserving delta you've seen awarded by an OP? What was the most heart-warming view-change you've seen? Did you expect the OP to change their view? **Things to keep in mind** * One nomination per comment, and take care to comment in reply to the category you're nominating for. * Nominations can only consider posts and data from the year 2013 (not a problem, seeing as CMV was created this year). * The nomination must have a clear winner. It must be a single person who has **not deleted their account** (i.e, /u/161719) or removed themselves from their submission. This includes posts and comments which have since been removed or deleted. * Please include as much data as possible when nominating, and make a good case. * Winners will be chosen by highest number of upvotes. Downvotes will be ignored. * Be nice! This is all in good fun. Regards, The moderators of /r/changemyview.

t3_24hdy0

CMV: If society thinks women are inferior, or people think society treats women as inferior, it is based on the fact that women are more dependent than men.

First understand that I come to this position as a man who was formerly a believer in feminism. I think the feminist ideas sound good on paper and especially fair and equitable to a young person who wants to believe reality is fair and balanced. But the experience of life has taught me that there are numerous differences between men and women that cannot be wished away by a movement, whether cultural or political. These differences are just existential and permanent. Like a frog being different than a giraffe. I believe men and women are different, but complementary. And that they are equal in value. But they are not equal in individual skills and individual attributes. Women have advantage in some, men in others. Which also means women have disadvantages in some things, and men in others. Together, we frequently make up for what the other lacks. Pursuant to a recent CMV on a similar question, I came to an understanding that the main thing people seem to think makes women "inferior" or "seen as inferior" is that they are "seen as" more dependent. While thinking this over, I came to the conclusion that this is more than appearance. Both theoretical knowledge and life experience indicates to me that women *are* more dependent than men... in general. If your argument is going to be "I know this one woman one time who was super independent", I agree individual cases can exist. But if you're not ok with the idea that generalities have a reality, too, (i.e., Norwegians generally speak more Norwegian than Italians do, even if there was one Norwegian one time who grew up with a foreign nanny and spoke Russian first) then I'll ignore your comment. I would argue that while dependency may be seen as a negative trait, and it may well be in and of itself, that trait doesn't have any bearing on whether women are superior or inferior. It is one trait among many. Any single trait of men (logicality, aggressivity) can be positive or negative and none of them alone qualify men as superior or inferior either.

CMV: If society thinks women are inferior, or people think society treats women as inferior, it is based on the fact that women are more dependent than men. First understand that I come to this position as a man who was formerly a believer in feminism. I think the feminist ideas sound good on paper and especially fair and equitable to a young person who wants to believe reality is fair and balanced. But the experience of life has taught me that there are numerous differences between men and women that cannot be wished away by a movement, whether cultural or political. These differences are just existential and permanent. Like a frog being different than a giraffe. I believe men and women are different, but complementary. And that they are equal in value. But they are not equal in individual skills and individual attributes. Women have advantage in some, men in others. Which also means women have disadvantages in some things, and men in others. Together, we frequently make up for what the other lacks. Pursuant to a recent CMV on a similar question, I came to an understanding that the main thing people seem to think makes women "inferior" or "seen as inferior" is that they are "seen as" more dependent. While thinking this over, I came to the conclusion that this is more than appearance. Both theoretical knowledge and life experience indicates to me that women *are* more dependent than men... in general. If your argument is going to be "I know this one woman one time who was super independent", I agree individual cases can exist. But if you're not ok with the idea that generalities have a reality, too, (i.e., Norwegians generally speak more Norwegian than Italians do, even if there was one Norwegian one time who grew up with a foreign nanny and spoke Russian first) then I'll ignore your comment. I would argue that while dependency may be seen as a negative trait, and it may well be in and of itself, that trait doesn't have any bearing on whether women are superior or inferior. It is one trait among many. Any single trait of men (logicality, aggressivity) can be positive or negative and none of them alone qualify men as superior or inferior either.

t3_3s4ck0

CMV: There are other worthwhile majors besides STEM

There is a huge mentality that any other degree besides STEM is worthless and won't get you a job. While I can't deny that STEM is very important and might even have a higher hiring rate, you can't just throw out everything else. History, art, English, psychology, etc., are all just as important, just in a different way. It might not get you a job directly in that field, but it shows that you have a *college degree*, which shows employers that you're educated, somewhat competent, and that you have basic skills like reading and writing. There's also the moral question of telling someone who's interested in a particular subject to choose something else, something they're not at all interested in, just because it's more "practical." That's how you get mindless zombies floating through advanced math classes they don't have any passion or aptitude for. It's because our society made them feel like they have no choice. I also think there's a serious double standard, where if a kid says, "I've loved science my whole life, so I want to be an engineer," we encourage him, but if the same kid says "I've had a passion for art my whole life, so I want to major in it", we call that kid stupid or naive and tell him to get a "real job". I'll conclude by saying that college isn't specifically designed to be career training and that if you go in with no idea what to do, it's fine. And whatever a person does decide to do, that's fine too as long as they're interested in the subject and do well in it. There's no "right" or "wrong" major, and what you major in isn't a life or death decision that determines if you'll be successful in life.

CMV: There are other worthwhile majors besides STEM. There is a huge mentality that any other degree besides STEM is worthless and won't get you a job. While I can't deny that STEM is very important and might even have a higher hiring rate, you can't just throw out everything else. History, art, English, psychology, etc., are all just as important, just in a different way. It might not get you a job directly in that field, but it shows that you have a *college degree*, which shows employers that you're educated, somewhat competent, and that you have basic skills like reading and writing. There's also the moral question of telling someone who's interested in a particular subject to choose something else, something they're not at all interested in, just because it's more "practical." That's how you get mindless zombies floating through advanced math classes they don't have any passion or aptitude for. It's because our society made them feel like they have no choice. I also think there's a serious double standard, where if a kid says, "I've loved science my whole life, so I want to be an engineer," we encourage him, but if the same kid says "I've had a passion for art my whole life, so I want to major in it", we call that kid stupid or naive and tell him to get a "real job". I'll conclude by saying that college isn't specifically designed to be career training and that if you go in with no idea what to do, it's fine. And whatever a person does decide to do, that's fine too as long as they're interested in the subject and do well in it. There's no "right" or "wrong" major, and what you major in isn't a life or death decision that determines if you'll be successful in life.

t3_1ucu49

I find it profoundly hypocritical for a female feminist to wear makeup on a daily basis, CMV

Edit: My view was been changed pretty quickly, but I'll still read any more responses if you feel like typing one up. Here's my reasoning: people wear makeup when it's important for them to look good. Not just good, better than they ever could look than without it. 99% of the time, that amounts to women wearing makeup whenever they leave the house, with men never touching the stuff. There is the occasional man, however, who uses makeup; male actors and models all wear makeup because being better-looking-than-average is crucial to their profession, and sometimes professional men who are older than average for their field will wear it to keep their appearance competitive. All in all, people resort to makeup when there's an increased pressure for them to be good-looking. Women have worn makeup for a long time because of the two sexes, they are the ones who have traditionally had more pressure to appear beautiful and youthful. I guess the first tenet of my view is that this is inherently sexist in much the same way that expecting women to be unable to excel in STEM fields is sexist. The second tenet is that a self-professed anti-sexist, such as a feminist, shouldn't so willingly participate in an behavior so steeped in sexism, like wearing makeup. To me, a woman wearing makeup is a tacit acceptance that she should place higher emphasis on her looks than men. If a woman isn't feminist, then there's nothing inherently hypocritical about her wearing makeup. But a feminist wearing makeup seems extremely contradictory to me, to the point where it makes me question if she really believes any feminist teachings. I'm going to try to anticipate an argument, the "I wear makeup because I want to feel pretty, not because I have to". For anyone prepared to make a comment centered on that argument, please keep this thought of mine in mind: a young girl is millions of times as likely as a young boy to "wear makeup to feel pretty" because of the cultural norms and advertising impressed upon her since birth. Furthermore, if a woman chooses not to wear makeup, she's seen as a freak, and if a man chooses to wear it, he's also seen as a freak. So in the context of our society, saying you wear makeup to feel pretty doesn't feel like a satisfying answer to me. It'd be like me saying "I wear clothes because I like them." Well, yeah, and also because I'm pressured to and would be ostracized if I didn't. So, can anyone CMV? For what it's worth, I'm a gay guy, so I don't have any vested interest in this topic either as a woman expected to wear makeup or a man who has to date women who wear makeup. I'm just an outsider confused by what he sees peering in.

I find it profoundly hypocritical for a female feminist to wear makeup on a daily basis, CMV. Edit: My view was been changed pretty quickly, but I'll still read any more responses if you feel like typing one up. Here's my reasoning: people wear makeup when it's important for them to look good. Not just good, better than they ever could look than without it. 99% of the time, that amounts to women wearing makeup whenever they leave the house, with men never touching the stuff. There is the occasional man, however, who uses makeup; male actors and models all wear makeup because being better-looking-than-average is crucial to their profession, and sometimes professional men who are older than average for their field will wear it to keep their appearance competitive. All in all, people resort to makeup when there's an increased pressure for them to be good-looking. Women have worn makeup for a long time because of the two sexes, they are the ones who have traditionally had more pressure to appear beautiful and youthful. I guess the first tenet of my view is that this is inherently sexist in much the same way that expecting women to be unable to excel in STEM fields is sexist. The second tenet is that a self-professed anti-sexist, such as a feminist, shouldn't so willingly participate in an behavior so steeped in sexism, like wearing makeup. To me, a woman wearing makeup is a tacit acceptance that she should place higher emphasis on her looks than men. If a woman isn't feminist, then there's nothing inherently hypocritical about her wearing makeup. But a feminist wearing makeup seems extremely contradictory to me, to the point where it makes me question if she really believes any feminist teachings. I'm going to try to anticipate an argument, the "I wear makeup because I want to feel pretty, not because I have to". For anyone prepared to make a comment centered on that argument, please keep this thought of mine in mind: a young girl is millions of times as likely as a young boy to "wear makeup to feel pretty" because of the cultural norms and advertising impressed upon her since birth. Furthermore, if a woman chooses not to wear makeup, she's seen as a freak, and if a man chooses to wear it, he's also seen as a freak. So in the context of our society, saying you wear makeup to feel pretty doesn't feel like a satisfying answer to me. It'd be like me saying "I wear clothes because I like them." Well, yeah, and also because I'm pressured to and would be ostracized if I didn't. So, can anyone CMV? For what it's worth, I'm a gay guy, so I don't have any vested interest in this topic either as a woman expected to wear makeup or a man who has to date women who wear makeup. I'm just an outsider confused by what he sees peering in.

t3_1qandb

I'm not fundamentalist or deeply ingrained in Abrahamic/general organised religion in any way, but do not believe that mechanistic science can or will ultimately explain the ontology matter/energy or life. CMV

I've researched many world religions and read many atheistic and religious apologist treatises, as well as browsing relevant sources on the internet to get a glimpse of the philosophical climate of the vox populi. Having read the philosophical and scientific approaches to thought by notable figures such as Bohm, Dennett, Dawkins, Jung, Lashley, etc., and having read a handful of discussions pertaining to the "universe from nothing" argument (as well as discussions of the phenomenon of abiogenesis), I still don't quite think that an entirely mechanistic cosmology can account for the phenomena of life or existence. Am I thinking rightly, or are my new-age leanings affecting my rational thought? Would love to see some opinions. Thanks.

I'm not fundamentalist or deeply ingrained in Abrahamic/general organised religion in any way, but do not believe that mechanistic science can or will ultimately explain the ontology matter/energy or life. CMV. I've researched many world religions and read many atheistic and religious apologist treatises, as well as browsing relevant sources on the internet to get a glimpse of the philosophical climate of the vox populi. Having read the philosophical and scientific approaches to thought by notable figures such as Bohm, Dennett, Dawkins, Jung, Lashley, etc., and having read a handful of discussions pertaining to the "universe from nothing" argument (as well as discussions of the phenomenon of abiogenesis), I still don't quite think that an entirely mechanistic cosmology can account for the phenomena of life or existence. Am I thinking rightly, or are my new-age leanings affecting my rational thought? Would love to see some opinions. Thanks.

t3_1h4j02

I like big screens like anyone else, however not on mobile phones, CMV (x-post from r/Android)

Well, it's pretty obvious everybody likes big screens as you can immerse yourself further, as do I. However I dislike to big of a screen on mobile phones, but currently the development seems nothing else than bigger screens and less pocket-portability. Soon enough the "phones" will be the new "tablets" and the new "tablets" some kind of giant chalkboard you have to fold to fit into your backpack. I'd like to know what your take on this whole "bigger screen = better phone" development is. P.S. I'm currently happy with my HTC Wildfire S, but if anyone can suggest a similar phone size wise but better performance wise, feel free to do so. :)

I like big screens like anyone else, however not on mobile phones, CMV (x-post from r/Android). Well, it's pretty obvious everybody likes big screens as you can immerse yourself further, as do I. However I dislike to big of a screen on mobile phones, but currently the development seems nothing else than bigger screens and less pocket-portability. Soon enough the "phones" will be the new "tablets" and the new "tablets" some kind of giant chalkboard you have to fold to fit into your backpack. I'd like to know what your take on this whole "bigger screen = better phone" development is. P.S. I'm currently happy with my HTC Wildfire S, but if anyone can suggest a similar phone size wise but better performance wise, feel free to do so. :)

t3_1kpvqy

I believe that possession and distribution of child pornography should not be a felony. CMV.

Child pornography is the only instance I know of where possession of a video of a crime being created is illegal, and in some cases (IE selfies) substantially more illegal than the crime that is being committed in the video. I do not believe that the production of child porn should be legal. I also do not believe that production of murder videos should be illegal and yet I do believe that it should be legal to possess and distribute videos of murders being committed. Same with illegal drugs. Regardless of whether you believe the act of taking drugs should be illegal, I think you will find it reasonable to believe that possessing a video of someone consuming illegal drugs should be legal. Child pornogrpahy makes our society skittish. It's more than just watching someone do drugs, it's a pervert getting off to a horrible crime. And yet the legalization of child porn seems to be connected with reduced rates of child abuse. http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html I believe that the viewing of child porn (even for erotic reasons) is a victimless crime. Some people like to suggest that every time someone watches a video, that child is abused all over again. I do not buy this argument. If a person was traumatized by their abuse, that is a moment that they will continue to relive until they have worked past their problems, regardless of whether strangers are reliving it with them. Their abuse is something that happened, and erasing the evidence will not change the past. Abuse is a serious thing but erasing it from history won't undo the damage. I also believe that lots of damage can come from telling someone that they have been abused and telling them that they are continuing to be abused as people watch their videos. It's one thing to be honest (people ARE watching their videos), but it's wrong to force a feeling upon that person (the watching is continued abuse). I also believe that more widespread distribution of child pornography would help people to recognize pedophilia within themselves earlier. I also believe that pedophilia is not a choice, similar to homosexuality. http://b4uact.org/faq.htm I also believe that more widespread distrubution of child pornography will make it easier to catch producers. More eyes means a greater chance that a child or adult will be recognized. Currently, a producer can reasonably expect that only law enforcement and pedophiles participating in illegal activies (IE possession/distribution) will see their content. But if the audience were expanded, it would be more likely that some random citizen could identify a victim. I do not think that this will result in every victim finidng justice, but I do believe that more good than harm would come from more eyes seeing the content. And finally, I believe that viewing child porn will not result in an increased desire to interact sexually with children. I believe that those desires are there regardless, and that access to erotic material will not make a person more likely to act upon their desires.

I believe that possession and distribution of child pornography should not be a felony. CMV. Child pornography is the only instance I know of where possession of a video of a crime being created is illegal, and in some cases (IE selfies) substantially more illegal than the crime that is being committed in the video. I do not believe that the production of child porn should be legal. I also do not believe that production of murder videos should be illegal and yet I do believe that it should be legal to possess and distribute videos of murders being committed. Same with illegal drugs. Regardless of whether you believe the act of taking drugs should be illegal, I think you will find it reasonable to believe that possessing a video of someone consuming illegal drugs should be legal. Child pornogrpahy makes our society skittish. It's more than just watching someone do drugs, it's a pervert getting off to a horrible crime. And yet the legalization of child porn seems to be connected with reduced rates of child abuse. http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html I believe that the viewing of child porn (even for erotic reasons) is a victimless crime. Some people like to suggest that every time someone watches a video, that child is abused all over again. I do not buy this argument. If a person was traumatized by their abuse, that is a moment that they will continue to relive until they have worked past their problems, regardless of whether strangers are reliving it with them. Their abuse is something that happened, and erasing the evidence will not change the past. Abuse is a serious thing but erasing it from history won't undo the damage. I also believe that lots of damage can come from telling someone that they have been abused and telling them that they are continuing to be abused as people watch their videos. It's one thing to be honest (people ARE watching their videos), but it's wrong to force a feeling upon that person (the watching is continued abuse). I also believe that more widespread distribution of child pornography would help people to recognize pedophilia within themselves earlier. I also believe that pedophilia is not a choice, similar to homosexuality. http://b4uact.org/faq.htm I also believe that more widespread distrubution of child pornography will make it easier to catch producers. More eyes means a greater chance that a child or adult will be recognized. Currently, a producer can reasonably expect that only law enforcement and pedophiles participating in illegal activies (IE possession/distribution) will see their content. But if the audience were expanded, it would be more likely that some random citizen could identify a victim. I do not think that this will result in every victim finidng justice, but I do believe that more good than harm would come from more eyes seeing the content. And finally, I believe that viewing child porn will not result in an increased desire to interact sexually with children. I believe that those desires are there regardless, and that access to erotic material will not make a person more likely to act upon their desires.

t3_4fi87x

CMV: We should repeal the direct election of Senators

My main reason to stand by this is that I believe it will reduce corruption. Senators take so much money from lobbyists. However, lobbyists don't really give money directly to the Senators, they just make a **hefty** donation to the senators reelection campaign. If they didn't have a reelection campaign, that would be a non-issue. Instead of a campaign, a prospective candidate can give a speech to the General Assembly of their state. By reducing the influence special interests hold over Congress, the Legislature would be more reliable as a whole. We would still have lobbyists doing the same thing in the House, but a bought Rep. is technically worth much less than a bought Senator. And our legislature would return to how it was originally intended to be. Some people claim this is undemocratic, but I disagree. Some people say that Obama shouldn't get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice because he should wait until after the election, so the people have a voice. But allot of people say that the people already have a voice because they elected the last congress and President. And since people elect their General Assembly, they *will* have a democratic voice. _____ > *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: We should repeal the direct election of Senators. My main reason to stand by this is that I believe it will reduce corruption. Senators take so much money from lobbyists. However, lobbyists don't really give money directly to the Senators, they just make a **hefty** donation to the senators reelection campaign. If they didn't have a reelection campaign, that would be a non-issue. Instead of a campaign, a prospective candidate can give a speech to the General Assembly of their state. By reducing the influence special interests hold over Congress, the Legislature would be more reliable as a whole. We would still have lobbyists doing the same thing in the House, but a bought Rep. is technically worth much less than a bought Senator. And our legislature would return to how it was originally intended to be. Some people claim this is undemocratic, but I disagree. Some people say that Obama shouldn't get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice because he should wait until after the election, so the people have a voice. But allot of people say that the people already have a voice because they elected the last congress and President. And since people elect their General Assembly, they *will* have a democratic voice.

t3_5wq1id

CMV: Inability to quantify the impact of humans on climate is a real problem for proponents of man-made climate change

Today I came across an interview of Bill Nye the Science Guy on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show. [Here is a link to the video of the interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZsccoSAkUI&feature=youtu.be&t=17). It's about nine minutes long. I like Bill Nye, and I generally am inclined to believe that man-made climate change is real. But the interview put a finger on something that has bothered me for a while. I have never heard a clear answer to how warm the earth would be without man's involvement. I have also never heard the difference that humans make quantified in a definite way. I see two possibilities, neither of which is appealing: 1 - Is climate science so inaccurate that we do not have answers to these questions? If so, does that call the concept of Global Warming into question? or 2 - Are opponents of legitimate climate science so effective that they have successfully created doubt about something that is materially a fact, thus creating large risks for the entire world ecosystem and economy? I'm looking to climate research for a statement along the lines of "The earth is, on average, 5 degrees +/- 2 degrees warmer due to human activity than it should be." OR an explanation of why we don't need a statement like that for global warming advocates to be credible.

CMV: Inability to quantify the impact of humans on climate is a real problem for proponents of man-made climate change. Today I came across an interview of Bill Nye the Science Guy on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show. [Here is a link to the video of the interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZsccoSAkUI&feature=youtu.be&t=17). It's about nine minutes long. I like Bill Nye, and I generally am inclined to believe that man-made climate change is real. But the interview put a finger on something that has bothered me for a while. I have never heard a clear answer to how warm the earth would be without man's involvement. I have also never heard the difference that humans make quantified in a definite way. I see two possibilities, neither of which is appealing: 1 - Is climate science so inaccurate that we do not have answers to these questions? If so, does that call the concept of Global Warming into question? or 2 - Are opponents of legitimate climate science so effective that they have successfully created doubt about something that is materially a fact, thus creating large risks for the entire world ecosystem and economy? I'm looking to climate research for a statement along the lines of "The earth is, on average, 5 degrees +/- 2 degrees warmer due to human activity than it should be." OR an explanation of why we don't need a statement like that for global warming advocates to be credible.

t3_1xt71i

I believe that the term "safe space" is a passive aggressive method of saying circlejerk and is designed to stifle dissenting voices that could offer up challenges to potentially faulty logic. CMV

I recently hopped over to /r/lgbt and noticed that the term "safe space" exists as part of the logo. It made me realize that any real discrouse concerning LGBT issues in that subreddit can no longer be a real discussion as dissenting opinions that go against the hivemind would be instantly banned or downvoted into oblivion. I see no reason that any public forum should be a "safe space". A private blog that is limited by password access; yes, that would be a safe space as you would only provide access to those who are most likely going to share similar thoughts and mindsets are your own. Anything public though should not be your personal circlejerk zone and you should not be entitled to or have the right to censor opinions that conflict with your ideologies. EDIT: To be clear, I already know what a safe space was originally intended for. To clarify, safe spaces are no longer used for that. You guys are commenting on how they are meant to be used rather than how they are being used. Big difference.

I believe that the term "safe space" is a passive aggressive method of saying circlejerk and is designed to stifle dissenting voices that could offer up challenges to potentially faulty logic. CMV. I recently hopped over to /r/lgbt and noticed that the term "safe space" exists as part of the logo. It made me realize that any real discrouse concerning LGBT issues in that subreddit can no longer be a real discussion as dissenting opinions that go against the hivemind would be instantly banned or downvoted into oblivion. I see no reason that any public forum should be a "safe space". A private blog that is limited by password access; yes, that would be a safe space as you would only provide access to those who are most likely going to share similar thoughts and mindsets are your own. Anything public though should not be your personal circlejerk zone and you should not be entitled to or have the right to censor opinions that conflict with your ideologies. EDIT: To be clear, I already know what a safe space was originally intended for. To clarify, safe spaces are no longer used for that. You guys are commenting on how they are meant to be used rather than how they are being used. Big difference.

t3_1rry4m

I don't believe any country that prohibits free egress has the right to its own sovereignty. CMV

Countries such as North Korea are effectively prisons. They don't allow citizens to leave their borders. I believe that this alone should nullify their sovereignty and the legitimacy of the regime. Same with East Germany. It is a fundamental human right to be able to leave your country, and so leaving amicably should be allowed. Regress, maybe not. But leaving? Fundamental. I would like to hear a counterargument to this, because right now I see no case in which this should be acceptable. It is one thing for *some* citizens or residents to not be allowed to leave, if they are involved with the law or some other diplomatic concern, but for every citizen and resident to have that restriction is reprehensible and states that do this should not be recognized and do not have the right to their borders. CMV. edit: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: >13.2: Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. >14.1: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. >15.2: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

I don't believe any country that prohibits free egress has the right to its own sovereignty. CMV. Countries such as North Korea are effectively prisons. They don't allow citizens to leave their borders. I believe that this alone should nullify their sovereignty and the legitimacy of the regime. Same with East Germany. It is a fundamental human right to be able to leave your country, and so leaving amicably should be allowed. Regress, maybe not. But leaving? Fundamental. I would like to hear a counterargument to this, because right now I see no case in which this should be acceptable. It is one thing for *some* citizens or residents to not be allowed to leave, if they are involved with the law or some other diplomatic concern, but for every citizen and resident to have that restriction is reprehensible and states that do this should not be recognized and do not have the right to their borders. CMV. edit: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: >13.2: Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. >14.1: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. >15.2: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

t3_1h4q35

I believe that a monogamous relationship, or at least the illusion of a monogamous relationship, is the only way to properly maintain happiness in a relationship. CMV.

I've been in a number of relationships before, all of which were monogamous with maybe a few slip-ups on either side. I am easily made jealous, and the idea of any of my girlfriends with another man makes me uncomfortable. It makes me depressed and angry and as a result I end up doing irrational things. I have seen this quality in the majority of my friends, male or female, and I don't see any way that I could comfortably maintain and open relationship. One of my more recent relationships lasted for two years and was very serious. However, my girlfriend was constantly insisting upon an open relationship and she would always tell me about her attraction to other friends of ours (male and female). We tried a few times, and every time without fail I became severely depressed. Our relationship eventually could only be maintained so long as I could believe that she wouldn't cheat on me. And I couldn't believe that. I am eighteen years old, I live in the United States. I was raised Christian, but eventually split off from my family's beliefs. I no longer follow any religion or religious moral code. My mother (who I live with primarily) has been divorced three times and lives a very promiscuous lifestyle. It has occurred to me that if I were more open in this regard, I might be happier in my relationships. And with that in mind... CMV Edit: I understand my title is somewhat misleading. I am not trying to discourage others from engaging in open relationships. Rather, I want to make myself more comfortable with open relationships.

I believe that a monogamous relationship, or at least the illusion of a monogamous relationship, is the only way to properly maintain happiness in a relationship. CMV. I've been in a number of relationships before, all of which were monogamous with maybe a few slip-ups on either side. I am easily made jealous, and the idea of any of my girlfriends with another man makes me uncomfortable. It makes me depressed and angry and as a result I end up doing irrational things. I have seen this quality in the majority of my friends, male or female, and I don't see any way that I could comfortably maintain and open relationship. One of my more recent relationships lasted for two years and was very serious. However, my girlfriend was constantly insisting upon an open relationship and she would always tell me about her attraction to other friends of ours (male and female). We tried a few times, and every time without fail I became severely depressed. Our relationship eventually could only be maintained so long as I could believe that she wouldn't cheat on me. And I couldn't believe that. I am eighteen years old, I live in the United States. I was raised Christian, but eventually split off from my family's beliefs. I no longer follow any religion or religious moral code. My mother (who I live with primarily) has been divorced three times and lives a very promiscuous lifestyle. It has occurred to me that if I were more open in this regard, I might be happier in my relationships. And with that in mind... CMV Edit: I understand my title is somewhat misleading. I am not trying to discourage others from engaging in open relationships. Rather, I want to make myself more comfortable with open relationships.

t3_3814fe

CMV: "Buckle up, it's the law" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts.

I believe that "Buckle up, it's the law" is a very bad slogan, because it is an [appeal to authority](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) which can be rejected easily in people's minds if they aren't aware of the purpose of a law. Instead, an appeal to the motorist's intelligence by pointing out the consequences of not buckling up, and thus making motorists aware of the possible consequences of not buckling up and making it obvious why it is rather sensible to wear one's seat belt would be a lot more effective. [This German ad posted along public roads throughout Germany](http://www.dvr.de/bilder2/p3737/3737_0.jpg) is an excellent example of this. The text translates to "One is distracted, four die". A brief but concise outline of cause and effect, enough to raise awareness. _____ > *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: "Buckle up, it's the law" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts. I believe that "Buckle up, it's the law" is a very bad slogan, because it is an [appeal to authority](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) which can be rejected easily in people's minds if they aren't aware of the purpose of a law. Instead, an appeal to the motorist's intelligence by pointing out the consequences of not buckling up, and thus making motorists aware of the possible consequences of not buckling up and making it obvious why it is rather sensible to wear one's seat belt would be a lot more effective. [This German ad posted along public roads throughout Germany](http://www.dvr.de/bilder2/p3737/3737_0.jpg) is an excellent example of this. The text translates to "One is distracted, four die". A brief but concise outline of cause and effect, enough to raise awareness.