id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 9
300
| selftext
stringlengths 9
9.73k
| text
stringlengths 53
9.81k
|
|---|---|---|---|
t3_1n0a1f | I find it totally logical that foreigners should be expected to learn English in the US. CMV. | I understand that there is no 'official' language of the United States but when virtually everyone in the country speaks it, it might as well be. It is in the spirit of communication that our country have a common language (as in areas such as the Southwest that have a high Latino population, this can be a serious problem). This issue is almost always debated with claims of intolerance, racism, ignorance, etc. but that all seems like it's just opposers of this view trying to diminish the value of other peoples' opinions, like "Check your privilege" among Tumblr SJWs. I would really like to see a convincing argument against my view besides just "you're racist, fuck you". Thank you. | I find it totally logical that foreigners should be expected to learn English in the US. CMV. I understand that there is no 'official' language of the United States but when virtually everyone in the country speaks it, it might as well be. It is in the spirit of communication that our country have a common language (as in areas such as the Southwest that have a high Latino population, this can be a serious problem). This issue is almost always debated with claims of intolerance, racism, ignorance, etc. but that all seems like it's just opposers of this view trying to diminish the value of other peoples' opinions, like "Check your privilege" among Tumblr SJWs. I would really like to see a convincing argument against my view besides just "you're racist, fuck you". Thank you. |
t3_1syvdp | I feel that the film American History X fails to deliver the message it intends, CMV | If you haven't seen American History X, it is a 1998 American film staring Edward Norton. Norton plays Derek Vinyard, a leader of a Neo-Nazi skinhead gang in Southern California. Other key characters I will discuss are Derek's younger brother Danny. His mother Doris. His father, Dennis. Derek's neo-Nazi mentor Cameron. His and Danny's high school teacher, Dr. Sweeney
[The wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_History_X) has the plot blow by blow.
A well known caveat to this film is the director, Tony Kaye wanting to remove his name from the film after they altered the ending. If you wan what amounts to a tl/dr about this post and my view: changing the ending is what kept this film from being a total endorsement of neo-nazi beliefs.
Essentially the film purports to be about the inherent faults in Derek's and Danny's beliefs about race. Derek makes a speech about immigrants undercutting established businesses as well as Rodney King being violent and, by extension, typical of the black community. Typical neo-nazi bullshit in short. The problem with the film is that the black characters we see do a good job of fitting into Derek's stereotype. The Crips who lost to Derek and his gang at basketball don't leave quietly, they smash his truck windows in the middle of the night. That's not admirable nor just. Derek, for all his faults, beat them fair and square- even not calling fouls he could have to avoid any controversy. Then, another black character kills Danny by shooting him in a school bathroom because Danny stood up for a kid his eventual killer was bullying. Dennis Vinyard was shot by black gangmembers while he was on duty as a fireman. I fail to see how, in the film's world, we're supposed to see where Derek is wrong, as awful as that seems to say. Even Murray, the Jewish teacher and who dated Derek's mother. He came to dinner and at least Derek was engaging with him.
Tony Kaye, the director, wanted the film to end with Danny being killed and a shot of Derek shaving his head again- indicating he hadn't changed. It would have been an ending vindicating Derek's neo-naxi beliefs and not a lot of room for the audience to point to anything in his life to again, show him where his beliefs are wrong.
So, what am I missing? Show me the movie does show that Derek is properly an anti-hero instead of the actual hero (in the pure literary sense of the word- his actions are meant to be correct and noble in the story's universe and by extension, the audience's) that I view his character as. | I feel that the film American History X fails to deliver the message it intends, CMV. If you haven't seen American History X, it is a 1998 American film staring Edward Norton. Norton plays Derek Vinyard, a leader of a Neo-Nazi skinhead gang in Southern California. Other key characters I will discuss are Derek's younger brother Danny. His mother Doris. His father, Dennis. Derek's neo-Nazi mentor Cameron. His and Danny's high school teacher, Dr. Sweeney
[The wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_History_X) has the plot blow by blow.
A well known caveat to this film is the director, Tony Kaye wanting to remove his name from the film after they altered the ending. If you wan what amounts to a tl/dr about this post and my view: changing the ending is what kept this film from being a total endorsement of neo-nazi beliefs.
Essentially the film purports to be about the inherent faults in Derek's and Danny's beliefs about race. Derek makes a speech about immigrants undercutting established businesses as well as Rodney King being violent and, by extension, typical of the black community. Typical neo-nazi bullshit in short. The problem with the film is that the black characters we see do a good job of fitting into Derek's stereotype. The Crips who lost to Derek and his gang at basketball don't leave quietly, they smash his truck windows in the middle of the night. That's not admirable nor just. Derek, for all his faults, beat them fair and square- even not calling fouls he could have to avoid any controversy. Then, another black character kills Danny by shooting him in a school bathroom because Danny stood up for a kid his eventual killer was bullying. Dennis Vinyard was shot by black gangmembers while he was on duty as a fireman. I fail to see how, in the film's world, we're supposed to see where Derek is wrong, as awful as that seems to say. Even Murray, the Jewish teacher and who dated Derek's mother. He came to dinner and at least Derek was engaging with him.
Tony Kaye, the director, wanted the film to end with Danny being killed and a shot of Derek shaving his head again- indicating he hadn't changed. It would have been an ending vindicating Derek's neo-naxi beliefs and not a lot of room for the audience to point to anything in his life to again, show him where his beliefs are wrong.
So, what am I missing? Show me the movie does show that Derek is properly an anti-hero instead of the actual hero (in the pure literary sense of the word- his actions are meant to be correct and noble in the story's universe and by extension, the audience's) that I view his character as. |
t3_1ejb17 | I think that atheists and homosexuals should not want the right of marriage at all. CMV | I think that it is a step backwards and an immature behaviour for atheists and homosexuals to marry. I think that religious marriage actually has a meaning because religious people believe that they are in front of God. I think that atheists and homosexuals shouldn't go sign a paper in front of a judge to show how they love eachother. I think that atheists and homosexuals only do this to piss religious people off, after all, they are copying the man/woman or couple from the major religions, instead of asking for, let's say, 3 women and a man, or 5 men and 2 women (why is it less valid?)
I am not from the USA, there are no economic benefits from marrying in my country, and therefore, atheist marriage is just a headache if they ever want to divorce, instead of simply splitting up. You should decide and make clear what belongs to who if something is bought togheter (a car, a house...)
In addition to that, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt for the same reason as a fat or a single person can't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobe.
I think that a lot of problems against atheists and homosexual would dissapear if marriage stayed completely religious and atheist/homosexuals ignored what religious people say about them, by not playing their game, atheists and homosexuals are completely unaffected by religion. | I think that atheists and homosexuals should not want the right of marriage at all. CMV. I think that it is a step backwards and an immature behaviour for atheists and homosexuals to marry. I think that religious marriage actually has a meaning because religious people believe that they are in front of God. I think that atheists and homosexuals shouldn't go sign a paper in front of a judge to show how they love eachother. I think that atheists and homosexuals only do this to piss religious people off, after all, they are copying the man/woman or couple from the major religions, instead of asking for, let's say, 3 women and a man, or 5 men and 2 women (why is it less valid?)
I am not from the USA, there are no economic benefits from marrying in my country, and therefore, atheist marriage is just a headache if they ever want to divorce, instead of simply splitting up. You should decide and make clear what belongs to who if something is bought togheter (a car, a house...)
In addition to that, I think that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt for the same reason as a fat or a single person can't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobe.
I think that a lot of problems against atheists and homosexual would dissapear if marriage stayed completely religious and atheist/homosexuals ignored what religious people say about them, by not playing their game, atheists and homosexuals are completely unaffected by religion. |
t3_1ff4wi | I think the sky is blue. CMV | I have some evidence for this, for example this picture.
http://i.imgur.com/BuuNA4i.jpg
I know it could be faked, but when I go outside (during the day) and look up, I see (what I would call) blue. I'm not a physicist by any means, but this is my view and I feel I have good reason for it. Though I can't really say why it is blue, or how, or if it even is for certain, so I look to you to change my view on this. I am open to all arguments, no matter how wrong they *may* be. | I think the sky is blue. CMV. I have some evidence for this, for example this picture.
http://i.imgur.com/BuuNA4i.jpg
I know it could be faked, but when I go outside (during the day) and look up, I see (what I would call) blue. I'm not a physicist by any means, but this is my view and I feel I have good reason for it. Though I can't really say why it is blue, or how, or if it even is for certain, so I look to you to change my view on this. I am open to all arguments, no matter how wrong they *may* be. |
t3_60numo | CMV: Political position/affiliation should not be discussed in school | Disclaimer: Even though this example shows liberals in a negative way, I am positive the same thing happens in very conservative areas. This post is designed to focus on what causes this polarisation, not bash people who are left wing. I am left of center myself, so please see this post as exposing an issue in public schools and not an attack on the left.
I life in a community that is a complete liberal (more SJW than liberal) bubble. I consider myself to be a classical liberal but not a progressive and I completely despise SJWs. Living in this bubble has lead to many students becoming complete zealots for any policy that is liberal in nature. Conservative students in the local middle and high school are often bullied and ridiculed, called racists and bigots for just asking questions, and feel too afraid of losing all of their friends due to their opinion. Criticism of Black Lives Matter and feminism can lead to death threats and the high school has even had racially segregated assemblies where whites are not allowed to attend in the name of creating safe spaces. This has not only caused the liberal students to become very extreme in their views (People were ecstatic the day justice Scalia died, and many were too devastated by the Trump win to come to school), but now the conservative students, because they are locked out of all discussion, turn to super far right sources like Alex Jones and Richard Spencer.
I attribute this almost entirely to liberal teachers who live in the area constantly only sharing one side of political topics. From a young age (2nd grade even) I remember being taught that we live in a terrible, racist, white supremacist, patriarchal, and homophobic nation. Teachers openly referred to Republicans as "the bad guys", and we were taught that capitalism is a terrible system. I remember from a young age even being happy when a US soldier died in Iraq because the soldier served such an evil country. The kids took hold of this and during the 2008 election a girl with Republican parents was bullied out of the school because everybody considered her a racist for not supporting Obama. When we got to middle school we had to take social justice and gender studies classes as well as an activity every Friday to celebrate "feminist Fridays". It only got more extreme as we entered high school and it exploded after the shooting of Michael Brown. In 2015 a black kid was beaten and called an "Uncle Tom" by 3 other kids for not supporting Black Lives Matter, and this is when the racially segregated assemblies began.
I believe that this total polarization of the student body in middle and high school is what leads to our college students acting the way so many of them do, and that if political discussions were not allowed in school, people would be able to find out where they stand based on their own curiosity. We should teach students how to research an issue that they find meaningful to them, but we should not have class discussions about politics because it almost always leads to people finding a right answer as a class, which disenfranchises students with a dissenting opinion. Please let me know if you agree or think a different solution would be better. | CMV: Political position/affiliation should not be discussed in school. Disclaimer: Even though this example shows liberals in a negative way, I am positive the same thing happens in very conservative areas. This post is designed to focus on what causes this polarisation, not bash people who are left wing. I am left of center myself, so please see this post as exposing an issue in public schools and not an attack on the left.
I life in a community that is a complete liberal (more SJW than liberal) bubble. I consider myself to be a classical liberal but not a progressive and I completely despise SJWs. Living in this bubble has lead to many students becoming complete zealots for any policy that is liberal in nature. Conservative students in the local middle and high school are often bullied and ridiculed, called racists and bigots for just asking questions, and feel too afraid of losing all of their friends due to their opinion. Criticism of Black Lives Matter and feminism can lead to death threats and the high school has even had racially segregated assemblies where whites are not allowed to attend in the name of creating safe spaces. This has not only caused the liberal students to become very extreme in their views (People were ecstatic the day justice Scalia died, and many were too devastated by the Trump win to come to school), but now the conservative students, because they are locked out of all discussion, turn to super far right sources like Alex Jones and Richard Spencer.
I attribute this almost entirely to liberal teachers who live in the area constantly only sharing one side of political topics. From a young age (2nd grade even) I remember being taught that we live in a terrible, racist, white supremacist, patriarchal, and homophobic nation. Teachers openly referred to Republicans as "the bad guys", and we were taught that capitalism is a terrible system. I remember from a young age even being happy when a US soldier died in Iraq because the soldier served such an evil country. The kids took hold of this and during the 2008 election a girl with Republican parents was bullied out of the school because everybody considered her a racist for not supporting Obama. When we got to middle school we had to take social justice and gender studies classes as well as an activity every Friday to celebrate "feminist Fridays". It only got more extreme as we entered high school and it exploded after the shooting of Michael Brown. In 2015 a black kid was beaten and called an "Uncle Tom" by 3 other kids for not supporting Black Lives Matter, and this is when the racially segregated assemblies began.
I believe that this total polarization of the student body in middle and high school is what leads to our college students acting the way so many of them do, and that if political discussions were not allowed in school, people would be able to find out where they stand based on their own curiosity. We should teach students how to research an issue that they find meaningful to them, but we should not have class discussions about politics because it almost always leads to people finding a right answer as a class, which disenfranchises students with a dissenting opinion. Please let me know if you agree or think a different solution would be better. |
t3_29cwlw | CMV: Stealth/rogue/assasin mechanics in multiplayer video games contribute nothing to overall gameplay | If you play any of these games, feel free to share your two cents, as this is for the most part my opinion!
Out of all of the games I regularly play, any spy or infiltrator classes fail to fill a unique role and/or are simply un-fun to play against. Because of this, I believe that these games would be more fun overall if these classes / mechanics were completely removed.
Here are some examples of games that I'm talking about:
SMG Infiltrators, Planetside 2 ;
The Spy, Team Fortress 2 ;
Leon Chameleon, Awesomenauts
In Planetside 2, Infiltrators can either take long range sniper rifles or closer range SMG's in addition to their cloak ability.
Sniping is more or less a waste of time, in that medics and engineers can respawn, other than that, MAX suits are the only other high value targets, and they have small arms resistance and cannot be sniped.
SMG infiltrator suffers from the same problems, except they cannot even safely obseve the battlefield like a sniper can.
The only thing infiltrators are useful for is hacking terminals and spotting enemies from a distance.
The Spy in team fortress 2 can pick enemies or cloak and feed information to the team. While picking is WAY more significant in TF2 than it is in Planetside, the spy does not perform any roles that cannot be filled by a good sniper or scout. Playing against a sniper, for example, if you fail to see the sniper in time, you deserve to get sniped. Playing against a spy, you hear the decloak, turn around, chase the spy until hes dead or he runs away, and hope he's not DR'ing (or you get facestabbed due to wierd hitboxes and latency). The only consistent way to deter spies is by going pyro and hunting down every spy that crosses your path. In my time playing in UGC, whenever we played without spy due to lack of players, the game became significantly less frustrating and allowed me (heavy) to focus more on what was going on during the match.
Convince me how these classes contribute to their respective games, because I cannot think of any way they make the game more enjoyable (admitedly I am pretty biased, hah). I can't really argue too much against leon in awesomenauts (I am in no way very good at MOBA's and awesomenauts is the only one I play.)
_____
> *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: Stealth/rogue/assasin mechanics in multiplayer video games contribute nothing to overall gameplay. If you play any of these games, feel free to share your two cents, as this is for the most part my opinion!
Out of all of the games I regularly play, any spy or infiltrator classes fail to fill a unique role and/or are simply un-fun to play against. Because of this, I believe that these games would be more fun overall if these classes / mechanics were completely removed.
Here are some examples of games that I'm talking about:
SMG Infiltrators, Planetside 2 ;
The Spy, Team Fortress 2 ;
Leon Chameleon, Awesomenauts
In Planetside 2, Infiltrators can either take long range sniper rifles or closer range SMG's in addition to their cloak ability.
Sniping is more or less a waste of time, in that medics and engineers can respawn, other than that, MAX suits are the only other high value targets, and they have small arms resistance and cannot be sniped.
SMG infiltrator suffers from the same problems, except they cannot even safely obseve the battlefield like a sniper can.
The only thing infiltrators are useful for is hacking terminals and spotting enemies from a distance.
The Spy in team fortress 2 can pick enemies or cloak and feed information to the team. While picking is WAY more significant in TF2 than it is in Planetside, the spy does not perform any roles that cannot be filled by a good sniper or scout. Playing against a sniper, for example, if you fail to see the sniper in time, you deserve to get sniped. Playing against a spy, you hear the decloak, turn around, chase the spy until hes dead or he runs away, and hope he's not DR'ing (or you get facestabbed due to wierd hitboxes and latency). The only consistent way to deter spies is by going pyro and hunting down every spy that crosses your path. In my time playing in UGC, whenever we played without spy due to lack of players, the game became significantly less frustrating and allowed me (heavy) to focus more on what was going on during the match.
Convince me how these classes contribute to their respective games, because I cannot think of any way they make the game more enjoyable (admitedly I am pretty biased, hah). I can't really argue too much against leon in awesomenauts (I am in no way very good at MOBA's and awesomenauts is the only one I play.) |
t3_2wt8kw | CMV:I believe there is no reason for men to be more fascinated with breasts or buttocks than genetalia [NSFW] | At first, let me clarify some things about myself. I am straight male, probably a bit bicurious. I am a virgin, so the following views are not based on any sexual experiences except masturbation to a vareity of visual stimulants.
My beliefs are following:
1) According to popular culture as well as some conversations with my peer group, men find breasts and/or ass of women sexually stimulating. They love to talk about their shapes and sizes and these remain the primary criteria for sexual attractiveness for mean with respect to women.
2) I personally never found these features attractive, a topless woman or the full behind nude shots of women do not sway me that much sexually. The thing that makes me excited is the genetalia. I have discussed with my peer group and they find such a behaviour strange.
3) I think deep down my thinking with respect to sexual attractiveness of women is like this : breasts or ass do not have a direct primary sexual interest for me, the thing that my penis wants is the vagina not anything else.
4) I do agree that evolutionarily probably big breasts or ass might be signs of good mother for my children, but for most encounters in my early adult life I won't be looking for that, so why should breasts or ass size interfere with my decision for intercourse.
5) As conclusion, I think there is something very wrong with the mainstream culture to emphasize breasts or ass as more sexually attractive feature than a pussy.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV:I believe there is no reason for men to be more fascinated with breasts or buttocks than genetalia [NSFW]. At first, let me clarify some things about myself. I am straight male, probably a bit bicurious. I am a virgin, so the following views are not based on any sexual experiences except masturbation to a vareity of visual stimulants.
My beliefs are following:
1) According to popular culture as well as some conversations with my peer group, men find breasts and/or ass of women sexually stimulating. They love to talk about their shapes and sizes and these remain the primary criteria for sexual attractiveness for mean with respect to women.
2) I personally never found these features attractive, a topless woman or the full behind nude shots of women do not sway me that much sexually. The thing that makes me excited is the genetalia. I have discussed with my peer group and they find such a behaviour strange.
3) I think deep down my thinking with respect to sexual attractiveness of women is like this : breasts or ass do not have a direct primary sexual interest for me, the thing that my penis wants is the vagina not anything else.
4) I do agree that evolutionarily probably big breasts or ass might be signs of good mother for my children, but for most encounters in my early adult life I won't be looking for that, so why should breasts or ass size interfere with my decision for intercourse.
5) As conclusion, I think there is something very wrong with the mainstream culture to emphasize breasts or ass as more sexually attractive feature than a pussy. |
t3_4zk1kb | CMV: I think humans' attention spans are getting too short, and it will become a real problem. | As the internet provides knowledge and entertainment at a faster rate and in smaller bits, it seems that more and more people have shorter attention spans. Here are two articles, that I ironically struggled through to read, despite their brevity:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-attention-span-shortens-8-seconds-due-digital-technology-3-ways-stay-focused-333474
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-graber/kids-tech-and-those-shrinking-attention-spans_b_4870655.html
Now the first one is what I worry about, because with shorter attention spans, it seems logical to me that people will struggle more in social, educational, and other important areas. Books will be read less and less (cue references to 1984), and people won't take value in the length and beauty of art. No real appreciation will be present, because boredom will snatch up our brains before we have anytime to sit back and appreciate.
The second article is something that I hope is true, and while it seems plausible, I just can't get over the fact that maybe still appreciation of books, movies, and other sometimes lengthy stimuli will fall out of fashion, and to me that is sad, because a lot of the times, to really work out a problem or to portray a message, one needs to take the time to suss everything out correctly.
I see this problem in myself and others, from reading other comments that say they "don't want to watch a video over 2 minutes" or beg for a TL;DR.
Some good news, but that shows the extreme nature of my attention span, is that I recently read an entire book (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court) and it wasn't a struggle. I used to just fly through big books, with no effort. None of my friends read books, and I see less kids do so.
I guess my question is: Is the overall decrease in people's attention spans a bad thing? Is it actually a thing? If it is a bad thing, how can we, as a human race, stop it?
TL;DR: HAHA how weird would it be, if I gave you one.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I think humans' attention spans are getting too short, and it will become a real problem. As the internet provides knowledge and entertainment at a faster rate and in smaller bits, it seems that more and more people have shorter attention spans. Here are two articles, that I ironically struggled through to read, despite their brevity:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-attention-span-shortens-8-seconds-due-digital-technology-3-ways-stay-focused-333474
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-graber/kids-tech-and-those-shrinking-attention-spans_b_4870655.html
Now the first one is what I worry about, because with shorter attention spans, it seems logical to me that people will struggle more in social, educational, and other important areas. Books will be read less and less (cue references to 1984), and people won't take value in the length and beauty of art. No real appreciation will be present, because boredom will snatch up our brains before we have anytime to sit back and appreciate.
The second article is something that I hope is true, and while it seems plausible, I just can't get over the fact that maybe still appreciation of books, movies, and other sometimes lengthy stimuli will fall out of fashion, and to me that is sad, because a lot of the times, to really work out a problem or to portray a message, one needs to take the time to suss everything out correctly.
I see this problem in myself and others, from reading other comments that say they "don't want to watch a video over 2 minutes" or beg for a TL;DR.
Some good news, but that shows the extreme nature of my attention span, is that I recently read an entire book (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court) and it wasn't a struggle. I used to just fly through big books, with no effort. None of my friends read books, and I see less kids do so.
I guess my question is: Is the overall decrease in people's attention spans a bad thing? Is it actually a thing? If it is a bad thing, how can we, as a human race, stop it?
TL;DR: HAHA how weird would it be, if I gave you one.
|
t3_4v12pc | CMV: If Republicans are smart, they will push the TTP though congress as fast as possible. | Before I get into my argument, I want to say I am a progressive and very much against the TTP. But I had a thought last night that if congress passed the TTP, they would do MUCH better in the election.
First, the reason why they want to wait until the lame-duck session is to avoid electoral lashback. Senate members (less so in the house), feel they would get a blow back during their election, and some might. But something to keep in mind is that democrats, especially Obama, will get the majority of the blowback because that's how it always works. People blame republicans and Bush for the Iraq War, ignoring the hundreds of congress (including the majority of democrats) people that voted for it. Same with NAFTA, Bill gets all the credit/blame, congress got off mostly scotfree in comparison.
Second, the Obama is almost guaranteed to sign it. He has worked on this agree for 6 years and sees it as the capstone to his legacy. There is 99% certainty that he would sign it. And he would have to do it within 10 days. He could veto it and try again in the lame-duck session. But I don't think he would want to wait, he doesn't tend to play political games like that.
Third, the uneasy 'unity' on the left would be completely disrupted if this happens. Clinton is very weak on this issue, many of her own supporters don't even believe she is *actually* against the TTP. And she won't condemn it outright, only saying she wouldn't 'pass it in its current state'. Whatever that means.
Fourth, if Obama signs it, he will have to be taken off of the Clinton team. Bernie delegates did a 'silent protest' of the TTP during Obama's speech out of the respect for the president. Instead of the booing and chanting that many felt they should do. If Obama actually signs it, he would get shouted down at any rallies and went to, and he would become more of a liability threatening unity then an asset to Clinton.
So in short, if republicans did pass it: they could mostly scapegoat Obama and dems, highlight a point where many people feel Trump is much better then Clinton on, disrupt the uneasy party unity, and remove a key Clinton board piece.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: If Republicans are smart, they will push the TTP though congress as fast as possible. Before I get into my argument, I want to say I am a progressive and very much against the TTP. But I had a thought last night that if congress passed the TTP, they would do MUCH better in the election.
First, the reason why they want to wait until the lame-duck session is to avoid electoral lashback. Senate members (less so in the house), feel they would get a blow back during their election, and some might. But something to keep in mind is that democrats, especially Obama, will get the majority of the blowback because that's how it always works. People blame republicans and Bush for the Iraq War, ignoring the hundreds of congress (including the majority of democrats) people that voted for it. Same with NAFTA, Bill gets all the credit/blame, congress got off mostly scotfree in comparison.
Second, the Obama is almost guaranteed to sign it. He has worked on this agree for 6 years and sees it as the capstone to his legacy. There is 99% certainty that he would sign it. And he would have to do it within 10 days. He could veto it and try again in the lame-duck session. But I don't think he would want to wait, he doesn't tend to play political games like that.
Third, the uneasy 'unity' on the left would be completely disrupted if this happens. Clinton is very weak on this issue, many of her own supporters don't even believe she is *actually* against the TTP. And she won't condemn it outright, only saying she wouldn't 'pass it in its current state'. Whatever that means.
Fourth, if Obama signs it, he will have to be taken off of the Clinton team. Bernie delegates did a 'silent protest' of the TTP during Obama's speech out of the respect for the president. Instead of the booing and chanting that many felt they should do. If Obama actually signs it, he would get shouted down at any rallies and went to, and he would become more of a liability threatening unity then an asset to Clinton.
So in short, if republicans did pass it: they could mostly scapegoat Obama and dems, highlight a point where many people feel Trump is much better then Clinton on, disrupt the uneasy party unity, and remove a key Clinton board piece.
|
t3_1h0es0 | CMV-I think Marijuana should be illegal | I think that smoke is smoke, it causes health issues. Not as bad as cigarettes, but those are a whole different story and should not be legal either. I know of the economic benefits of both. but I invite you to see if you can change my view. I just believe the cons outweight the pros. What can be accomplished if everyone is high all day? While it may not cause things like cancer, it can cause things like memory loss and other mental related issues. It just seems like the pros of legalization are often highlighted above the cons. But I invite you to see if you can change my view, and I will attempt to openly discuss in the comments below. Thanks!
| CMV-I think Marijuana should be illegal. I think that smoke is smoke, it causes health issues. Not as bad as cigarettes, but those are a whole different story and should not be legal either. I know of the economic benefits of both. but I invite you to see if you can change my view. I just believe the cons outweight the pros. What can be accomplished if everyone is high all day? While it may not cause things like cancer, it can cause things like memory loss and other mental related issues. It just seems like the pros of legalization are often highlighted above the cons. But I invite you to see if you can change my view, and I will attempt to openly discuss in the comments below. Thanks!
|
t3_1drxl7 | I think everyone is morally obligated to donate money to charity. | (unless they're poor enough that it would actually adversely affect them). Like in Singer's Drowning Child argument, most people would go to great lengths to save a child that is drowning in a pond, but they wouldn't donate a smaller amount of money to save a child in Africa (through donation).. I understand that donation is less confrontational and you don't know for sure if your money is actually helping, but due to statistics, you have a good idea that the money is saving lives. To add in a further controversial remark, I think that it could be argued that giving to the church is less effective than giving to a good charitable, nonprofit agency like Oxfam. CMV and help me save some $$ | I think everyone is morally obligated to donate money to charity. (unless they're poor enough that it would actually adversely affect them). Like in Singer's Drowning Child argument, most people would go to great lengths to save a child that is drowning in a pond, but they wouldn't donate a smaller amount of money to save a child in Africa (through donation).. I understand that donation is less confrontational and you don't know for sure if your money is actually helping, but due to statistics, you have a good idea that the money is saving lives. To add in a further controversial remark, I think that it could be argued that giving to the church is less effective than giving to a good charitable, nonprofit agency like Oxfam. CMV and help me save some $$ |
t3_24zvhz | CMV: Nuclear power is not sustainable in the short or long term (unless we achieve fission) as the CO2 and other environmental costs of obtaining uranium and deposing of waste are prohibitive. | I think when ever people advocate nuclear power they ignore the fact that dealing with the waste is incredibly energy intensive, as is getting hold of uranium. For this reason opposition to nuclear power is sensible and genuine renewable sources like solar, wind, tidal, all that hippy jazz, are the only way we can keep the lights on without fucking up the climate.
I don't think an opposition to nuclear power is anti science, I think advocating it is shortsighted driven by an unwillingness to accept the dire nature of the problems we currently face with climate change.
EDIT:
CO2 of other fuels http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php
Why nuke is a problem http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/nuclear-power-increasing-carbon-emissions
_____
> *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: Nuclear power is not sustainable in the short or long term (unless we achieve fission) as the CO2 and other environmental costs of obtaining uranium and deposing of waste are prohibitive. I think when ever people advocate nuclear power they ignore the fact that dealing with the waste is incredibly energy intensive, as is getting hold of uranium. For this reason opposition to nuclear power is sensible and genuine renewable sources like solar, wind, tidal, all that hippy jazz, are the only way we can keep the lights on without fucking up the climate.
I don't think an opposition to nuclear power is anti science, I think advocating it is shortsighted driven by an unwillingness to accept the dire nature of the problems we currently face with climate change.
EDIT:
CO2 of other fuels http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php
Why nuke is a problem http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/nuclear-power-increasing-carbon-emissions
|
t3_21yfw5 | CMV: The Government has wrongfully banned alcohol | First off, the government has no business getting involved in what I drink and when I drink it. Second off, banning alcohol is just going to give more power to the gangs and what nots. I should be able to drink whenever I want, however I want. I mean, what's the government doin telling me what I can and can't consume? It's a free country aint it? Alcohol has never done any wrong to warrant making a law about it.
Just because some religious folk wanna force their "morals" onto us don't mean we gotta go making up laws so we can't drink no more. If you ask me it's just a load of crap.
_____
> *Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)*** *about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through* ***[our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. | CMV: The Government has wrongfully banned alcohol. First off, the government has no business getting involved in what I drink and when I drink it. Second off, banning alcohol is just going to give more power to the gangs and what nots. I should be able to drink whenever I want, however I want. I mean, what's the government doin telling me what I can and can't consume? It's a free country aint it? Alcohol has never done any wrong to warrant making a law about it.
Just because some religious folk wanna force their "morals" onto us don't mean we gotta go making up laws so we can't drink no more. If you ask me it's just a load of crap. |
t3_252b99 | CMV: Feminism is perceived negatively not because of radical feminists but because feminists don't call them out. | Every groups has its share of radicals, such as militant atheists, fundamental christian etc but the lay person does not confuse the agenda of the radicals as the agenda of the group. This is untrue however in the case of Feminism. This, along with my experience, has lead me to believe that feminism is treated badly because feminists don't call out radfems as often as other groups do, allowing the radfems to become easy targets of mockery. I believe this is because of they have a mentality to support anyone with two x chromosomes no matter how batshit insane they are. 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: Feminism is perceived negatively not because of radical feminists but because feminists don't call them out. Every groups has its share of radicals, such as militant atheists, fundamental christian etc but the lay person does not confuse the agenda of the radicals as the agenda of the group. This is untrue however in the case of Feminism. This, along with my experience, has lead me to believe that feminism is treated badly because feminists don't call out radfems as often as other groups do, allowing the radfems to become easy targets of mockery. I believe this is because of they have a mentality to support anyone with two x chromosomes no matter how batshit insane they are. CMV |
t3_5ikg20 | CMV: most reported hate crimes are legitimate, and not hoaxes | Some people are pointing to the fairly steady stream of debunked racial and political hate crime hoaxes after the election as evidence that all such reports are false. I have seen people claim that reported hate crimes are almost always found to be hoaxes. While I recognize that hoaxes exist, I remain convinced that most reports are genuine and not a massive coordinated attempt to push an agenda. I am not aware of any hard data on the issue, but police departments like the NYPD have reported increases in investigations and arrests of suspects from hate crime or "bias incident" reports. They have not stated how many of these turn out to be hoaxes.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: most reported hate crimes are legitimate, and not hoaxes. Some people are pointing to the fairly steady stream of debunked racial and political hate crime hoaxes after the election as evidence that all such reports are false. I have seen people claim that reported hate crimes are almost always found to be hoaxes. While I recognize that hoaxes exist, I remain convinced that most reports are genuine and not a massive coordinated attempt to push an agenda. I am not aware of any hard data on the issue, but police departments like the NYPD have reported increases in investigations and arrests of suspects from hate crime or "bias incident" reports. They have not stated how many of these turn out to be hoaxes.
|
t3_5cgig4 | CMV: Newspapers should have to maintain certain factual standards to be classed as news outlets. | In the UK, we do have an Independent Press Standards Organisation, but it is ineffective and several news organisations have opted out.
I strongly believe that the lack of accuracy, sensationalism and propaganda spread by newspapers (especially those like the Daily Mail and the Sun) is a massively damaging force in society. The Daily Mail is the most read paper in the UK, but frequently misrepresents facts and uses this to fuel hatred (and recently - borderline fascism). And people believe what they read - the majority of people don't have the time or desire to cross-reference articles from different sources to piece together what might be the truth. It's not defensible to allow opinion to masquerade as news simply when 23 million people are ingesting it. I should add here that I'm not simply disagreeing because they hold a different political opinion to me - but for instance, I have a law degree, and the Mail often gets basic law wrong. The Guardian has definitely fallen guilty of this too (in the recent Ched Evans case).
The best way I see to combat this is a more vigilant watchdog organisation, and the clearest way to send a damning message about the quality of papers would be to only allow newspapers which maintain a set standard of factual accuracy to classify and market themselves as 'newspapers', with the remaining ones lowered to something along the lines of 'magazines', 'entertainment papers', or other options - I am definitely open to other labels.
I don't particularly want to argue about how they can judge factual accuracy - press watchdogs all over manage to do this, and obviously there would be enough leeway granted not to frighten journalists into failing to publish reports out of fear of being sued. I don't think this would stifle freedom of expression.
Ultimately, this would send a clear message to the public about the quality and accuracy of the information they rely on. It would allow readers to make an informed choice about where they get their news, and would hopefully result in newspapers drastically upping their standards of journalism. | CMV: Newspapers should have to maintain certain factual standards to be classed as news outlets. In the UK, we do have an Independent Press Standards Organisation, but it is ineffective and several news organisations have opted out.
I strongly believe that the lack of accuracy, sensationalism and propaganda spread by newspapers (especially those like the Daily Mail and the Sun) is a massively damaging force in society. The Daily Mail is the most read paper in the UK, but frequently misrepresents facts and uses this to fuel hatred (and recently - borderline fascism). And people believe what they read - the majority of people don't have the time or desire to cross-reference articles from different sources to piece together what might be the truth. It's not defensible to allow opinion to masquerade as news simply when 23 million people are ingesting it. I should add here that I'm not simply disagreeing because they hold a different political opinion to me - but for instance, I have a law degree, and the Mail often gets basic law wrong. The Guardian has definitely fallen guilty of this too (in the recent Ched Evans case).
The best way I see to combat this is a more vigilant watchdog organisation, and the clearest way to send a damning message about the quality of papers would be to only allow newspapers which maintain a set standard of factual accuracy to classify and market themselves as 'newspapers', with the remaining ones lowered to something along the lines of 'magazines', 'entertainment papers', or other options - I am definitely open to other labels.
I don't particularly want to argue about how they can judge factual accuracy - press watchdogs all over manage to do this, and obviously there would be enough leeway granted not to frighten journalists into failing to publish reports out of fear of being sued. I don't think this would stifle freedom of expression.
Ultimately, this would send a clear message to the public about the quality and accuracy of the information they rely on. It would allow readers to make an informed choice about where they get their news, and would hopefully result in newspapers drastically upping their standards of journalism. |
t3_3dsku2 | CMV:Mainstream Republican Policies Show Lack of Empathy | Alright, left-wing circlejerk here, comparing mainstream Republican policies with mainstream Democratic policies, Republican ideas have always seemed to me to show a lack of empathy.
This isn't just from anti-Republican rants on left-wing media, though, I promise, it's also from listening to Fox News for quite a while (I live in a primarily Republican state so most people around here including the people I live with watch it). But when I hear Republicans talk about how Obamacare is evil and we shouldn't have universal healthcare, we should deport all illegals, we should have stayed at war longer in the Middle East, wealth inequality isn't an issue, poor people are poor because they're lazy, welfare should be cut or removed entirely, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, black people are the problem with police brutality not the police, climate change isn't real and shouldn't be addressed, corporations shouldn't be regulated, minimum wage should be left at below the poverty line, people should be locked up for doing the botanical equivalent of beer, etc...I can't help but think that all of these views show a tremendous lack of caring about fellow man.
So what's the deal? It's beyond me how compassionate people can support those policies. And I get that not every Republican is the same, I'm not trying to say all Republicans are evil, but how can people vote for politicians who support those policies?
_____
> *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:Mainstream Republican Policies Show Lack of Empathy. Alright, left-wing circlejerk here, comparing mainstream Republican policies with mainstream Democratic policies, Republican ideas have always seemed to me to show a lack of empathy.
This isn't just from anti-Republican rants on left-wing media, though, I promise, it's also from listening to Fox News for quite a while (I live in a primarily Republican state so most people around here including the people I live with watch it). But when I hear Republicans talk about how Obamacare is evil and we shouldn't have universal healthcare, we should deport all illegals, we should have stayed at war longer in the Middle East, wealth inequality isn't an issue, poor people are poor because they're lazy, welfare should be cut or removed entirely, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, black people are the problem with police brutality not the police, climate change isn't real and shouldn't be addressed, corporations shouldn't be regulated, minimum wage should be left at below the poverty line, people should be locked up for doing the botanical equivalent of beer, etc...I can't help but think that all of these views show a tremendous lack of caring about fellow man.
So what's the deal? It's beyond me how compassionate people can support those policies. And I get that not every Republican is the same, I'm not trying to say all Republicans are evil, but how can people vote for politicians who support those policies? |
t3_1ncwn4 | John Boehner is not doing his job correctly at all. CMV | The job of Speaker of the House is to make sure that bills come up for vote. Unfortunately, i do not need any more explanation than "i will only bring up a bill if a majority of the majority supports it", but i will elaborate.
Using that alone, His idea is that unless it is a republican bill, it does not pass the house. This is absolutely wrong and not what his job is. His idea that he needs to protect the republican party, again, is not his job. If a bill has half the house supporting it, it is a no brainier that it needs to be voted on by the full house.
-Side note
I think that a bill should be required to have a total of 100 sponsors and co-sponsors combined to be brought up for vote, any problems with that? let me know.
Back to the main point.
Speaker Boehner Should have extended the time of the 112th congress to vote on Hurricane sandy relief. There is absolutely no reason as to why the people of New Jersey had to wait an additional 3 weeks for help except for 1: John Boehner.
the SOTH is also not supposed to say "i will not negotiate with democrats". as an elected representative, it is his job to MAKE COMPROMISES to appease the needs of his constituents. Yes, the President and democrats do it too, but no wear near the extent that the Speaker and republicans do and, Arguably, in retaliation to what the right and speaker are doing.
I think John Boner will go down as the worst SOTH in history.
I am a Progressive Liberal who works in a Fiscal conservative representatives office.
CMV. | John Boehner is not doing his job correctly at all. CMV. The job of Speaker of the House is to make sure that bills come up for vote. Unfortunately, i do not need any more explanation than "i will only bring up a bill if a majority of the majority supports it", but i will elaborate.
Using that alone, His idea is that unless it is a republican bill, it does not pass the house. This is absolutely wrong and not what his job is. His idea that he needs to protect the republican party, again, is not his job. If a bill has half the house supporting it, it is a no brainier that it needs to be voted on by the full house.
-Side note
I think that a bill should be required to have a total of 100 sponsors and co-sponsors combined to be brought up for vote, any problems with that? let me know.
Back to the main point.
Speaker Boehner Should have extended the time of the 112th congress to vote on Hurricane sandy relief. There is absolutely no reason as to why the people of New Jersey had to wait an additional 3 weeks for help except for 1: John Boehner.
the SOTH is also not supposed to say "i will not negotiate with democrats". as an elected representative, it is his job to MAKE COMPROMISES to appease the needs of his constituents. Yes, the President and democrats do it too, but no wear near the extent that the Speaker and republicans do and, Arguably, in retaliation to what the right and speaker are doing.
I think John Boner will go down as the worst SOTH in history.
I am a Progressive Liberal who works in a Fiscal conservative representatives office.
CMV. |
t3_2rgszm | CMV: Police officers should have stricter guidelines on when they can use their firearms or in some cases be disarmed completely of the ability to use lethal force. | The stated mission of police is to "serve and protect" the people, and obviously from what we've seen recently in the news this mission is being strayed from.
I am against the idea that police should be especially respected and revered as it contributes to their own idea that their lives matter more than those of the citizenry. What this has led to is a police culture of being able to take a human life at the first sign that an officer's life is in danger, even remotely.
If a person is actually committed to being a benevolent protector of the public, he or she should be willing to take a greater personal risk in being that protector. It is my view that many officers should be disarmed of the ability to use lethal force - guns should only be carried under circumstances in which there is an actual chance of having to draw them in a fight for one's life i.e. police are going after a known dangerous individual.
This would undoubtedly lead to an increase in officers not being able to brandish a lethal weapon in situations where they previously would have. Some police officers would die where they wouldn't have before. But many fewer unnecessary civilian deaths would occur. In my opinion, cops being lethally armed and authorized to take lethal action whenever they feel threatened is not worth the cost we have been witnessing where many avoidable civilian deaths occur.
I think it is somewhat tragic that carrying a gun is what in many ways defines what an American police officer is - someone with the ability to kill at any time should they feel it is necessary. In an ideal world where our culture did not dictate that police carry guns I think it would be great if every morning individual officers made a reasonable choice as to whether or not they would need a gun that day for whatever reason. Unfortunately this culture could not exist in America today.
Obviously in place of guns I would have increased use of tazers, not just the short-range handheld kind but also the adapted shotgun models that reach a range similar to that of a gun. Rubber bullets would also be acceptable.
My main point is that cops should be taking a greater personal risk in serving the public as our current system of valuing police life above the citizenry is what has led to such endemic unnecessary police violence.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Police officers should have stricter guidelines on when they can use their firearms or in some cases be disarmed completely of the ability to use lethal force. The stated mission of police is to "serve and protect" the people, and obviously from what we've seen recently in the news this mission is being strayed from.
I am against the idea that police should be especially respected and revered as it contributes to their own idea that their lives matter more than those of the citizenry. What this has led to is a police culture of being able to take a human life at the first sign that an officer's life is in danger, even remotely.
If a person is actually committed to being a benevolent protector of the public, he or she should be willing to take a greater personal risk in being that protector. It is my view that many officers should be disarmed of the ability to use lethal force - guns should only be carried under circumstances in which there is an actual chance of having to draw them in a fight for one's life i.e. police are going after a known dangerous individual.
This would undoubtedly lead to an increase in officers not being able to brandish a lethal weapon in situations where they previously would have. Some police officers would die where they wouldn't have before. But many fewer unnecessary civilian deaths would occur. In my opinion, cops being lethally armed and authorized to take lethal action whenever they feel threatened is not worth the cost we have been witnessing where many avoidable civilian deaths occur.
I think it is somewhat tragic that carrying a gun is what in many ways defines what an American police officer is - someone with the ability to kill at any time should they feel it is necessary. In an ideal world where our culture did not dictate that police carry guns I think it would be great if every morning individual officers made a reasonable choice as to whether or not they would need a gun that day for whatever reason. Unfortunately this culture could not exist in America today.
Obviously in place of guns I would have increased use of tazers, not just the short-range handheld kind but also the adapted shotgun models that reach a range similar to that of a gun. Rubber bullets would also be acceptable.
My main point is that cops should be taking a greater personal risk in serving the public as our current system of valuing police life above the citizenry is what has led to such endemic unnecessary police violence. |
t3_3b0dli | CMV: The US president is right to refer to the White House as "my house" | So [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tma1CM0f4dM) happened today. And on Facebook and on youtube the majority of comments calls out his semantics that its not his house. Because it is a "property" of "we the people" and thus he cannot refer to it as "his house" ( Im aware that he still can say what he wants because the first Amendment)
I think that you it is justified to call a place where you life " your house" as you call the City you are a citizen of "your" city even though you dont own the City.
So for me he can justifiably call the White House his house while being the president. Even though he does not own it.
CMV
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: The US president is right to refer to the White House as "my house". So [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tma1CM0f4dM) happened today. And on Facebook and on youtube the majority of comments calls out his semantics that its not his house. Because it is a "property" of "we the people" and thus he cannot refer to it as "his house" ( Im aware that he still can say what he wants because the first Amendment)
I think that you it is justified to call a place where you life " your house" as you call the City you are a citizen of "your" city even though you dont own the City.
So for me he can justifiably call the White House his house while being the president. Even though he does not own it.
CMV
|
t3_4v8z8o | CMV: A Six Star rating system is inherently better than a Five Star one. | Preface: Ignore half stars. All that really does is double the number of ratings, changing the scale from 0-10 or 0-12 and so on.
A six star rating system is clearly superior in my opinion. If, for example, you are doing a survey of some kind, a six star rating system forces the subjects of your poll to choose a side when they are largely on the fence. There is a notable difference between 3 out of six stars and four out of six stars, whereas in the five star rating system these people would almost assuredly pick the middle option, telling the pollster very little. This goes past the star system, as it is also accurate in polling where the options are Totally agree, mostly agree, etc. I see no reason to use a rating or survey system where there is a middle option. | CMV: A Six Star rating system is inherently better than a Five Star one. Preface: Ignore half stars. All that really does is double the number of ratings, changing the scale from 0-10 or 0-12 and so on.
A six star rating system is clearly superior in my opinion. If, for example, you are doing a survey of some kind, a six star rating system forces the subjects of your poll to choose a side when they are largely on the fence. There is a notable difference between 3 out of six stars and four out of six stars, whereas in the five star rating system these people would almost assuredly pick the middle option, telling the pollster very little. This goes past the star system, as it is also accurate in polling where the options are Totally agree, mostly agree, etc. I see no reason to use a rating or survey system where there is a middle option. |
t3_66aop4 | CMV: There's no such thing as an *innovative* social enterprise. | **Context**
I'm a researcher for a social enterprise incubator, and, from my research, I believe that "innovation" and "social enterprise" cannot coexist. Please change my view by providing examples of innovative social enterprises:
* They must be a for profit, not 501c3/non-profit.
* They must be innovative model (ie: not a "buy-one, give on free," or employ low-income workers).
* They must not be a business that just happens to have a market-share in the underprivileged (ie: Frogtek produces point-of-sale software for retailers in South America)
**What is a social enterprise?**
A "social enterprise" is a mission-driven business can exist to serve a public good, but operate independently of grants and donations. Thus, a company is serving a triple bottom line: profits, society, and environment.
An example of this is Yellow Leaf Hammocks: a company that sells hammocks that are high-quality, hand-made hammocks manufactured in Thailand. Their business model employs individuals from extremely low-income populations, providing them with higher incomes and better living standards.
**Why is Yellow Leaf Hammocks (YLH) not an innovative social enterprise?**
By definition, an innovation is a new concept, product, or operating method. YLH, while indeed a social enterprise that's making an impact, is not innovative. In fact, I'd argue that's it's business model as old as capitalism itself: employing low-income individuals to manufacture low-cost goods is how capitalism operates, and is the foundation of modern globalization.
Furthermore, in my research, 100% of true for-profit "social enterprises" employ either a low-income worker model (YLH), or a buy-one, donate-one model.
**What is a buy-one, donate-one business model?**
A buy-one, donate-one business model is a social enterprise that donates a low-cost good to a cause for every high-cost product sold. A good example of this is [MADI Apparel,](https://www.madiapparel.com/) a company in Missouri that donates a pair of organic, bamboo fiber underwear to homeless women for every pair of lingerie sold.
Again, this is indeed a social enterprise, but it's not innovative. The buy-one, give-one (BOGO) model was developed in the United States, and has been mimiced by [Tom's Shoes](http://www.toms.com/), [Meal Share,](http://www.mealshare.ca/en/home/) [MyClo](https://myclo.co/), and [MADI Apparel.](https://www.madiapparel.com/)
**So please, change my view!**
What are some truly innovative social enterprises that are for-profit, and shaking-up the way things are done?
**EDIT**
Thanks CMV! /u/databock and /u/jstevewhite helped me conclude the following:
*Claim:* There are three different types of enterprises:
* Nonprofits - Address causes with the support of donated funding/goods.
* Social Enterprises - Donation based businesses that give away funding/goods to support causes.
* Businesses - Sell services/goods to meet market needs. Some of these needs may be considered “social causes.”
*Conclusion:* The term "social enterprise" can only be used in a very limited sense: businesses that donate goods/funds. Otherwise, they're just businesses or nonprofits.
| CMV: There's no such thing as an *innovative* social enterprise. **Context**
I'm a researcher for a social enterprise incubator, and, from my research, I believe that "innovation" and "social enterprise" cannot coexist. Please change my view by providing examples of innovative social enterprises:
* They must be a for profit, not 501c3/non-profit.
* They must be innovative model (ie: not a "buy-one, give on free," or employ low-income workers).
* They must not be a business that just happens to have a market-share in the underprivileged (ie: Frogtek produces point-of-sale software for retailers in South America)
**What is a social enterprise?**
A "social enterprise" is a mission-driven business can exist to serve a public good, but operate independently of grants and donations. Thus, a company is serving a triple bottom line: profits, society, and environment.
An example of this is Yellow Leaf Hammocks: a company that sells hammocks that are high-quality, hand-made hammocks manufactured in Thailand. Their business model employs individuals from extremely low-income populations, providing them with higher incomes and better living standards.
**Why is Yellow Leaf Hammocks (YLH) not an innovative social enterprise?**
By definition, an innovation is a new concept, product, or operating method. YLH, while indeed a social enterprise that's making an impact, is not innovative. In fact, I'd argue that's it's business model as old as capitalism itself: employing low-income individuals to manufacture low-cost goods is how capitalism operates, and is the foundation of modern globalization.
Furthermore, in my research, 100% of true for-profit "social enterprises" employ either a low-income worker model (YLH), or a buy-one, donate-one model.
**What is a buy-one, donate-one business model?**
A buy-one, donate-one business model is a social enterprise that donates a low-cost good to a cause for every high-cost product sold. A good example of this is [MADI Apparel,](https://www.madiapparel.com/) a company in Missouri that donates a pair of organic, bamboo fiber underwear to homeless women for every pair of lingerie sold.
Again, this is indeed a social enterprise, but it's not innovative. The buy-one, give-one (BOGO) model was developed in the United States, and has been mimiced by [Tom's Shoes](http://www.toms.com/), [Meal Share,](http://www.mealshare.ca/en/home/) [MyClo](https://myclo.co/), and [MADI Apparel.](https://www.madiapparel.com/)
**So please, change my view!**
What are some truly innovative social enterprises that are for-profit, and shaking-up the way things are done?
**EDIT**
Thanks CMV! /u/databock and /u/jstevewhite helped me conclude the following:
*Claim:* There are three different types of enterprises:
* Nonprofits - Address causes with the support of donated funding/goods.
* Social Enterprises - Donation based businesses that give away funding/goods to support causes.
* Businesses - Sell services/goods to meet market needs. Some of these needs may be considered “social causes.”
*Conclusion:* The term "social enterprise" can only be used in a very limited sense: businesses that donate goods/funds. Otherwise, they're just businesses or nonprofits.
|
t3_1ow8x4 | The film version of Eragon is a complete waste of time. CMV. | At this point, I don't like the film because the film differs from the book so much (according to the IMDB, around 50 of the plot points are different in the film than in the book.) The film also seems to move too quickly (there wasn't any time taken to move the characters from situation to situation, they just seemed to appear there instantly.
I'm aware that most of my distaste of the film comes from comparing it to the book that it was based on (I enjoyed that immensely.)
Also, I haven't seen the film since its release in 2006.
*So please, change my view. I'll try and accommodate most of what you say.* | The film version of Eragon is a complete waste of time. CMV. At this point, I don't like the film because the film differs from the book so much (according to the IMDB, around 50 of the plot points are different in the film than in the book.) The film also seems to move too quickly (there wasn't any time taken to move the characters from situation to situation, they just seemed to appear there instantly.
I'm aware that most of my distaste of the film comes from comparing it to the book that it was based on (I enjoyed that immensely.)
Also, I haven't seen the film since its release in 2006.
*So please, change my view. I'll try and accommodate most of what you say.* |
t3_4jx8ua | CMV: There should only be two continents. | In American schools, we learn a seven-continent worldview. We're expected to learn North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica, but some people have pointed out problems with this view.
For general education on this topic, see [this helpful video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34) by CGP Grey.
The video poses different viewpoints on what should be considered a continent and what shouldn't, which has been the topic of much debate. My answer is simple: two continents, Afroeurasia (or simply "Old World") and America (or simply "New World"). These two seem to be the best candidates for what qualifies as a continent, while all others seem illegitimate. For one, canals seem like bad reasons for continents to be considered divided. The Suez and Panama canals separate Africa and Asia and N. America and S. America respectively, but counting canals seems silly to me. No one considers mainland Denmark to be an Island because of the Kiel Canal, nor to people consider New England to be an island because of the Erie Canal. Canals will change and, quite frankly, shouldn't be considered when considering continents, as they are man made and are subject to change. Some people also argue for the separation of continents based on culture, which seems equally ridiculous, as cultural divisions are endless and hardly confine to our seven-continent educational system.
So, if you take away canals and cultures, we end up with four continents, Afro Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Australia. The problem with Antarctica is that the ice is misleading. If you didn't see the CGP Grey video, [here's](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18757/what-would-an-antarctica-without-ice-look-like-compared-to-other-continents) a forum with answers as to what Antarctica looks like as a land mass as opposed to an amalgamation of land and ice. This shows that the Antarctic mainland is actually quite small, which brings me to the topic of what should constitute the size of a continent. While I agree that what size should constitute a continent is vague at best, in comparison to what we just established to be the other two continents (America and Afroeurasia), the smaller Antarctica and always small Australia seem very small by comparison, which would make them stand out if they were considered continents. They should be considered islands because of their relative size to the other two continents.
With Australia and Antarctica now islands, that gives us two continents, America and Afroeurasia, and a much more defined view of what a continent constitutes. Change my view! | CMV: There should only be two continents. In American schools, we learn a seven-continent worldview. We're expected to learn North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica, but some people have pointed out problems with this view.
For general education on this topic, see [this helpful video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34) by CGP Grey.
The video poses different viewpoints on what should be considered a continent and what shouldn't, which has been the topic of much debate. My answer is simple: two continents, Afroeurasia (or simply "Old World") and America (or simply "New World"). These two seem to be the best candidates for what qualifies as a continent, while all others seem illegitimate. For one, canals seem like bad reasons for continents to be considered divided. The Suez and Panama canals separate Africa and Asia and N. America and S. America respectively, but counting canals seems silly to me. No one considers mainland Denmark to be an Island because of the Kiel Canal, nor to people consider New England to be an island because of the Erie Canal. Canals will change and, quite frankly, shouldn't be considered when considering continents, as they are man made and are subject to change. Some people also argue for the separation of continents based on culture, which seems equally ridiculous, as cultural divisions are endless and hardly confine to our seven-continent educational system.
So, if you take away canals and cultures, we end up with four continents, Afro Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Australia. The problem with Antarctica is that the ice is misleading. If you didn't see the CGP Grey video, [here's](http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/18757/what-would-an-antarctica-without-ice-look-like-compared-to-other-continents) a forum with answers as to what Antarctica looks like as a land mass as opposed to an amalgamation of land and ice. This shows that the Antarctic mainland is actually quite small, which brings me to the topic of what should constitute the size of a continent. While I agree that what size should constitute a continent is vague at best, in comparison to what we just established to be the other two continents (America and Afroeurasia), the smaller Antarctica and always small Australia seem very small by comparison, which would make them stand out if they were considered continents. They should be considered islands because of their relative size to the other two continents.
With Australia and Antarctica now islands, that gives us two continents, America and Afroeurasia, and a much more defined view of what a continent constitutes. Change my view! |
t3_5c0mz1 | CMV: If Hillary Clinton wins The Popular Vote, All democratic senators from states without anti-faithless elector laws should vote for her to become president. | And because this is an argument based on ethics, I will explore it through various ethical lenses:
By my own morality, she would be right to do this: more ghastly consequences would be prevented, thus fulfilling a utilitarian criteria. Legally she would be right because the constitution was specifically written in a way that would allow for faithless electors, especially if they lived in a state without anti-faithless elector law. So it is right in a deontological criteria based on appeal to the ethical legitimacy of following U.S. law. I don't see what other sort of deontological ethics that anyone ought to take seriously are more valid here. All there is is a shitty appeal to tradition: Don't faithlessly vote not because it is legal for you to do so, but because it's super unorthodox. Fuck orthodoxy. From a virtue ethics perspective, Hillary is clearly more virtuous than Donald Trump, and thus should be fallowed no matter what. Am I getting virtue ethics right? I don't know. But of the two most popular ethical theories that make sense: utilitarianism and deontology, there is no reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton as a representative, if you can, legally. | CMV: If Hillary Clinton wins The Popular Vote, All democratic senators from states without anti-faithless elector laws should vote for her to become president. And because this is an argument based on ethics, I will explore it through various ethical lenses:
By my own morality, she would be right to do this: more ghastly consequences would be prevented, thus fulfilling a utilitarian criteria. Legally she would be right because the constitution was specifically written in a way that would allow for faithless electors, especially if they lived in a state without anti-faithless elector law. So it is right in a deontological criteria based on appeal to the ethical legitimacy of following U.S. law. I don't see what other sort of deontological ethics that anyone ought to take seriously are more valid here. All there is is a shitty appeal to tradition: Don't faithlessly vote not because it is legal for you to do so, but because it's super unorthodox. Fuck orthodoxy. From a virtue ethics perspective, Hillary is clearly more virtuous than Donald Trump, and thus should be fallowed no matter what. Am I getting virtue ethics right? I don't know. But of the two most popular ethical theories that make sense: utilitarianism and deontology, there is no reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton as a representative, if you can, legally. |
t3_2e0d25 | CMV: If someone attacks you unjustly, it's ethical and rational to beat them until they are unconscious | Many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self-defense.
This couldn't be more wrong.
If a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.
(1) The attacker could be playing possum. For example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.
(2) The attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.
These two reasons are why it's rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.
The reason it's also ethical is because
(1) A person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons
(2) If you don't want a vicious beating don't go around attacking people unjustly. Play with fire and you get burnt. It serves you right.
All of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee. It's foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them (it's really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller 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: If someone attacks you unjustly, it's ethical and rational to beat them until they are unconscious. Many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self-defense.
This couldn't be more wrong.
If a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.
(1) The attacker could be playing possum. For example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.
(2) The attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.
These two reasons are why it's rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.
The reason it's also ethical is because
(1) A person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons
(2) If you don't want a vicious beating don't go around attacking people unjustly. Play with fire and you get burnt. It serves you right.
All of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee. It's foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them (it's really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people).
|
t3_4x8m18 | CMV: Private schools (in the US) either need a lot more regulation and oversight or need to be shut down | I went to a private christian school throughout high school and after college I've been married to a wonderful woman who had the misfortune to teach at a private christian school for three years before she finally made the switch to public (starting this year!) Over that time I've noticed some egregious problems with the whole idea of private school:
1. Many of these schools are not run professionally. Many of the schools I've seen and attended were not started as an academic venture, but as a religious one. Parents from some of the local churches wanted a place were their children wouldn't be exposed to outside ideologies so they grouped together and started a school. The boards in charge of these institutions are not elected officials and not trained for the position. They are local church members (usually the most wealthy ones) and a few pastors and deacons. I'll get into the problems this leads to later on in the post. As for the staff themselves I can't speak for all private schools, but in the branch of the ones I've got experience with the teachers aren't even required to have state certification they have their own "denominational" certification that wouldn't work if those teachers wanted to teach at a public school. And in many instances I've seen teachers work at the school without any educational qualifications AT ALL. Pastors teaching history part time and so on.
2. The students aren't always getting a quality education. So you've got a school run by a board of self-serving parents and teachers who don't qualify for public schools and all together it makes a perfect storm of incompetence. I've seen kids take more than a month out of the school year (literally. That's not an exaggeration) to vacation in Europe because their wealthy parents are on the board. I've seen those same kids get special treatment and special assignments to make up for that time. I'm sorry, but two hours worth of homework does not make up for a month of missing class. In one case I've seen a kid call in sick for over five weeks out of the year but nothing was done because it was one of the rare parents that always paid their bills on time. I And in even worse cases outright awful lazy kids are passed though their classes because their parents game the system and harass and threaten the teachers.
3. They are spending class time learning about religion and certain topics like evolution are completely left out of the picture. Sure I agree that they should be able to teach the bible if they want, but this is not some after school class, this is taking up mandated in school time.
So here's my conclusion: Truancy is a crime. I'd say that even those kids that aren't outright skipping class are not learning enough to legally be considered "in school". Either something needs to be done about this or this needs to stop outright. Even if this isn't "every private school" if even one private school faces these problems then they all need the oversight.
_____
> *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: Private schools (in the US) either need a lot more regulation and oversight or need to be shut down. I went to a private christian school throughout high school and after college I've been married to a wonderful woman who had the misfortune to teach at a private christian school for three years before she finally made the switch to public (starting this year!) Over that time I've noticed some egregious problems with the whole idea of private school:
1. Many of these schools are not run professionally. Many of the schools I've seen and attended were not started as an academic venture, but as a religious one. Parents from some of the local churches wanted a place were their children wouldn't be exposed to outside ideologies so they grouped together and started a school. The boards in charge of these institutions are not elected officials and not trained for the position. They are local church members (usually the most wealthy ones) and a few pastors and deacons. I'll get into the problems this leads to later on in the post. As for the staff themselves I can't speak for all private schools, but in the branch of the ones I've got experience with the teachers aren't even required to have state certification they have their own "denominational" certification that wouldn't work if those teachers wanted to teach at a public school. And in many instances I've seen teachers work at the school without any educational qualifications AT ALL. Pastors teaching history part time and so on.
2. The students aren't always getting a quality education. So you've got a school run by a board of self-serving parents and teachers who don't qualify for public schools and all together it makes a perfect storm of incompetence. I've seen kids take more than a month out of the school year (literally. That's not an exaggeration) to vacation in Europe because their wealthy parents are on the board. I've seen those same kids get special treatment and special assignments to make up for that time. I'm sorry, but two hours worth of homework does not make up for a month of missing class. In one case I've seen a kid call in sick for over five weeks out of the year but nothing was done because it was one of the rare parents that always paid their bills on time. I And in even worse cases outright awful lazy kids are passed though their classes because their parents game the system and harass and threaten the teachers.
3. They are spending class time learning about religion and certain topics like evolution are completely left out of the picture. Sure I agree that they should be able to teach the bible if they want, but this is not some after school class, this is taking up mandated in school time.
So here's my conclusion: Truancy is a crime. I'd say that even those kids that aren't outright skipping class are not learning enough to legally be considered "in school". Either something needs to be done about this or this needs to stop outright. Even if this isn't "every private school" if even one private school faces these problems then they all need the oversight.
> *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_2i6flh | CMV: Information in newspapers is adequate given its intended purpose | A comment thread on /r/bestof is discussing the dangers of trusting information you read on subjects you are uninformed about, with some branches discussing how much misinformation is contained in newspapers. To take [one representative comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2i4cx8/the_more_i_read_comments_on_reddit_about_things_i/ckytk23):
> It used to be so easy to blindly believe what I read in the newspaper. Then I read a story about something I was directly involved in. It was astounding how many things they got completely wrong.
Many have upvoted and confirmed this view with their own stories, with some quoting the so-called [Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect](http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/media-credibility-and-the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/).
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
While I'm sure there are many cases of media getting stories wrong, I think the extent to which newspapers are mistaken is exaggerated, and fails to take account of what a newspaper is for.
Many stories published are not particularly contentious. For instance political speeches are reported verbatim, with added background thrown in that is relevant to the particular audience of that publication. Financial results, product announcements and many common stories are done fairly accurately, because there is not much to get wrong.
That said, journalists will admit that newspapers represent a kind of "best guess" on many issues, and that the industry is generalist rather than specialist, especially in the case of mainstream news sources. The industry often simplifies things, but that is partly because of time and space constraints. If you want to understand something in-depth you should be buying a book, not a paper.
Every so often newspapers get things horrendously wrong, particularly in the sensational world of the popular press. But these stories take up an inappropriate amount of space in the public impression of the media, and are hugely outnumbered by the mundane stories the press gets more or less right.
I could go on at some length about the influence of public relations firms and other corrupting forces on the industry, but on the whole I'd suggest papers are pretty accurate given their intended purpose. So long as you bear in mind the limits of the format and don't take any of it *too* seriously it is a valuable information source.
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: Information in newspapers is adequate given its intended purpose. A comment thread on /r/bestof is discussing the dangers of trusting information you read on subjects you are uninformed about, with some branches discussing how much misinformation is contained in newspapers. To take [one representative comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2i4cx8/the_more_i_read_comments_on_reddit_about_things_i/ckytk23):
> It used to be so easy to blindly believe what I read in the newspaper. Then I read a story about something I was directly involved in. It was astounding how many things they got completely wrong.
Many have upvoted and confirmed this view with their own stories, with some quoting the so-called [Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect](http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/media-credibility-and-the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/).
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
While I'm sure there are many cases of media getting stories wrong, I think the extent to which newspapers are mistaken is exaggerated, and fails to take account of what a newspaper is for.
Many stories published are not particularly contentious. For instance political speeches are reported verbatim, with added background thrown in that is relevant to the particular audience of that publication. Financial results, product announcements and many common stories are done fairly accurately, because there is not much to get wrong.
That said, journalists will admit that newspapers represent a kind of "best guess" on many issues, and that the industry is generalist rather than specialist, especially in the case of mainstream news sources. The industry often simplifies things, but that is partly because of time and space constraints. If you want to understand something in-depth you should be buying a book, not a paper.
Every so often newspapers get things horrendously wrong, particularly in the sensational world of the popular press. But these stories take up an inappropriate amount of space in the public impression of the media, and are hugely outnumbered by the mundane stories the press gets more or less right.
I could go on at some length about the influence of public relations firms and other corrupting forces on the industry, but on the whole I'd suggest papers are pretty accurate given their intended purpose. So long as you bear in mind the limits of the format and don't take any of it *too* seriously it is a valuable information source.
CMV.
|
t3_5ueqpu | CMV: Depression is permanent. | This is a view I have, not of my own accord, but because everyone else says it all the time. Whenever there is an ounce of encouragement towards moving on from depression, it is quickly met with claims that no matter what, one cannot truly "beat depression".
I'm not sure if I'm depressed, but I have what I believe are bouts of situational depression. So mine isn't permanent in the sense that it's not continuous, however there always seems to be another time around the corner, and in that sense I guess my view has been proved for me so far.
I desperately wish to believe that depression isn't necessarily permanent. If you can develop it, perhaps you can un-develop it? That's what I wish to believe.
Edit: [Here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5ln8jv/to_those_who_believe_they_beat_depression_how_did/) an AskReddit post I made about this. The comments seem to reinforce this view.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Depression is permanent. This is a view I have, not of my own accord, but because everyone else says it all the time. Whenever there is an ounce of encouragement towards moving on from depression, it is quickly met with claims that no matter what, one cannot truly "beat depression".
I'm not sure if I'm depressed, but I have what I believe are bouts of situational depression. So mine isn't permanent in the sense that it's not continuous, however there always seems to be another time around the corner, and in that sense I guess my view has been proved for me so far.
I desperately wish to believe that depression isn't necessarily permanent. If you can develop it, perhaps you can un-develop it? That's what I wish to believe.
Edit: [Here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5ln8jv/to_those_who_believe_they_beat_depression_how_did/) an AskReddit post I made about this. The comments seem to reinforce this view.
|
t3_1n6un7 | I believe eradicating religious symbols from government is a step towards progress. CMV. | Here in the province of Quebec, our government is trying to do this, and everyone is getting all worked up over it.
A lot of people feel this will alienate people from coming here, and that it will prevent certain people from holding certain jobs. They also think it is prejudice, and do not see it as a step towards state neutrality like I do.
I don't understand for the life of me why some women don't want to remove their head garments, and why some people won't take off their cross or whatever other religious symbols they may have. If you SERIOUSLY feel like your "religious" life OBLIGES you to wear something, I don't want you working for my government.
In some countries, women are brutalized, beaten in the streets, have acid thrown in their faces, simply because they do not wear these veils. Here, we allow them in public and in basically every place, but when there's talk about making government entities religiously neutral, they freak out???
Here in western civilization we require people to be clothed, decent looking/smelling...but we have no religious obligations, no silly rules to respect simply because some ancient, misinterpreted and over-recited book says so.
CMV. | I believe eradicating religious symbols from government is a step towards progress. CMV. Here in the province of Quebec, our government is trying to do this, and everyone is getting all worked up over it.
A lot of people feel this will alienate people from coming here, and that it will prevent certain people from holding certain jobs. They also think it is prejudice, and do not see it as a step towards state neutrality like I do.
I don't understand for the life of me why some women don't want to remove their head garments, and why some people won't take off their cross or whatever other religious symbols they may have. If you SERIOUSLY feel like your "religious" life OBLIGES you to wear something, I don't want you working for my government.
In some countries, women are brutalized, beaten in the streets, have acid thrown in their faces, simply because they do not wear these veils. Here, we allow them in public and in basically every place, but when there's talk about making government entities religiously neutral, they freak out???
Here in western civilization we require people to be clothed, decent looking/smelling...but we have no religious obligations, no silly rules to respect simply because some ancient, misinterpreted and over-recited book says so.
CMV. |
t3_4d7f3t | CMV: The principles of the American religious right are incompatible with the principles of small-government in the Republican Party | The Republican Party (at least many of its office holders) prides itself as a small-government party. However, it is also the home of the religious right movement. This movement, in my opinion, pushes for legislation that actually increases the size of government. Prohibiting gay marriage, abortion, drug use, etc. expand the size of government in contrary of small government principles. The very essence of prohibiting things through the law increases the size of government. Because of this, my view is that the movement contradicts the small-government aims of the Republican Party and therefore are incompatible with each other. CMV.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: The principles of the American religious right are incompatible with the principles of small-government in the Republican Party. The Republican Party (at least many of its office holders) prides itself as a small-government party. However, it is also the home of the religious right movement. This movement, in my opinion, pushes for legislation that actually increases the size of government. Prohibiting gay marriage, abortion, drug use, etc. expand the size of government in contrary of small government principles. The very essence of prohibiting things through the law increases the size of government. Because of this, my view is that the movement contradicts the small-government aims of the Republican Party and therefore are incompatible with each other. CMV.
|
t3_4aeawd | CMV: Intellectual property laws are the #1 cause of wealth inequality | After reading a few books on this subject, and a few really enlightening TED talks( [1](https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture?language=en) [2](https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity?language=en) )
I now believe that intellectual property is causing such tremendous damage to our economy, and our society, that IP laws have to be repealed immediately.
First off, let's start with the justification for intellectual property law. The justification is, roughly, that without IP law, *people wouldn't produce*. But this simply isn't true. A quick look at the fashion industry, an industry which has no real IP law save trademarking ( i.e. you can go into a Chanel store, today, and copy a purse stitch for stitch, and sell it yourself under your own name) reveals a business which is *slavishly subservient* to consumer demand, and *highly profitable*, more so than IP related industries (see Ted 1).
So if this claim isn't true, we have lost *all* justification for intellectual property law. People still produce, and compete even more heavily, without these laws. Your insistence on "owning" an idea, is a recent legal construct, that hadn't ever existed in prior world history. What's more, this abstract legal construction really just limits what others can do with their "real" property.
Some of the greatest offenders in peoples minds (Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big this, Big that) are allowed to exist *entirely* by recourse to these laws. IP concentrates wealth and power unnecessarily, exacerbates regulatory capture, and monopoly, and nearly everything we think is bad in the world.
One of the greatest "nightmare scenarios" in the tech culture, is that one day, software/robotics will exist, that are so powerful, that only one person can own them, and all else will be subservient. *This is entirely a product of intellectual property law*. If anyone can own the code, or the schematics, and can simply build a robot *for themselves*, at the price of raw materials, we will avoid the increasingly problematic wealth equality problem.
None of this is to say that there aren't other problems. I believe government support for banks, as well as government involvement in currency itself, is another obstacle to wealth building. But intellectual property is something we can kill *right now*, through the courts, and better the world in which we live.
CMV? | CMV: Intellectual property laws are the #1 cause of wealth inequality. After reading a few books on this subject, and a few really enlightening TED talks( [1](https://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture?language=en) [2](https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity?language=en) )
I now believe that intellectual property is causing such tremendous damage to our economy, and our society, that IP laws have to be repealed immediately.
First off, let's start with the justification for intellectual property law. The justification is, roughly, that without IP law, *people wouldn't produce*. But this simply isn't true. A quick look at the fashion industry, an industry which has no real IP law save trademarking ( i.e. you can go into a Chanel store, today, and copy a purse stitch for stitch, and sell it yourself under your own name) reveals a business which is *slavishly subservient* to consumer demand, and *highly profitable*, more so than IP related industries (see Ted 1).
So if this claim isn't true, we have lost *all* justification for intellectual property law. People still produce, and compete even more heavily, without these laws. Your insistence on "owning" an idea, is a recent legal construct, that hadn't ever existed in prior world history. What's more, this abstract legal construction really just limits what others can do with their "real" property.
Some of the greatest offenders in peoples minds (Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big this, Big that) are allowed to exist *entirely* by recourse to these laws. IP concentrates wealth and power unnecessarily, exacerbates regulatory capture, and monopoly, and nearly everything we think is bad in the world.
One of the greatest "nightmare scenarios" in the tech culture, is that one day, software/robotics will exist, that are so powerful, that only one person can own them, and all else will be subservient. *This is entirely a product of intellectual property law*. If anyone can own the code, or the schematics, and can simply build a robot *for themselves*, at the price of raw materials, we will avoid the increasingly problematic wealth equality problem.
None of this is to say that there aren't other problems. I believe government support for banks, as well as government involvement in currency itself, is another obstacle to wealth building. But intellectual property is something we can kill *right now*, through the courts, and better the world in which we live.
CMV? |
t3_22m9n1 | CMV: I think that musical remixes do not 'infringe' on copyright. CMV! |
_____
So I am a music producer and while it hasn't happened to me, I saw someone on Facebook a few weeks ago complaining that a label took down their remix of a track (I can't remember the details of what the track was, who made it, and who remixed, but I don't think that is all that relevant). Then I got thinking... why should the label take down someone else's work just because it had similarities shared with the original?
Maybe now would be a good time to say that, the remixer *was* generating income of their work. This may have been that they were selling it on ITunes/Beatport, or that it was generating income off YouTube ads or equivalent. Also, this was an unofficial remix, and so they didn't ask permission from the original artist to remix. I understand that this immediately counts against them but bear with me, since I think the opposing arguments are far stronger.
So here are the main points of my current view:
* The remix is not affecting the the original maker's ability to make money! No one is going to listen to the remix first and decide that it isn't worth listening to the original. If anything the opposite is the case, and after hearing the remix there will be *more* people listening (and maybe buying) the original track, so the remixer is doing the artist/label a favour here! Again, this isn't some guy uploading someone's song on their channel, running ads, and not crediting the owner; this is a remix, the original creator is credited explicitly in the title, and in the description, and generally everywhere.
* The remixer needs to make a living too! I know for myself that the remixer could have put up to 50 hours into this and to have it taken down by a label is just the worst thing ever. Remember, the remixer is *also* depending on this to make their money and have somewhere to sleep at nights! That is 50 hours of work they cannot afford to lose, and arguably they need this money more since they are a far smaller artist than the one whose work their were remixing. (But to clarify, this doesn't mean that poor people *should* be allowed to take richer people's works.)
* The remixer wasn't making their life easier by basing their track off someone else's. As like many remixes, the remix was very different from the original track. At most, the remix only used a chord sequence, maybe a melody from the original and so was not using the original creator's work as a source of easy income. To be fair, just by changing a few of the elements, it would have been possible for the remixer to release it as an original, and no one would bat an eyelid, so why, since credit is being given to someone playing a frankly minor part in the final product, are they suddenly at a disadvantage?!
Either I have overlooked something important here, or I am misinterpreting something but anyway, CMV if you can. I'd like to see how the label justified removing someone's remix as it might even affect me in the future.
> *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 think that musical remixes do not 'infringe' on copyright. CMV!.
Maybe now would be a good time to say that, the remixer *was* generating income of their work. This may have been that they were selling it on ITunes/Beatport, or that it was generating income off YouTube ads or equivalent. Also, this was an unofficial remix, and so they didn't ask permission from the original artist to remix. I understand that this immediately counts against them but bear with me, since I think the opposing arguments are far stronger.
So here are the main points of my current view:
* The remix is not affecting the the original maker's ability to make money! No one is going to listen to the remix first and decide that it isn't worth listening to the original. If anything the opposite is the case, and after hearing the remix there will be *more* people listening (and maybe buying) the original track, so the remixer is doing the artist/label a favour here! Again, this isn't some guy uploading someone's song on their channel, running ads, and not crediting the owner; this is a remix, the original creator is credited explicitly in the title, and in the description, and generally everywhere.
* The remixer needs to make a living too! I know for myself that the remixer could have put up to 50 hours into this and to have it taken down by a label is just the worst thing ever. Remember, the remixer is *also* depending on this to make their money and have somewhere to sleep at nights! That is 50 hours of work they cannot afford to lose, and arguably they need this money more since they are a far smaller artist than the one whose work their were remixing. (But to clarify, this doesn't mean that poor people *should* be allowed to take richer people's works.)
* The remixer wasn't making their life easier by basing their track off someone else's. As like many remixes, the remix was very different from the original track. At most, the remix only used a chord sequence, maybe a melody from the original and so was not using the original creator's work as a source of easy income. To be fair, just by changing a few of the elements, it would have been possible for the remixer to release it as an original, and no one would bat an eyelid, so why, since credit is being given to someone playing a frankly minor part in the final product, are they suddenly at a disadvantage?!
Either I have overlooked something important here, or I am misinterpreting something but anyway, CMV if you can. I'd like to see how the label justified removing someone's remix as it might even affect me in the future.
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* |
t3_1mxauu | I believe in-state and out-of-state tuition should cost the same. CMV | Unfortunately, there isn't very much to write about the topic. As the title says, I believe that in-state and out-of-state tuition should cost roughly the same (in the US). In some European countries students are given a reprieve from school to travel and get to know themselves better. In my opinion, the US should implement a similar idea or equal the cost of out-of-state tuition. With the large gap in tuition prices, students are practically forced to attend schools in their state.
While students aren't required to start college immediately after highschool graduation, most grants/awards have an expiration date. | I believe in-state and out-of-state tuition should cost the same. CMV. Unfortunately, there isn't very much to write about the topic. As the title says, I believe that in-state and out-of-state tuition should cost roughly the same (in the US). In some European countries students are given a reprieve from school to travel and get to know themselves better. In my opinion, the US should implement a similar idea or equal the cost of out-of-state tuition. With the large gap in tuition prices, students are practically forced to attend schools in their state.
While students aren't required to start college immediately after highschool graduation, most grants/awards have an expiration date. |
t3_1prdsp | I've been thinking about a bill to ban Christmas supplies in all large chain stores until December 1st. CMV. | Let me preface this by saying this is not my belief but something that I've been thinking about and would like to see someone play devil's advocate.
I think that we should ban all Christmas supplies from all large chain stores (i.e. Walmart, Target, etc.) until December 1st of the year. I'm sure most of you have noticed that directly after Halloween ends there is usually one weekend before the Christmas supplies are out and the push for 12/25 begins. My idea would be to not only stop the large stores from force feeding us Christmas in early November, but to also promote growth in small businesses. The ban on Christmas supplies would not be enforced on locally owned businesses. So for those shoppers who like to get their lights and decorations out early, they still have an option.
Change my view. I'd like to hear a reason someone would not like to see this happen. | I've been thinking about a bill to ban Christmas supplies in all large chain stores until December 1st. CMV. Let me preface this by saying this is not my belief but something that I've been thinking about and would like to see someone play devil's advocate.
I think that we should ban all Christmas supplies from all large chain stores (i.e. Walmart, Target, etc.) until December 1st of the year. I'm sure most of you have noticed that directly after Halloween ends there is usually one weekend before the Christmas supplies are out and the push for 12/25 begins. My idea would be to not only stop the large stores from force feeding us Christmas in early November, but to also promote growth in small businesses. The ban on Christmas supplies would not be enforced on locally owned businesses. So for those shoppers who like to get their lights and decorations out early, they still have an option.
Change my view. I'd like to hear a reason someone would not like to see this happen. |
t3_1v0z8w | I believe that adding Representatives to the House is long overdue and should be one of the top priorities of Congress. CMV | Okay, quick history lesson for you who have no idea what I'm talking about:
The United States Congress has two Houses. The Senate has 2 representatives for every state, whilst the House of Representatives has a more proportionate system, where states with a higher population get more Representatives and states with a lower population get fewer.
The House started off with 65 seats. That meant 1 seat per 60,000 of the 4 million citizens back then. The idea was to add one seat to the House for every 60,000 new people.
*sidenote: this is why a census must be conducted in the United States at least every ten years. If 60,000 people suddenly move from one state to another, then the state that lost population has more seats than it should, and the state that gained population has fewer seats than it should. /sitenote*
Eventually, the House was gaining more seats than it could handle. Thus, the House in 1910 decided to put a cap at the current number: 435.
*another sidenote: this was a good temporary solution. If we had kept adding a seat to this day, there would now be over 5000 Representatives. /sidenote*
Still confused? Watch [this video](http://youtu.be/h_QbB39nraA?t=41s) by the amazing Hank Green (/u/ecogeek) and get sucked into a Vlogbrothers-watching vortex.
And here we still are: 435 Represenatives divided across the total population of the United States (317 million according to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)) gives us one Representative per ~700,000 people. And why is this a problem, you ask?
Well, the thing is, four states (in ascending order: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska) are below the 700,000-ish limit and are thus over-represented in the House. Meanwhile, there are at least four more states (in particualar, California, Texas, New York, and Illinois) that are tremendously under-represented. Thus, a Californian is represented less in the House than a Wyomingite.
As I said earlier, the job of non-proportionate representation is already done by the Senate. The whole point of the House is for every seat to count just as much as any other.
The obvious (although maybe not the best) solution would be to simply add more seats, but, how many? Well, follow this very simple formula:
**Total population of the United States / Population of smallest state**
Doing this would mean dividing 317,000,000 (the total population) by 582,000 (population of Wyoming, the smallest state by far). This gives us 544 seats, and the smallest states could have a seat without being over-represented.
I know that eventually there is a limit. Seats can't just be added to the House forever. But parliaments usually only start breaking down when they reach around 700 members, which for the U.S. would mean a population of around 400 million (assuming Wyoming remains at a relatively stable population). This is going to take a long time for the United States to achieve, if it ever does.
So, I believe that adding more seats to the House would make the United States more democratic by decreasing the *over*-representation of the smallest states and decreasing the *under*-representation of the biggest. CMV. | I believe that adding Representatives to the House is long overdue and should be one of the top priorities of Congress. CMV. Okay, quick history lesson for you who have no idea what I'm talking about:
The United States Congress has two Houses. The Senate has 2 representatives for every state, whilst the House of Representatives has a more proportionate system, where states with a higher population get more Representatives and states with a lower population get fewer.
The House started off with 65 seats. That meant 1 seat per 60,000 of the 4 million citizens back then. The idea was to add one seat to the House for every 60,000 new people.
*sidenote: this is why a census must be conducted in the United States at least every ten years. If 60,000 people suddenly move from one state to another, then the state that lost population has more seats than it should, and the state that gained population has fewer seats than it should. /sitenote*
Eventually, the House was gaining more seats than it could handle. Thus, the House in 1910 decided to put a cap at the current number: 435.
*another sidenote: this was a good temporary solution. If we had kept adding a seat to this day, there would now be over 5000 Representatives. /sidenote*
Still confused? Watch [this video](http://youtu.be/h_QbB39nraA?t=41s) by the amazing Hank Green (/u/ecogeek) and get sucked into a Vlogbrothers-watching vortex.
And here we still are: 435 Represenatives divided across the total population of the United States (317 million according to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)) gives us one Representative per ~700,000 people. And why is this a problem, you ask?
Well, the thing is, four states (in ascending order: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska) are below the 700,000-ish limit and are thus over-represented in the House. Meanwhile, there are at least four more states (in particualar, California, Texas, New York, and Illinois) that are tremendously under-represented. Thus, a Californian is represented less in the House than a Wyomingite.
As I said earlier, the job of non-proportionate representation is already done by the Senate. The whole point of the House is for every seat to count just as much as any other.
The obvious (although maybe not the best) solution would be to simply add more seats, but, how many? Well, follow this very simple formula:
**Total population of the United States / Population of smallest state**
Doing this would mean dividing 317,000,000 (the total population) by 582,000 (population of Wyoming, the smallest state by far). This gives us 544 seats, and the smallest states could have a seat without being over-represented.
I know that eventually there is a limit. Seats can't just be added to the House forever. But parliaments usually only start breaking down when they reach around 700 members, which for the U.S. would mean a population of around 400 million (assuming Wyoming remains at a relatively stable population). This is going to take a long time for the United States to achieve, if it ever does.
So, I believe that adding more seats to the House would make the United States more democratic by decreasing the *over*-representation of the smallest states and decreasing the *under*-representation of the biggest. CMV. |
t3_1li4qk | {CMV} One of Americas problems is that the government provide the poor with nearly the same conveniences as the lower to upper working class. | I hold associates and a BS in Computer Science and Information Security. I work for a fortune 500 company and earn around 55-60k annually. All of my neighbors are either unemployed living off the state or working low skill service jobs or both. What we have in common is that they have the same things as me. 1-2 cars, same style home, cell phones. The only perceivable difference seems to be that they have more time to enjoy their life while I work 12 hours a day to support my family. I picked up another part-time job just to get ahead. I swear, I am liberal, but sometimes these deadbeats make me hate the system. | {CMV} One of Americas problems is that the government provide the poor with nearly the same conveniences as the lower to upper working class. I hold associates and a BS in Computer Science and Information Security. I work for a fortune 500 company and earn around 55-60k annually. All of my neighbors are either unemployed living off the state or working low skill service jobs or both. What we have in common is that they have the same things as me. 1-2 cars, same style home, cell phones. The only perceivable difference seems to be that they have more time to enjoy their life while I work 12 hours a day to support my family. I picked up another part-time job just to get ahead. I swear, I am liberal, but sometimes these deadbeats make me hate the system. |
t3_5wl11f | CMV: In America I think it makes perfect sense that things like "black history" and "women's history" are celebrated but "white history" and "men's history" is not. | In our nation, white men have virtually not have to overcome anything because of their identities, whereas seeing what African Americans have done as a race is worth celebrating. It's a great story.
Many black people went from slavery to success in several industries within their lifetimes alone. Even more fought for integration and now are well known political figures.
Women also hosted a revolution of sorts of their own. They fought for their rights to vote, their integration into the work force and much more.
White men by contrast just don't have as interesting of a narrative. White men founded the United States and white men are still powerful in the United States.
Now I know this isn't necessarily an unpopular opinion, but I've seen things specifically on Reddit that leads me to believe someone will contest my opinion and I'd be interested in hearing an arguments. | CMV: In America I think it makes perfect sense that things like "black history" and "women's history" are celebrated but "white history" and "men's history" is not. In our nation, white men have virtually not have to overcome anything because of their identities, whereas seeing what African Americans have done as a race is worth celebrating. It's a great story.
Many black people went from slavery to success in several industries within their lifetimes alone. Even more fought for integration and now are well known political figures.
Women also hosted a revolution of sorts of their own. They fought for their rights to vote, their integration into the work force and much more.
White men by contrast just don't have as interesting of a narrative. White men founded the United States and white men are still powerful in the United States.
Now I know this isn't necessarily an unpopular opinion, but I've seen things specifically on Reddit that leads me to believe someone will contest my opinion and I'd be interested in hearing an arguments. |
t3_1uqmiu | I think that Democracy is broken. CMV | Well, my title pretty much explains what I think. I think that democracy is broken and might even be beyond repair. The problem as I see it is the conflicting interests of our great institutions. Our democracy was built on the belief that all of us were born equal (one person,one vote), that we should all have equal opportunities,rights and responsibilities. These I believe to be noble beliefs that if left un-corrupted would genuinely make a difference in our world. On the other hand the institution of capitalism is built on a system that says that money votes, the more money that you have the more power you have and naturally not all of us have the same amount of money. Those with access to large sums of money tend to want to keep that money for themselves instead of letting some of it go to the greater good of society. It is against their interests for all of us to be equal because then they would have to give something up. Thus, they have use their money and to warp our institutions to their interests until they have become unrecognizable. Democracy is broken. Change my view. | I think that Democracy is broken. CMV. Well, my title pretty much explains what I think. I think that democracy is broken and might even be beyond repair. The problem as I see it is the conflicting interests of our great institutions. Our democracy was built on the belief that all of us were born equal (one person,one vote), that we should all have equal opportunities,rights and responsibilities. These I believe to be noble beliefs that if left un-corrupted would genuinely make a difference in our world. On the other hand the institution of capitalism is built on a system that says that money votes, the more money that you have the more power you have and naturally not all of us have the same amount of money. Those with access to large sums of money tend to want to keep that money for themselves instead of letting some of it go to the greater good of society. It is against their interests for all of us to be equal because then they would have to give something up. Thus, they have use their money and to warp our institutions to their interests until they have become unrecognizable. Democracy is broken. Change my view. |
t3_4vr8oz | CMV: When artificial wombs are viable, abortion should be outlawed and replaced with moving the fetus to the artificial womb. | The current argument for the inequality between parental rights between men and women is that a woman is allowed to have an abortion because it's her right to bodily autonomy. While I agree with this argument, I believe that this argument loses all merit when artificial wombs are available. I believe that when artificial wombs are advanced enough to be a viable method of sustaining the fetus, that a pregnant woman should not be able to get an abortion, and must instead get whatever this new procedure.
I hold this view because of two main reasons.
1. Parental rights equality would be established by forcing both genders to have no right, post conception, to get out of parenthood.
2. It would appease people who believe that person hood begins at conception while also appeasing the people who believe that a woman's right to bodily autonomy trump the rights of the unborn fetus.
I believe that it is immoral to utilize abortion to get out of parenthood because it causes a parental rights inequality, and I believe this immorality is only tolerated because of the net good done by respecting bodily autonomy. When artificial wombs are viable however, the woman would maintain equivalent bodily autonomy, no longer be able to dictate whether or not someone lives or dies, and would still be on the hook as a parent post conception.
Edit 1: To clarify, in this system people would still be able to give their children up for adoption and/or have child support payments from an unwilling parent (And in saying that I found a third reason I enjoy this proposal. It would allow for the situation where the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't to finally work out).
Edit 2: I've given out one delta already and I want to put the slightly modified view up here. I still believe that abortion should be outlawed and replaced with moving the fetus to the artificial womb, but that we need to wait until artificial wombs are viable and contraception has reached the point where unintended pregnancies are significantly decreased.
_____
> *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: When artificial wombs are viable, abortion should be outlawed and replaced with moving the fetus to the artificial womb. The current argument for the inequality between parental rights between men and women is that a woman is allowed to have an abortion because it's her right to bodily autonomy. While I agree with this argument, I believe that this argument loses all merit when artificial wombs are available. I believe that when artificial wombs are advanced enough to be a viable method of sustaining the fetus, that a pregnant woman should not be able to get an abortion, and must instead get whatever this new procedure.
I hold this view because of two main reasons.
1. Parental rights equality would be established by forcing both genders to have no right, post conception, to get out of parenthood.
2. It would appease people who believe that person hood begins at conception while also appeasing the people who believe that a woman's right to bodily autonomy trump the rights of the unborn fetus.
I believe that it is immoral to utilize abortion to get out of parenthood because it causes a parental rights inequality, and I believe this immorality is only tolerated because of the net good done by respecting bodily autonomy. When artificial wombs are viable however, the woman would maintain equivalent bodily autonomy, no longer be able to dictate whether or not someone lives or dies, and would still be on the hook as a parent post conception.
Edit 1: To clarify, in this system people would still be able to give their children up for adoption and/or have child support payments from an unwilling parent (And in saying that I found a third reason I enjoy this proposal. It would allow for the situation where the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't to finally work out).
Edit 2: I've given out one delta already and I want to put the slightly modified view up here. I still believe that abortion should be outlawed and replaced with moving the fetus to the artificial womb, but that we need to wait until artificial wombs are viable and contraception has reached the point where unintended pregnancies are significantly decreased. |
t3_1suc8z | I believe the Federal Reserve System is far more corrupt than the NSA Surveillance Program and more Redditors should wake up to this realization. CMV | The Federal Reserve System owns(monopolizes) the U.S Mint and has the ability to print unlimited amounts of U.S Dollars out of thin air without any regulation. 40% of the U.S's 7 trillion dollar debt is payed toward these bankers. This system has been in place for the last 99 years and still operates without any sign of slowing. This system is not owned by the U.S and is controlled by private entities from the richest of the 1% including: J.P Morgan, Rockefeller, and the Rothschild Family. This vast amount of wealth have given these families enormous amounts of political power, including access to the media and military industrial complex. They operate without any checks and balances and not even the Supreme Court can touch them. Every single U.S president who has opposed them have either been assassinated or been attempted to be assassinated: JFK, Lincoln, Jackson. This system operates on Debt and these system's are called "unholy" by both the Bible and the Quran. If we are as a society to ever be called "free" how do we let unlimited amounts of debt control our very government? | I believe the Federal Reserve System is far more corrupt than the NSA Surveillance Program and more Redditors should wake up to this realization. CMV. The Federal Reserve System owns(monopolizes) the U.S Mint and has the ability to print unlimited amounts of U.S Dollars out of thin air without any regulation. 40% of the U.S's 7 trillion dollar debt is payed toward these bankers. This system has been in place for the last 99 years and still operates without any sign of slowing. This system is not owned by the U.S and is controlled by private entities from the richest of the 1% including: J.P Morgan, Rockefeller, and the Rothschild Family. This vast amount of wealth have given these families enormous amounts of political power, including access to the media and military industrial complex. They operate without any checks and balances and not even the Supreme Court can touch them. Every single U.S president who has opposed them have either been assassinated or been attempted to be assassinated: JFK, Lincoln, Jackson. This system operates on Debt and these system's are called "unholy" by both the Bible and the Quran. If we are as a society to ever be called "free" how do we let unlimited amounts of debt control our very government? |
t3_22uhz9 | CMV: Death Penalty | Ever since we were children, we were constantly told by our parents and the media that killing is never good, under any and all circumstances. No matter what the crime is, the government should **never** execute anyone.
People normally shield their opinions saying that not killing is the "right thing", and that, for example, executing someone who murdered an innocent person "will not make you any better than him", or even "make you a murderer yourself".
And I couldn't agree more. Killing *shouldn't* happen. But what happens whan an innocent is murdered by a mentally sane person?
Let's assume that an innocent is murdered, and the murderer is arrested. After the usual procedures following the trial, there is no doubt that the person is indeed a murderer.
This is where I want you to change my views, because I find this logic to be flawed.
Executing a murderer to make him pay the consequences of the actions he was willingly responsible for is "evil" and "wrong".
Jailing a murderer for life, depriving him of his freedom in hope that he will be "treated", that he will "change" or simply die of old age in a cell while suffering for his crimes is "right" and "justified".
The result is going to be the same. Why?
If you follow my logic (the former), the murderer will immediately pay for what he has done to that innocent and their family. A family who has now lost someone who could have meant the world to them and will suffer eternally for it. Because that's the least that the government could possibly do, for we cannot bring the dead back to life.
If you follow the commonly accepted logic (the latter), the murderer will sit in a cell for the rest of his life. His punishment? Being deprived of his freedom forever and dying of natural causes (i.e. old age) in a cell, in hope that he will be "treated" or that he will "change" in the meantime.
The murderer is being executed in both cases. It is, however, an "indirect" execution in the latter case, simply because people cannot get themselves to do what must be done. The former case isn't even about revenge: it's about punishing someone for their actions.
I therefore think that a murderer who kills an innocent despite being entirely capable of taking a less brutal choice should be killed. Because in real life, people pay the price of their actions. One day, the murderer might actually even get back on the streets, only to kill someone else. Also, part of the taxes paid by the population to the government would be used to ensure that the murderer lives under acceptable conditions in jail, despite having taken someone's life.
No criminal should ever be executed for anything that differs from murder. There are self-explanatory exceptions, such as killing in self-defense or being insane. But murder is a particular case, in that you are **stealing someone's right to live**. A person who is murdered isn't coming back, ever. As a direct result, according to people, you shouldn't punish the murderer with death, because justice is "incorruptible" and should never get blood on its hands.
It's either about killing the man, or jailing him so that he will be magically "reformed" / die in jail. Or let him go, while you're at it.
Why is my view on this flawed according to so many people? Why is killing a murderer necessarily "bad"?
(P.S.: please do not use the "we don't have the right to play god" argument. Killing is a part of human nature, not some godly duty.)
**TL;DR: the execution of a murderer is wrong. Jailing a murderer for life and making sure he dies of natural causes in a cell is right and completely justified. The murderer dies in both cases, but in the latter case the government simply makes sure that only his freedom is taken. Why do so many people think that a murderer shouldn't pay the price? Change my views.**
| CMV: Death Penalty. Ever since we were children, we were constantly told by our parents and the media that killing is never good, under any and all circumstances. No matter what the crime is, the government should **never** execute anyone.
People normally shield their opinions saying that not killing is the "right thing", and that, for example, executing someone who murdered an innocent person "will not make you any better than him", or even "make you a murderer yourself".
And I couldn't agree more. Killing *shouldn't* happen. But what happens whan an innocent is murdered by a mentally sane person?
Let's assume that an innocent is murdered, and the murderer is arrested. After the usual procedures following the trial, there is no doubt that the person is indeed a murderer.
This is where I want you to change my views, because I find this logic to be flawed.
Executing a murderer to make him pay the consequences of the actions he was willingly responsible for is "evil" and "wrong".
Jailing a murderer for life, depriving him of his freedom in hope that he will be "treated", that he will "change" or simply die of old age in a cell while suffering for his crimes is "right" and "justified".
The result is going to be the same. Why?
If you follow my logic (the former), the murderer will immediately pay for what he has done to that innocent and their family. A family who has now lost someone who could have meant the world to them and will suffer eternally for it. Because that's the least that the government could possibly do, for we cannot bring the dead back to life.
If you follow the commonly accepted logic (the latter), the murderer will sit in a cell for the rest of his life. His punishment? Being deprived of his freedom forever and dying of natural causes (i.e. old age) in a cell, in hope that he will be "treated" or that he will "change" in the meantime.
The murderer is being executed in both cases. It is, however, an "indirect" execution in the latter case, simply because people cannot get themselves to do what must be done. The former case isn't even about revenge: it's about punishing someone for their actions.
I therefore think that a murderer who kills an innocent despite being entirely capable of taking a less brutal choice should be killed. Because in real life, people pay the price of their actions. One day, the murderer might actually even get back on the streets, only to kill someone else. Also, part of the taxes paid by the population to the government would be used to ensure that the murderer lives under acceptable conditions in jail, despite having taken someone's life.
No criminal should ever be executed for anything that differs from murder. There are self-explanatory exceptions, such as killing in self-defense or being insane. But murder is a particular case, in that you are **stealing someone's right to live**. A person who is murdered isn't coming back, ever. As a direct result, according to people, you shouldn't punish the murderer with death, because justice is "incorruptible" and should never get blood on its hands.
It's either about killing the man, or jailing him so that he will be magically "reformed" / die in jail. Or let him go, while you're at it.
Why is my view on this flawed according to so many people? Why is killing a murderer necessarily "bad"?
(P.S.: please do not use the "we don't have the right to play god" argument. Killing is a part of human nature, not some godly duty.)
**TL;DR: the execution of a murderer is wrong. Jailing a murderer for life and making sure he dies of natural causes in a cell is right and completely justified. The murderer dies in both cases, but in the latter case the government simply makes sure that only his freedom is taken. Why do so many people think that a murderer shouldn't pay the price? Change my views.**
|
t3_23ns84 | CMV: I think arguments in favor of using public funding to teach the humanities, and subjects therein, through the public university system, based of their perceived metaphysical value, are hypocritical. | While universities and the like used to play a vital role in preserving and disseminating knowledge, with the advent of the internet, that has ended for all subjects that could be taught through any medium and be just as true and understandable as when taught by a university. The humanities and the subjects contained therein, mostly, fall into that category and, unfortunately, are often made into prerequisites because of their associated metaphysical value. The problem is that, by requiring those subjects, people are forced to pay money for the typical public university style dry textbooks and standardized testing on subjects that were, often, literally lived and named for their very humanity. Charging money for those subjects, which can be learned voluntarily with the internet for free, and treating them like the equivalent of a pointless bureaucratic stepping stone on the way to an AA degree, effectively, strips away much or all the metaphysical value they have when one considers how they could and, probably, should be taught. So the people who advocate and defend public funding for these subjects being routed through public universities, on the basis of their metaphysical value, are hypocrites for defending and espousing a system which needlessly bastardizes those very subjects.
The situation brings a vision of the [Cynics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_%28philosophy%29) laughing at the prospect of everyone arrogantly mangling education while claiming to be doing good. Add to it the fact that this belief has lead many to apparently mistake that metaphysical value for practical value, resulting in much of society becoming unemployed and unhappy and they could start dancing joyously at the prospect of such a great poetic justice. | CMV: I think arguments in favor of using public funding to teach the humanities, and subjects therein, through the public university system, based of their perceived metaphysical value, are hypocritical. While universities and the like used to play a vital role in preserving and disseminating knowledge, with the advent of the internet, that has ended for all subjects that could be taught through any medium and be just as true and understandable as when taught by a university. The humanities and the subjects contained therein, mostly, fall into that category and, unfortunately, are often made into prerequisites because of their associated metaphysical value. The problem is that, by requiring those subjects, people are forced to pay money for the typical public university style dry textbooks and standardized testing on subjects that were, often, literally lived and named for their very humanity. Charging money for those subjects, which can be learned voluntarily with the internet for free, and treating them like the equivalent of a pointless bureaucratic stepping stone on the way to an AA degree, effectively, strips away much or all the metaphysical value they have when one considers how they could and, probably, should be taught. So the people who advocate and defend public funding for these subjects being routed through public universities, on the basis of their metaphysical value, are hypocrites for defending and espousing a system which needlessly bastardizes those very subjects.
The situation brings a vision of the [Cynics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_%28philosophy%29) laughing at the prospect of everyone arrogantly mangling education while claiming to be doing good. Add to it the fact that this belief has lead many to apparently mistake that metaphysical value for practical value, resulting in much of society becoming unemployed and unhappy and they could start dancing joyously at the prospect of such a great poetic justice. |
t3_1dtnjk | White people can't help being racist shitheads, it is in their nature and upbringing. CMV | I'm a POC (person of color) and without fail, every white person I've interacted with has behaved in a racist manner towards me or another person of color. As soon as you call them on it they get butthurt about it and beg me to consider their "benign" intentions, or I am told to be less "sensitive." If I was less sensitive I'd just take a swing at you or stop talking to you altogether.
So now I believe that it is an unchanging part of life; you wouldn't ask a frog to stop going 'ribbit, ribbt' or to stop jumping around and eating insects, why would you ask a white person to not be racist and unaware of his/her privilege? It's as stupid as walking around with a shovel and wishing you could use it as a bicycle.
[EDIT] I also believe that white people can't stop their shitty beheavior because they dont HAVE to. Louis CK calls it. If you're white you don't worry about basic shit on the bottom levels of the pyramid, you live life from a perspective where what you're worrying about is doing meaningful things in your community, because you have all the other things taken care of. So it's ridiculous to you that a POC can get so worked up over "harmless jokes" and shit. Also you wonder what's wrong with those "low income" people why can't they just ~self-actualize~ themselves out of their situation, you feel high and mighty for a while and continue to life live obliviously
I want my view changed because I want there to be a group of cool white people who don't see me as a walking stereotype of someone of my skin color, so I can relate to them and not be as lonely. CMV | White people can't help being racist shitheads, it is in their nature and upbringing. CMV. I'm a POC (person of color) and without fail, every white person I've interacted with has behaved in a racist manner towards me or another person of color. As soon as you call them on it they get butthurt about it and beg me to consider their "benign" intentions, or I am told to be less "sensitive." If I was less sensitive I'd just take a swing at you or stop talking to you altogether.
So now I believe that it is an unchanging part of life; you wouldn't ask a frog to stop going 'ribbit, ribbt' or to stop jumping around and eating insects, why would you ask a white person to not be racist and unaware of his/her privilege? It's as stupid as walking around with a shovel and wishing you could use it as a bicycle.
[EDIT] I also believe that white people can't stop their shitty beheavior because they dont HAVE to. Louis CK calls it. If you're white you don't worry about basic shit on the bottom levels of the pyramid, you live life from a perspective where what you're worrying about is doing meaningful things in your community, because you have all the other things taken care of. So it's ridiculous to you that a POC can get so worked up over "harmless jokes" and shit. Also you wonder what's wrong with those "low income" people why can't they just ~self-actualize~ themselves out of their situation, you feel high and mighty for a while and continue to life live obliviously
I want my view changed because I want there to be a group of cool white people who don't see me as a walking stereotype of someone of my skin color, so I can relate to them and not be as lonely. CMV |
t3_3743l7 | CMV: Shakespeare had a greater impact on the world than Genghis Khan. | I have a debate coming up, and this is the stance I took, but I want to try and see how my opponent can make an argument. Shakespeare made nearly 3,000 words, and most of them have allowed society to become a more expressive and open world, as most dealt with emotions and finding a better way of expressing them. Genghis Khan's impact started and ended with military success. His vast empire fragmented after his death and three of those four fragments had been toppled or reclaimed within a hundred years. Shakespeare introduced so many new concepts to the English language, and his play *Julius Caesar* inspired the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I can see that both had an immense impact, but I want to see how Genghis Khan's impact spread farther than that of military. | CMV: Shakespeare had a greater impact on the world than Genghis Khan. I have a debate coming up, and this is the stance I took, but I want to try and see how my opponent can make an argument. Shakespeare made nearly 3,000 words, and most of them have allowed society to become a more expressive and open world, as most dealt with emotions and finding a better way of expressing them. Genghis Khan's impact started and ended with military success. His vast empire fragmented after his death and three of those four fragments had been toppled or reclaimed within a hundred years. Shakespeare introduced so many new concepts to the English language, and his play *Julius Caesar* inspired the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I can see that both had an immense impact, but I want to see how Genghis Khan's impact spread farther than that of military. |
t3_1d3tzq | How can people believe and trust in a god that they cannot see? CMV | I've been hanging out with a lot of christian friends for the past three years, and I've been wondering for ahwile why they think the way they think. I've been an atheist my entire life. I went to church growing up, but I never took it seriously. Believing in a god is like a foreign, silly concept to me, but I really want to know what they're talking about. CMV | How can people believe and trust in a god that they cannot see? CMV. I've been hanging out with a lot of christian friends for the past three years, and I've been wondering for ahwile why they think the way they think. I've been an atheist my entire life. I went to church growing up, but I never took it seriously. Believing in a god is like a foreign, silly concept to me, but I really want to know what they're talking about. CMV |
t3_30k1qe | CMV: Reporters/Activists who have traveled to ISIS controlled lands we're killed by their own stupidity, and don't deserve sympathy. | First off, let me say that I feel bad for the people who we're born in those places and can't leave, but this CMV isn't about them. I'm saying that I don't feel bad for the people who left there home country on their own devices to go into what they basically knew was a suicide mission. They knew how brutal and callous their executions we're and they went in knowing the risk. Honestly, I can't help but think that their an obvious example of natural selection. So because I probably sound like a complete sociopath, change my view. | CMV: Reporters/Activists who have traveled to ISIS controlled lands we're killed by their own stupidity, and don't deserve sympathy. First off, let me say that I feel bad for the people who we're born in those places and can't leave, but this CMV isn't about them. I'm saying that I don't feel bad for the people who left there home country on their own devices to go into what they basically knew was a suicide mission. They knew how brutal and callous their executions we're and they went in knowing the risk. Honestly, I can't help but think that their an obvious example of natural selection. So because I probably sound like a complete sociopath, change my view. |
t3_61l4qz | CMV: The 'but my freedoms' argument is stupid on an individual policy level, but not collectively | You would expect to encounter this argument when arguing for progressive tax rates, universal healthcare, free / loan education, gun control, etc. *Usually*, it seems like pretty poor justification - for a very small sacrifice in freedom (e.g. a little more tax each year), you can achieve incredible good for the rest of society.
However, this approach makes more sense when you consider that a) we have a very limited ability to forecast the future, and b) once a policy is in place that benefits society at expense of few individuals, it is very difficult to remove.
The idea here is that conservatives believe their nation (in my mind, I am referring mostly to the US) has prospered due to its appeal of being 'free' and 'a land of opportunity'. It is impossible to quantify exactly why this is the case - a regular immigrant would probably not reference tax rates or healthcare options or gun rights, for example, only this sense / hope / hearsay that the land is collectively free.
(I don't just mean benefits from immigration, to be clear - I also mean entrepreneurial willingness to take risk, soft cultural power, willing military signups, etc. A whole bunch of benefits accrue from the strategy of positioning a country as 'free'.)
When you start tinkering at the edges, *even if* you remove a small freedom for a very large gain for your society, you also increase the risk of losing that aura. No one individual policy will break it, and it's so hard to pin down what would that conservatives can often appear quite stupid while using this argument... but eventually you become just another progressive country and lose a particular niche that has worked for you for centuries. It's very difficult to recognise this, and even more difficult to reverse it, since policies that individually benefit society are likely to become popular (look at Trump supporters realising they rely on Obamacare) and it's hard to convince people that they don't fit into a collectively positive picture.
Accordingly, it's not inherently stupid to use the "but my freedoms" argument even if the loss of freedom is very small. Conservatives are often trying to communicate that an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere, and they want to do it while they know the current state of society is capable of being a powerful, functioning nation. | CMV: The 'but my freedoms' argument is stupid on an individual policy level, but not collectively. You would expect to encounter this argument when arguing for progressive tax rates, universal healthcare, free / loan education, gun control, etc. *Usually*, it seems like pretty poor justification - for a very small sacrifice in freedom (e.g. a little more tax each year), you can achieve incredible good for the rest of society.
However, this approach makes more sense when you consider that a) we have a very limited ability to forecast the future, and b) once a policy is in place that benefits society at expense of few individuals, it is very difficult to remove.
The idea here is that conservatives believe their nation (in my mind, I am referring mostly to the US) has prospered due to its appeal of being 'free' and 'a land of opportunity'. It is impossible to quantify exactly why this is the case - a regular immigrant would probably not reference tax rates or healthcare options or gun rights, for example, only this sense / hope / hearsay that the land is collectively free.
(I don't just mean benefits from immigration, to be clear - I also mean entrepreneurial willingness to take risk, soft cultural power, willing military signups, etc. A whole bunch of benefits accrue from the strategy of positioning a country as 'free'.)
When you start tinkering at the edges, *even if* you remove a small freedom for a very large gain for your society, you also increase the risk of losing that aura. No one individual policy will break it, and it's so hard to pin down what would that conservatives can often appear quite stupid while using this argument... but eventually you become just another progressive country and lose a particular niche that has worked for you for centuries. It's very difficult to recognise this, and even more difficult to reverse it, since policies that individually benefit society are likely to become popular (look at Trump supporters realising they rely on Obamacare) and it's hard to convince people that they don't fit into a collectively positive picture.
Accordingly, it's not inherently stupid to use the "but my freedoms" argument even if the loss of freedom is very small. Conservatives are often trying to communicate that an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere, and they want to do it while they know the current state of society is capable of being a powerful, functioning nation. |
t3_24sb0f | CMV: It is not okay to drive under the influence of ANY mind altering substance. | I hear many people claim that they are "totally cool" to drive when high on pot or other various recreational substances. "It's not the same as drunk driving man, it's so much better."
I will admit that it may be "better" than drunk driving. However, that doesn't change the fact that you are operating a thousand pound death trap under the influence of a substance that can impair your reaction time and judgement, thus increasing your chances of hurting someone. The lesser of two evils is not a good argument.
I am using marijuana as an example here because I hear it used in this context most often, but the same logic applies to other drugs. I recognize that caffeine and other medications do not fall under what I am saying. What enrages me is the "its not drunk driving, so its fine" mindset. If what you put into your body effects you physically in a semi-dramatic manner, then it **is not okay for you to operate a car.**
**Edit**: This is my first CMV post, and I realized that I worded what I was saying poorly.
There should always be a personnel level of discretion. Substances of varying types and quantities effect people differently. One beer might not phase a person, while others shouldn't drive with one beer. It is the same with other substances.
Where my problem lies is people who think that because what they are taking is *not* booze, its okay to drive with. People stoned as fuck *should not* drive, whether it be one joint, 3 Vicodin, or 1 gallon of coffee.
IMO, people don't appreciate cars for what they are, i.e. rolling murder machines. People can be shit drivers sober. Having a mindset of "I can drive" even if they are blitzed on whatever vice they are taking part in is unhealthy for them and those around them.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: It is not okay to drive under the influence of ANY mind altering substance. I hear many people claim that they are "totally cool" to drive when high on pot or other various recreational substances. "It's not the same as drunk driving man, it's so much better."
I will admit that it may be "better" than drunk driving. However, that doesn't change the fact that you are operating a thousand pound death trap under the influence of a substance that can impair your reaction time and judgement, thus increasing your chances of hurting someone. The lesser of two evils is not a good argument.
I am using marijuana as an example here because I hear it used in this context most often, but the same logic applies to other drugs. I recognize that caffeine and other medications do not fall under what I am saying. What enrages me is the "its not drunk driving, so its fine" mindset. If what you put into your body effects you physically in a semi-dramatic manner, then it **is not okay for you to operate a car.**
**Edit**: This is my first CMV post, and I realized that I worded what I was saying poorly.
There should always be a personnel level of discretion. Substances of varying types and quantities effect people differently. One beer might not phase a person, while others shouldn't drive with one beer. It is the same with other substances.
Where my problem lies is people who think that because what they are taking is *not* booze, its okay to drive with. People stoned as fuck *should not* drive, whether it be one joint, 3 Vicodin, or 1 gallon of coffee.
IMO, people don't appreciate cars for what they are, i.e. rolling murder machines. People can be shit drivers sober. Having a mindset of "I can drive" even if they are blitzed on whatever vice they are taking part in is unhealthy for them and those around them. |
t3_43l5iq | CMV: P1: The Sun revolves around the Earth. P2: The Earth revolves around the Sun. Both are equally true propositions. | It all depends on perspective. Taken on a purely observational level, how can anyone deny that the Sun is moving across the sky as one looks up throughout the day? Your initial reaction will probably be to point out, quite correctly, that the Sun's travel across the sky is but an apparent motion caused by the rotation of the Earth. With this I do not disagree. My contention, instead, is that there is no one fixed way the world is and that therefore there is no objective basis upon which to privilege one perspective over another. Hence, P1 and P2 are equally true.
The most compelling explanation that I can see for why certain paradigms prevail at certain times has nothing to do with truth, or with the way the world "actually is", but is instead an instrumental explanation: we give epistemological priority to those theories that allow us to make better, cleaner, broader and more reliable predictions. Indeed, historically that was a primary driver for the eventual widespread adoption of the Copernican model, that is, its superior utility in ocean navigation during the age of discovery over the ptolemaic system.
But one could easily imagine a hypothetical future wherein new scientific models of the universe with superior utility for the purposes of interstellar space travel results in the abandonment of classical heliocentrism (after all, if Science is anything, it is a succession of abandoned theories). People would look back and laugh at our naive notion that the Earth revolved around a stationary Sun, just as we now scoff at the naive proposition that the Sun revolves around the Earth. From that even wider future perspective, the Earths motion around the Sun would be just another beguiling form of apparent motion, and the actual state of affairs, from their "advanced" point of view, would be something we can't even imagine.
Across all three -- the geocentric, heliocentric, and the hypothetical future model -- one can discern no progress being made toward ascertaining the way the world actually is.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: P1: The Sun revolves around the Earth. P2: The Earth revolves around the Sun. Both are equally true propositions. It all depends on perspective. Taken on a purely observational level, how can anyone deny that the Sun is moving across the sky as one looks up throughout the day? Your initial reaction will probably be to point out, quite correctly, that the Sun's travel across the sky is but an apparent motion caused by the rotation of the Earth. With this I do not disagree. My contention, instead, is that there is no one fixed way the world is and that therefore there is no objective basis upon which to privilege one perspective over another. Hence, P1 and P2 are equally true.
The most compelling explanation that I can see for why certain paradigms prevail at certain times has nothing to do with truth, or with the way the world "actually is", but is instead an instrumental explanation: we give epistemological priority to those theories that allow us to make better, cleaner, broader and more reliable predictions. Indeed, historically that was a primary driver for the eventual widespread adoption of the Copernican model, that is, its superior utility in ocean navigation during the age of discovery over the ptolemaic system.
But one could easily imagine a hypothetical future wherein new scientific models of the universe with superior utility for the purposes of interstellar space travel results in the abandonment of classical heliocentrism (after all, if Science is anything, it is a succession of abandoned theories). People would look back and laugh at our naive notion that the Earth revolved around a stationary Sun, just as we now scoff at the naive proposition that the Sun revolves around the Earth. From that even wider future perspective, the Earths motion around the Sun would be just another beguiling form of apparent motion, and the actual state of affairs, from their "advanced" point of view, would be something we can't even imagine.
Across all three -- the geocentric, heliocentric, and the hypothetical future model -- one can discern no progress being made toward ascertaining the way the world actually is.
|
t3_6ae6gv | CMV: Black People Are Not The Primary Target of Racism | To complete the statement, "poor white people are. The damage to black people is mere collateral damage, with regard to the actual intent of racism."
First, I will provide background. This is an idea I started playing around with while I was listening to the Haiti portion of Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast. If I understood it correctly, he presented Haitian history as having a pre-racial period, during which the "Big Whites" had a problem: how to secure their positions in Hatian society, which is to say which lower group to turn to for allies. The two choices were "Small Whites" (the people that came from France hoping to make a fortune but ended up, at best, working as clerks and overseers and such for the Big Whites), and "Coloreds", which were local people of mixed ancestry (but substantially Black) who had established themselves as a local elite. (Coloreds did not identify with the slaves, due to the fact that slaves were largely recent imports--it being more profitable to work slaves to death and import more than to maintain a local population--while Coloreds were essentially native to Haiti.) They could have identified with the coloreds in an alliance of wealth and property, but ultimately they chose to use racial propaganda to tie the Small Whites to themselves. This got me thinking.
It occurs to me that the elites of every society have a problem: how to convince the people they exploit not to revolt against their rule. Somehow, they have to convince some subset of the lower classes to identify with them, rather than the other poor people. Many techniques have been used historically, such as religion, class graduation (break society up into smaller subclasses that identify and strive upward while denigrating downward), nationalism, and so on. But for the Colonial West, particularly in the Caribbean (from where the particular society of the American Deep South was imported), the method chosen was Racism.
Simply put, I propose that the primary target of racism is not the "Other" that it proposes to oppress; their suffering is a mere side effect (which is not to suggest that it doesn't suck; indeed, I think it suggests that the dehumanization goes even further than is traditionally believed). No, the primary target of racism is poor whites. It is a means of convincing poor whites that rich whites are not their oppressors, but rather their protectors against the even worse nonwhite peoples. It convinces them that they are not exploited outsiders, but rather insiders, with something to be proud of: their ancestry, and the color of their skin, which they share with their "fellow" whites. This allows the white upper class to continue to safely extract wealth from the white lower class. The resulting suffering of nonwhites is but a means to an end.
_____
> *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: Black People Are Not The Primary Target of Racism. To complete the statement, "poor white people are. The damage to black people is mere collateral damage, with regard to the actual intent of racism."
First, I will provide background. This is an idea I started playing around with while I was listening to the Haiti portion of Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast. If I understood it correctly, he presented Haitian history as having a pre-racial period, during which the "Big Whites" had a problem: how to secure their positions in Hatian society, which is to say which lower group to turn to for allies. The two choices were "Small Whites" (the people that came from France hoping to make a fortune but ended up, at best, working as clerks and overseers and such for the Big Whites), and "Coloreds", which were local people of mixed ancestry (but substantially Black) who had established themselves as a local elite. (Coloreds did not identify with the slaves, due to the fact that slaves were largely recent imports--it being more profitable to work slaves to death and import more than to maintain a local population--while Coloreds were essentially native to Haiti.) They could have identified with the coloreds in an alliance of wealth and property, but ultimately they chose to use racial propaganda to tie the Small Whites to themselves. This got me thinking.
It occurs to me that the elites of every society have a problem: how to convince the people they exploit not to revolt against their rule. Somehow, they have to convince some subset of the lower classes to identify with them, rather than the other poor people. Many techniques have been used historically, such as religion, class graduation (break society up into smaller subclasses that identify and strive upward while denigrating downward), nationalism, and so on. But for the Colonial West, particularly in the Caribbean (from where the particular society of the American Deep South was imported), the method chosen was Racism.
Simply put, I propose that the primary target of racism is not the "Other" that it proposes to oppress; their suffering is a mere side effect (which is not to suggest that it doesn't suck; indeed, I think it suggests that the dehumanization goes even further than is traditionally believed). No, the primary target of racism is poor whites. It is a means of convincing poor whites that rich whites are not their oppressors, but rather their protectors against the even worse nonwhite peoples. It convinces them that they are not exploited outsiders, but rather insiders, with something to be proud of: their ancestry, and the color of their skin, which they share with their "fellow" whites. This allows the white upper class to continue to safely extract wealth from the white lower class. The resulting suffering of nonwhites is but a means to an end.
|
t3_1ggqz3 | I believe that the use of samples in the hiphop/electronic music communities is a cop out for creativity. CMV. | This practice is taking what other people have created and basically riding its coat tails because these people are not musically inclined enough to create one for themselves. I see the artistic ability in rapping, and I appreciate it. It is a form of poetry, just with a remixed version of someone else's music behind it. If you have good music software and a decent library of music and you can make great beats. I do not see it as plagiarism, so please do not take that route. These artists are solely rhythmically inclined, and that seems like half of the puzzle to me. I do enjoy hiphop a good amount, but i cant get past this view. | I believe that the use of samples in the hiphop/electronic music communities is a cop out for creativity. CMV. This practice is taking what other people have created and basically riding its coat tails because these people are not musically inclined enough to create one for themselves. I see the artistic ability in rapping, and I appreciate it. It is a form of poetry, just with a remixed version of someone else's music behind it. If you have good music software and a decent library of music and you can make great beats. I do not see it as plagiarism, so please do not take that route. These artists are solely rhythmically inclined, and that seems like half of the puzzle to me. I do enjoy hiphop a good amount, but i cant get past this view. |
t3_1s90v6 | The "Religious Right" is an oppressive force, and the U.S. would be better without it. CMV | I know this is super brave to say on reddit, but I find the Religious Right to be almost cartoonishly evil. It seems like their whole purpose is to oppress everybody that isn't a straight, white, conservative Christian and fight tooth and nail against anything that might bring change or progress. Religious leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and (until a few years ago) Jerry Falwell, as well as their political counterparts (e.g. Sarah Palin and the entirety of the Tea Party) have tainted the name of the Republican party and stunted the growth of our nation. A lot of decent people identify with these people's views, though, so I'm sure there's something to them that I'm not seeing. CMV? | The "Religious Right" is an oppressive force, and the U.S. would be better without it. CMV. I know this is super brave to say on reddit, but I find the Religious Right to be almost cartoonishly evil. It seems like their whole purpose is to oppress everybody that isn't a straight, white, conservative Christian and fight tooth and nail against anything that might bring change or progress. Religious leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and (until a few years ago) Jerry Falwell, as well as their political counterparts (e.g. Sarah Palin and the entirety of the Tea Party) have tainted the name of the Republican party and stunted the growth of our nation. A lot of decent people identify with these people's views, though, so I'm sure there's something to them that I'm not seeing. CMV? |
t3_2lepl5 | CMV: Only the past thirty or so years of professional hockey history should be considered relevant | Here is something that comes up far too often when discussing hockey history : players and teams from a bygone era of hockey are still brought up as if they could actually be compared to today's hockey. Their season and career records are simply unbeatable! I believe that this is because hockey has become a MUCH more competitive sport in the past thirty or so years, and for this reason, **the majority of hockey records and history dating from before the 1980's should not even be talked about**.
[Maurice Richard managed to score 8 points in one game after a day of moving.](http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/rocket/rokt442e.shtml) [Gordie Howe played with his own sons on the same line!](http://www.nhl.com/intheslot/read/impact/april/howes.html) Players used to smoke cigarettes (and even drink!) right on the bench. They had flat sticks, bad skates, no goalie equipment, no goalie technique (the standard butterfly technique only began to appear in the [1970's and 1980's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_style) and you'll be hard pressed to find a goalie who doesn't use it today), only a fraction of the logistic support that today's players have, not to mention all the expert help they get from dietitians, personal trainers and an extensive coaching staff.
Nobody is ever going to even come close to Wayne Gretzky's record of 2857 career points. That's nearly 2 points a game, and nobody in the NHL has even come close to scoring 164 points in a very long time (Lemieux scored 161 in 95-96). That is not because Gretzky had hockey superpowers, it is because his NHL was a lot less competitive than it is today. The Montreal Canadiens have 24 Stanley Cups, but the majority of them are from this period of low-competition hockey... yet we hear about those 24 Stanley Cups ad nauseum.
I do not doubt for a second that the hockey players who played for the NHL and other highly competitive leagues through all of history were hard working, intelligent, dedicated, brave, and had all the personal qualities of a modern professional athlete, but they just weren't playing the same game. If you were to go back in time and come back with Wayne Gretzky in his prime, he would not even have the slightest chance of playing in the NHL. If he had benefited from the support and training methods of today during his development as a junior, there is a very good chance he would have made it pro, but his tremendous success was only made possible by a lower competitive level, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever imitate that level of success in today's NHL. For this reason, it is only logical that we should ignore the majority of hockey history because it is incomparable to today's hockey. 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: Only the past thirty or so years of professional hockey history should be considered relevant. Here is something that comes up far too often when discussing hockey history : players and teams from a bygone era of hockey are still brought up as if they could actually be compared to today's hockey. Their season and career records are simply unbeatable! I believe that this is because hockey has become a MUCH more competitive sport in the past thirty or so years, and for this reason, **the majority of hockey records and history dating from before the 1980's should not even be talked about**.
[Maurice Richard managed to score 8 points in one game after a day of moving.](http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/rocket/rokt442e.shtml) [Gordie Howe played with his own sons on the same line!](http://www.nhl.com/intheslot/read/impact/april/howes.html) Players used to smoke cigarettes (and even drink!) right on the bench. They had flat sticks, bad skates, no goalie equipment, no goalie technique (the standard butterfly technique only began to appear in the [1970's and 1980's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_style) and you'll be hard pressed to find a goalie who doesn't use it today), only a fraction of the logistic support that today's players have, not to mention all the expert help they get from dietitians, personal trainers and an extensive coaching staff.
Nobody is ever going to even come close to Wayne Gretzky's record of 2857 career points. That's nearly 2 points a game, and nobody in the NHL has even come close to scoring 164 points in a very long time (Lemieux scored 161 in 95-96). That is not because Gretzky had hockey superpowers, it is because his NHL was a lot less competitive than it is today. The Montreal Canadiens have 24 Stanley Cups, but the majority of them are from this period of low-competition hockey... yet we hear about those 24 Stanley Cups ad nauseum.
I do not doubt for a second that the hockey players who played for the NHL and other highly competitive leagues through all of history were hard working, intelligent, dedicated, brave, and had all the personal qualities of a modern professional athlete, but they just weren't playing the same game. If you were to go back in time and come back with Wayne Gretzky in his prime, he would not even have the slightest chance of playing in the NHL. If he had benefited from the support and training methods of today during his development as a junior, there is a very good chance he would have made it pro, but his tremendous success was only made possible by a lower competitive level, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever imitate that level of success in today's NHL. For this reason, it is only logical that we should ignore the majority of hockey history because it is incomparable to today's hockey. CMV!
|
t3_5n1fbk | CMV: The laws against feeding the homeless at your will are justified. | Context to start this inevitably shit post: If you sub to /r/iAMA you may have seen the post regarding an arrest for feeding homeless people in Tampa, Florida. I had to resort to using an alt account to post because I lost faith in Reddit to not shit on people for having opinions. Especially since I've already made a controversial post here and had to turn off inbox notifications because people were calling me names.
Now that I've guaranteed some backlash, let's start.
As someone who lives just North of Tampa, I totally understand and sorta agree (actual arrests are too much punishment. A fine should be well enough.) with the laws preventing people from feeding the homeless (or really anyone in public, iirc). The reason people are saying is because of insurance if a person is fed poisoned food. However I believe the issue goes further down to freeloading behavior. Now I may be biased because I had a pretty unenjoyable time dealing with a freeloading cunt relative recently. I believe that people who give to the homeless in some instances are hurting. Let me add, because if I don't explicitly state it nobody will catch this: **I believe taking care of the homeless should solely be the job of the government. Private citizens giving handouts mostly decreases the urgency to find financial, mental, etc. help from welfare and other agencies. If the homeless are to receive gifts it should be from the government and various programs designed to improve their standing in life by providing jobs, welfare checks and some education.**
Just under an hour ago some bum lady tried freeloading some cigarettes off me as I was walking home. This may seem like an insignificant instance but I have lived in this town for over 10 years and can assure you this is a big problem here. Lots of scummy people. My desire to help strangers when they call for me is stretched to its limit because they have almost always been scumbag favors. It stops by removing freeload behavior. The town has already made some moves by outlawing panhandling (standing at intersections begging for money) without special permission, however it does not seem to be enforced too well.
I just really want my city to improve but everytime I get comfortable it proves me right. | CMV: The laws against feeding the homeless at your will are justified. Context to start this inevitably shit post: If you sub to /r/iAMA you may have seen the post regarding an arrest for feeding homeless people in Tampa, Florida. I had to resort to using an alt account to post because I lost faith in Reddit to not shit on people for having opinions. Especially since I've already made a controversial post here and had to turn off inbox notifications because people were calling me names.
Now that I've guaranteed some backlash, let's start.
As someone who lives just North of Tampa, I totally understand and sorta agree (actual arrests are too much punishment. A fine should be well enough.) with the laws preventing people from feeding the homeless (or really anyone in public, iirc). The reason people are saying is because of insurance if a person is fed poisoned food. However I believe the issue goes further down to freeloading behavior. Now I may be biased because I had a pretty unenjoyable time dealing with a freeloading cunt relative recently. I believe that people who give to the homeless in some instances are hurting. Let me add, because if I don't explicitly state it nobody will catch this: **I believe taking care of the homeless should solely be the job of the government. Private citizens giving handouts mostly decreases the urgency to find financial, mental, etc. help from welfare and other agencies. If the homeless are to receive gifts it should be from the government and various programs designed to improve their standing in life by providing jobs, welfare checks and some education.**
Just under an hour ago some bum lady tried freeloading some cigarettes off me as I was walking home. This may seem like an insignificant instance but I have lived in this town for over 10 years and can assure you this is a big problem here. Lots of scummy people. My desire to help strangers when they call for me is stretched to its limit because they have almost always been scumbag favors. It stops by removing freeload behavior. The town has already made some moves by outlawing panhandling (standing at intersections begging for money) without special permission, however it does not seem to be enforced too well.
I just really want my city to improve but everytime I get comfortable it proves me right. |
t3_1nh0x6 | I think less of people who use Apple products CMV | I work with Windows and Linux servers and spend far too much time reading up on the latest patent Apple has sued something over, meaning I'm effectively bombarding myself with anti Apple information a lot of the time.
Intellectually I understand Apple devices are quality hardware, user friendly consumer product that represent value for their price. I respect the business acumen of Apple creating an ecosystem of products that efficiently take people's money from them.
I've recently met some some Apple product users whose technical opinions I significantly respect - prompted me to reevaluate my 'Apple fans are useless with technology' position.
My conclusion is that my Apple hate goes beyond the rational e.g. a person says they are a Mac fan, I immediately think less of them. Please change my view.
**Edit** - I realised I was quite broad, my issue is with Apple *fans* rather than just users | I think less of people who use Apple products CMV. I work with Windows and Linux servers and spend far too much time reading up on the latest patent Apple has sued something over, meaning I'm effectively bombarding myself with anti Apple information a lot of the time.
Intellectually I understand Apple devices are quality hardware, user friendly consumer product that represent value for their price. I respect the business acumen of Apple creating an ecosystem of products that efficiently take people's money from them.
I've recently met some some Apple product users whose technical opinions I significantly respect - prompted me to reevaluate my 'Apple fans are useless with technology' position.
My conclusion is that my Apple hate goes beyond the rational e.g. a person says they are a Mac fan, I immediately think less of them. Please change my view.
**Edit** - I realised I was quite broad, my issue is with Apple *fans* rather than just users |
t3_33zrl3 | CMV: I believe there's nothing morally wrong with detracting human self consciousness and putting them to work as slaves. | By "detracting human self consciousness" I mean genetically modifying certain embryos to neutralize what areas of the brain are responsible for self consciousness (being the ability to think of ourselves as individuals, come to conclusions independently, etc.). Think [Devil's Breath](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devil%27s+Breath) but permanent.
If these humans are unable to think for themselves, and never had the ability *removed*, per se, in that the embryo had it removed prior to inception, where is the moral wrong in working them as slaves? They will not complain. How is that different from robots?
>But it's not fair to humans to remove a natural right! *How would you feel if it were you?!*
A rock doesn't care that it's a rock. I wouldn't feel anything if it were me because I *couldn't* feel anything. Further, you can't project *me* in place of a modified human because it wouldn't be me. I have a personality. This human never could. That's what self consciousness is. If it had it in the first place (and I don't think the pre-inception state, the embryo, counts) it might be wrong. But when they don't have it from the start, and frankly are unable to care or want, it's not wrong.
This is where I'm able to relate it to robots. Robots are designed to be put to work in the same way these embryos would. Robots don't have self consciousness. Neither would these GM humans. Really, the only difference is that one is biological. What difference does that alone make?
**EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting the removal of self consciousness after inception. With me, it's either before (by modifying an embryo) or not at all, because then you really are removing something that was once there.**
**EDIT 2: I'm also not talking about random selection of random embryos to remove self awareness. Elsewhere I've explained that in order to avoid the "but they could have been a person!" argument, we take the base templates of humanity; make, literally, a perfectly "average human". Remove self awareness. Clone. Clone. Clone. Each time a new one is created you're getting further removed from the "but they could have been a person!" argument. But, as I've also explained elsewhere, if the notion of these changes being made to *humans* alone is enough to dismiss the idea, why not make the recipients *non-human?* Make them obviously distinguishable, make them clearly unrelatable; now you've arrived at aliens, essentially. A genetically engineered slave race. Can you still complain about human rights violations, when, for the *history of this race*, they never would have had self consciousness to begin with? Does the derivation matter now?**
**EDIT 3: I'm going to sleep now, but I'll definitely be responding to posts in the morning! I expect many interesting points to be raised while I sleep!**
**EDIT 4: As just a hypothetical without any further explanation, it's hard for me to reply to the more practical questions asked. I don't know how self-consciousness and other things like problem solving and critical thinking are related; if they're inseparable, if you can have one without the other... Good points have been raised, but I don't know how I can respond to some without resorting to unprovable conjecture. I myself probably went too far with, "I think one can remain lucid and logical even without the ability to form a personality". There's no substantiation.**
**My point was that assuming it's possible, is there anything ethically wrong with 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 believe there's nothing morally wrong with detracting human self consciousness and putting them to work as slaves. By "detracting human self consciousness" I mean genetically modifying certain embryos to neutralize what areas of the brain are responsible for self consciousness (being the ability to think of ourselves as individuals, come to conclusions independently, etc.). Think [Devil's Breath](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devil%27s+Breath) but permanent.
If these humans are unable to think for themselves, and never had the ability *removed*, per se, in that the embryo had it removed prior to inception, where is the moral wrong in working them as slaves? They will not complain. How is that different from robots?
>But it's not fair to humans to remove a natural right! *How would you feel if it were you?!*
A rock doesn't care that it's a rock. I wouldn't feel anything if it were me because I *couldn't* feel anything. Further, you can't project *me* in place of a modified human because it wouldn't be me. I have a personality. This human never could. That's what self consciousness is. If it had it in the first place (and I don't think the pre-inception state, the embryo, counts) it might be wrong. But when they don't have it from the start, and frankly are unable to care or want, it's not wrong.
This is where I'm able to relate it to robots. Robots are designed to be put to work in the same way these embryos would. Robots don't have self consciousness. Neither would these GM humans. Really, the only difference is that one is biological. What difference does that alone make?
**EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting the removal of self consciousness after inception. With me, it's either before (by modifying an embryo) or not at all, because then you really are removing something that was once there.**
**EDIT 2: I'm also not talking about random selection of random embryos to remove self awareness. Elsewhere I've explained that in order to avoid the "but they could have been a person!" argument, we take the base templates of humanity; make, literally, a perfectly "average human". Remove self awareness. Clone. Clone. Clone. Each time a new one is created you're getting further removed from the "but they could have been a person!" argument. But, as I've also explained elsewhere, if the notion of these changes being made to *humans* alone is enough to dismiss the idea, why not make the recipients *non-human?* Make them obviously distinguishable, make them clearly unrelatable; now you've arrived at aliens, essentially. A genetically engineered slave race. Can you still complain about human rights violations, when, for the *history of this race*, they never would have had self consciousness to begin with? Does the derivation matter now?**
**EDIT 3: I'm going to sleep now, but I'll definitely be responding to posts in the morning! I expect many interesting points to be raised while I sleep!**
**EDIT 4: As just a hypothetical without any further explanation, it's hard for me to reply to the more practical questions asked. I don't know how self-consciousness and other things like problem solving and critical thinking are related; if they're inseparable, if you can have one without the other... Good points have been raised, but I don't know how I can respond to some without resorting to unprovable conjecture. I myself probably went too far with, "I think one can remain lucid and logical even without the ability to form a personality". There's no substantiation.**
**My point was that assuming it's possible, is there anything ethically wrong with it?**
|
t3_3a5e7a | CMV: Your job is not a right and thus any associated benefits are not a duty for your employer. CMV. | I have been thinking a lot about the ACA and recently watched the Last Week Tonight on the Hobby Lobby case which I disagreed quite a bit with. It brought up a lot of thoughts about what I think about the interaction between business, employees and government.
So my basic presumption is that your job is not a right, because if you do your job poorly your employer should have the ability to find a better employee (feel free to CMV here). Thus, the associated benefits associated with your job (read: heath insurance but also including pensions, paid vacation, etc.) are not duties to be provided by the employer, but rather *benefits* to incentivize better employees to work for that business.
It mostly stems from the idea that even if just theoretically, the basis of the Hobby Lobby case could dis-incentivize business. Say for example Hobby Lobby had lost its case in the Supreme Court. If the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company. Should this be an acceptable potential outcome?
Please be aware, I am NOT saying that health care is not a right (nor that employers do not have duties to their employees). I am saying it is not a duty of an employer to provide insurance or for a law to state employers must provide it. Rather health insurance should be, in regard to an employer, a benefit that should incentivize the type of employee to apply at the company. If a company didn't find they were getting enough, or skilled enough employees, the company could choose to alter its considerations and provide things they would not have otherwise. This puts the decision clearly in the hands of the company (and the market for labor). A universal healthcare could be provided by the government, and taxed for.
Feel free to address the statements like "My boss shouldn't control what I do with my body." It seems a bit exclusive. I hear "provide me additional benefits at your cost but if it isn't to my liking I would still rather keep this job and blame you for providing me more than pay but not enough stuff instead of taking my skills elsewhere."
I've been awake for a long time so I probably could've formatted this better but I think most of my thoughts are here. Is a job a right? Is employment as a general whole a right but not any specific job? Is it a duty for an employer to provide benefits like insurance, retirement plans/pensions, vacation etc. Am I incorrect that it could provide negative incentives to business?
_____
> *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: Your job is not a right and thus any associated benefits are not a duty for your employer. CMV. I have been thinking a lot about the ACA and recently watched the Last Week Tonight on the Hobby Lobby case which I disagreed quite a bit with. It brought up a lot of thoughts about what I think about the interaction between business, employees and government.
So my basic presumption is that your job is not a right, because if you do your job poorly your employer should have the ability to find a better employee (feel free to CMV here). Thus, the associated benefits associated with your job (read: heath insurance but also including pensions, paid vacation, etc.) are not duties to be provided by the employer, but rather *benefits* to incentivize better employees to work for that business.
It mostly stems from the idea that even if just theoretically, the basis of the Hobby Lobby case could dis-incentivize business. Say for example Hobby Lobby had lost its case in the Supreme Court. If the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company. Should this be an acceptable potential outcome?
Please be aware, I am NOT saying that health care is not a right (nor that employers do not have duties to their employees). I am saying it is not a duty of an employer to provide insurance or for a law to state employers must provide it. Rather health insurance should be, in regard to an employer, a benefit that should incentivize the type of employee to apply at the company. If a company didn't find they were getting enough, or skilled enough employees, the company could choose to alter its considerations and provide things they would not have otherwise. This puts the decision clearly in the hands of the company (and the market for labor). A universal healthcare could be provided by the government, and taxed for.
Feel free to address the statements like "My boss shouldn't control what I do with my body." It seems a bit exclusive. I hear "provide me additional benefits at your cost but if it isn't to my liking I would still rather keep this job and blame you for providing me more than pay but not enough stuff instead of taking my skills elsewhere."
I've been awake for a long time so I probably could've formatted this better but I think most of my thoughts are here. Is a job a right? Is employment as a general whole a right but not any specific job? Is it a duty for an employer to provide benefits like insurance, retirement plans/pensions, vacation etc. Am I incorrect that it could provide negative incentives to business?
|
t3_4650bf | CMV: Governments and Militaries Could Save A Lot of Money Switching to Open Source Software | Take LibreOffice, for example. It's a free, open source, mostly feature-complete, MS-compatible (apart from Macros), more than adequate replacement office suite for Microsoft Office. It's theoretically more secure, as it's been fine-toothed by penetration testers innumerable times, and security through obscurity (as practiced by Microsoft) is a terrible practice easily foiled by decompilers and reverse engineering. I would argue that the switching costs from MS Office, if there are any, are beneficial for all parties involved, because the LibreOffice developers would receive a massive resource, labor, and funding boost, in turn improving the LibreOffice codebase for others to convert to Open Source.
Really, the only thing holding back this simple cost-cutting measure is bureaucracy and vested interests. Why don't deficit hawks ever try to make easy cuts like this? Is Open Source just too unfamiliar and socialistic for them?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Governments and Militaries Could Save A Lot of Money Switching to Open Source Software. Take LibreOffice, for example. It's a free, open source, mostly feature-complete, MS-compatible (apart from Macros), more than adequate replacement office suite for Microsoft Office. It's theoretically more secure, as it's been fine-toothed by penetration testers innumerable times, and security through obscurity (as practiced by Microsoft) is a terrible practice easily foiled by decompilers and reverse engineering. I would argue that the switching costs from MS Office, if there are any, are beneficial for all parties involved, because the LibreOffice developers would receive a massive resource, labor, and funding boost, in turn improving the LibreOffice codebase for others to convert to Open Source.
Really, the only thing holding back this simple cost-cutting measure is bureaucracy and vested interests. Why don't deficit hawks ever try to make easy cuts like this? Is Open Source just too unfamiliar and socialistic for them?
|
t3_1fyx7x | I think that most people who complain about their countries education systems are just lazy or don't care about school/university. CMV | A lot of the time I see people complain about the education system of their country, yet I don't see anything wrong with the education system of any western, first world country. Most of the people I see complaining smoke weed all day, are lazy and don't try at school at all, and I think they are blaming the world for their problems. The education system works. If you try hard, you can do well, if you don't want to try hard that's fine, but you shouldn't be angry you don't have a profession which is hard to get into. | I think that most people who complain about their countries education systems are just lazy or don't care about school/university. CMV. A lot of the time I see people complain about the education system of their country, yet I don't see anything wrong with the education system of any western, first world country. Most of the people I see complaining smoke weed all day, are lazy and don't try at school at all, and I think they are blaming the world for their problems. The education system works. If you try hard, you can do well, if you don't want to try hard that's fine, but you shouldn't be angry you don't have a profession which is hard to get into. |
t3_212pb8 | I have a nagging suspicion that credit card miles and bonus points programs are a scam to get me to amass debt and pay them more in interest than they give me back for charging it in the first place. CMV. | Are these somehow an actual good deal? What is the catch? My suspicions keep me from using cards in the first place unless it is an emergency.
I was raised with the ethos that debt is not my friend but sometimes a necessary evil. I have one credit card for emergencies, but I'm suspicious to use it unless I truly need to because it doesn't make sense to pay for something and immediately pay it off; what do companies like Visa and my bank stand to gain by giving me rewards unless I'm amassing debt that will then give them a steady flow of interest? Can you really use a credit card and take out more in rewards than you give in in interest? How does that make sense?
_____
> *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!* | I have a nagging suspicion that credit card miles and bonus points programs are a scam to get me to amass debt and pay them more in interest than they give me back for charging it in the first place. CMV. Are these somehow an actual good deal? What is the catch? My suspicions keep me from using cards in the first place unless it is an emergency.
I was raised with the ethos that debt is not my friend but sometimes a necessary evil. I have one credit card for emergencies, but I'm suspicious to use it unless I truly need to because it doesn't make sense to pay for something and immediately pay it off; what do companies like Visa and my bank stand to gain by giving me rewards unless I'm amassing debt that will then give them a steady flow of interest? Can you really use a credit card and take out more in rewards than you give in in interest? How does that make sense?
|
t3_2ksdjn | CMV: Citizens United should not be forced to disclose funding for their film "Rocky Mountain Heist" | _____
A panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States recently rule that the conservative lobby group Citizens United should be considered a part of the media, and as such will not be compelled to disclose sources of funding for their polemical films, which have a strongly ideological angle.
It is suspected that funding mainly comes from big corporations in America who have a vested interest in helping Citizens United spread muck about political road bumps, such as in "Hillary: The Movie." Therefore, so the argument goes, they should be held to a high standard of transparency. My view is that a legal obligation to release detailed accounts of their means of production of films is a violation of the first amendment, and that anyone who feels they have been defamed by the organisation is free to sue. If the material presented in their productions is factually correct then it is for others to use their free speech to counter allegations made, however they see fit.
Here are some links providing context for my view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-toro/citizens-united-who-are-t_b_6063952.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie
http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26338357/citizens-united-suing-colorado-over-rocky-mountain-heist
> *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: Citizens United should not be forced to disclose funding for their film "Rocky Mountain Heist". _____
A panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States recently rule that the conservative lobby group Citizens United should be considered a part of the media, and as such will not be compelled to disclose sources of funding for their polemical films, which have a strongly ideological angle.
It is suspected that funding mainly comes from big corporations in America who have a vested interest in helping Citizens United spread muck about political road bumps, such as in "Hillary: The Movie." Therefore, so the argument goes, they should be held to a high standard of transparency. My view is that a legal obligation to release detailed accounts of their means of production of films is a violation of the first amendment, and that anyone who feels they have been defamed by the organisation is free to sue. If the material presented in their productions is factually correct then it is for others to use their free speech to counter allegations made, however they see fit.
Here are some links providing context for my view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-toro/citizens-united-who-are-t_b_6063952.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie
http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26338357/citizens-united-suing-colorado-over-rocky-mountain-heist
> *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_4u6r9e | CMV: People are better off not watching or reading the news | **"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson**
I feel that watching the news or reading it on social media is toxic to human beings and their well being. Our world is a negative place, and we can't do much about that. I honestly think people are better off not watching or reading the news. Especially social media news (NowThis on Facebook, I am looking at you).
The news just gets people divided, more so than if the news did not exist. I feel that the news and social media actually fuels violence (police officers being shot, terrorist attacks, riots/protests, ect.). Every time I see a NowThis video or read the news on Facebook, my up-beat happy day turns sour and I feel very pissed off at the world. I have opinions just like everyone else, but I rather just be oblivious to what is going on in the world than to feel pissed off or frightened all the time. Do we really need to know that children are dying in Syria? I want to live a happy life, why should I be aware that fucked up things happen in the world? So I can hate Muslims or cops more? Or so ultra liberals can tell me that I am ignorant and need to care about these things? My goal in life is to live the most pleasurable life there is, and I feel that reading or watching the news is just toxic for my brain. It is getting to the point that I stopped giving a shit about terrorist attacks because I don't want to feel hateful or depressed about it, I just want to carry on with my life. Is that so wrong?
Anyway, watching or reading the news makes the world a shittier place. Change my view!
Here are some articles that back up the points I make:
http://joel.is/the-power-of-ignoring-mainstream-news/
http://highexistence.com/why-you-should-avoid-the-news/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-huntbach/why-i-stopped-watching-th_b_9186368.html | CMV: People are better off not watching or reading the news. **"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson**
I feel that watching the news or reading it on social media is toxic to human beings and their well being. Our world is a negative place, and we can't do much about that. I honestly think people are better off not watching or reading the news. Especially social media news (NowThis on Facebook, I am looking at you).
The news just gets people divided, more so than if the news did not exist. I feel that the news and social media actually fuels violence (police officers being shot, terrorist attacks, riots/protests, ect.). Every time I see a NowThis video or read the news on Facebook, my up-beat happy day turns sour and I feel very pissed off at the world. I have opinions just like everyone else, but I rather just be oblivious to what is going on in the world than to feel pissed off or frightened all the time. Do we really need to know that children are dying in Syria? I want to live a happy life, why should I be aware that fucked up things happen in the world? So I can hate Muslims or cops more? Or so ultra liberals can tell me that I am ignorant and need to care about these things? My goal in life is to live the most pleasurable life there is, and I feel that reading or watching the news is just toxic for my brain. It is getting to the point that I stopped giving a shit about terrorist attacks because I don't want to feel hateful or depressed about it, I just want to carry on with my life. Is that so wrong?
Anyway, watching or reading the news makes the world a shittier place. Change my view!
Here are some articles that back up the points I make:
http://joel.is/the-power-of-ignoring-mainstream-news/
http://highexistence.com/why-you-should-avoid-the-news/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-huntbach/why-i-stopped-watching-th_b_9186368.html |
t3_68u319 | CMV: Soylent is healthy | But it has soy:
* "After allergies, the next largest concern raised about soy is that it “turns men into women” and “gives women breast cancer”. The main issue with these claims is that nutritional research, including both clinical trials and meta-studies, is wishy washy at best. There are studies showing protective and antagonistic results for both breast cancer and prostate cancer, some show lowered testosterone and sperm counts in men, while others show no change, and the list goes on and on. If your head isn’t spinning by the end of it, please, check our job postings.
* The takeaway for us is this: so far soy seems safe, especially when compared to other proteins whose consumption is much more closely linked to cancer."
* https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769443-Soy-Protein
But drinking your food means your body doesn't know how to digest:
* This seems minor relative to other factors, but I don't have good evidence.
But it has canola oil which is unhealthy!
* Seems fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola#Health_information
That said.. If this stuff is bad, I will drop it instantly.
Define healthy as roughly "Drinking soylent won't impact your ability to enjoy life or significantly increase your risk of bad health conditions". Assume 4 bottles consumed per day for 5 years, and occasional other meals.
_____
> *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: Soylent is healthy. But it has soy:
* "After allergies, the next largest concern raised about soy is that it “turns men into women” and “gives women breast cancer”. The main issue with these claims is that nutritional research, including both clinical trials and meta-studies, is wishy washy at best. There are studies showing protective and antagonistic results for both breast cancer and prostate cancer, some show lowered testosterone and sperm counts in men, while others show no change, and the list goes on and on. If your head isn’t spinning by the end of it, please, check our job postings.
* The takeaway for us is this: so far soy seems safe, especially when compared to other proteins whose consumption is much more closely linked to cancer."
* https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/212769443-Soy-Protein
But drinking your food means your body doesn't know how to digest:
* This seems minor relative to other factors, but I don't have good evidence.
But it has canola oil which is unhealthy!
* Seems fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola#Health_information
That said.. If this stuff is bad, I will drop it instantly.
Define healthy as roughly "Drinking soylent won't impact your ability to enjoy life or significantly increase your risk of bad health conditions". Assume 4 bottles consumed per day for 5 years, and occasional other meals.
|
t3_1tkxyi | I think the world is a better place than it ever was, and a worse place than it will ever be. CMV. | This article is a response to the many "mean world" posts I see on this sub.
Much of this information comes from this cracked article: http://www.cracked.com/article_20731_5-amazing-pieces-good-news-nobody-reporting_p2.html?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=News&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=feature_module
Violence has been declining systematically in the United States since 1993.
Throughout the entirety of human history, the frequency and destructiveness of war has only decreased.
Poverty worldwide is at an all-time low. Literacy is at an all time high.
Yes, we have become aware of many environmental problems caused by humanity, but 30-50 years ago we barely knew about them. Those problems have been there for more than a century. This just happens to be the first period in human history when we're actually addressing it.
My basic view is this: Anyone conceited enough to think this generation of humanity is more likely than any other to bring about the apocalypse is a naively iconoclastic (I love that term) child. Change it. | I think the world is a better place than it ever was, and a worse place than it will ever be. CMV. This article is a response to the many "mean world" posts I see on this sub.
Much of this information comes from this cracked article: http://www.cracked.com/article_20731_5-amazing-pieces-good-news-nobody-reporting_p2.html?wa_user1=2&wa_user2=News&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=feature_module
Violence has been declining systematically in the United States since 1993.
Throughout the entirety of human history, the frequency and destructiveness of war has only decreased.
Poverty worldwide is at an all-time low. Literacy is at an all time high.
Yes, we have become aware of many environmental problems caused by humanity, but 30-50 years ago we barely knew about them. Those problems have been there for more than a century. This just happens to be the first period in human history when we're actually addressing it.
My basic view is this: Anyone conceited enough to think this generation of humanity is more likely than any other to bring about the apocalypse is a naively iconoclastic (I love that term) child. Change it. |
t3_5bhqzw | CMV:Flight MH370 was brought down by a deliberate act | For nearly three years, MH370 has been missing. Though debris has been found, the main body of the plane-along with its passengers and flight data recorders- is still missing. Looking through the evidence, it's hard to pinpoint an exact cause, but simple mechanical failure seems unlikely. The aircraft made a turn out into the Indian Ocean, seemingly in an attempt to hide it. The shutdown of the communications doesn't appear to be mechanical, as whatever caused it did not impact the aircraft's airworthiness. A deliberate act, however, is consistent with this sequence of events.
CMV
Edit: I currently see deliberate action as not certain, but more likely than any other explanation. I want to be convinced that it is equally or less likely that the other theories.
_____
> *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:Flight MH370 was brought down by a deliberate act. For nearly three years, MH370 has been missing. Though debris has been found, the main body of the plane-along with its passengers and flight data recorders- is still missing. Looking through the evidence, it's hard to pinpoint an exact cause, but simple mechanical failure seems unlikely. The aircraft made a turn out into the Indian Ocean, seemingly in an attempt to hide it. The shutdown of the communications doesn't appear to be mechanical, as whatever caused it did not impact the aircraft's airworthiness. A deliberate act, however, is consistent with this sequence of events.
CMV
Edit: I currently see deliberate action as not certain, but more likely than any other explanation. I want to be convinced that it is equally or less likely that the other theories. |
t3_6t5l0v | CMV: blackouts (as a result of drinking) are essentially equal to a pause to your experience of life and reality. | Following a comment in which I mentioned a blackout, I wanted to discuss just what blackouts do to us.
**Keep in mind**: I am not educated in how the body works (or how it responds to influences) to any noteworthy degree. So do enlighten me if I am severely mistaken in some way. Worst case, I've made some faulty assumptions, leaps of logic and etc.
________
During a blackout, you do not register your experiences, not even the passage of time having passed. No new memories are created. **There's a gap in time, but it doesn't seem to exist to you unless there is someone or something that informs you about it.** There is definitely some level of transition from being very drunk to blackout-drunk, and while you may act as your typical drunk self, there is a major distinction to be made between you before entering the blackout phase, and after leaving it.
Let's say you break a limb during a blackout, and wake up at a hospital in bed. You are clearly experiencing what it feels like **to have** a broken limb, but can you say you know what it feels like, **to break** said limb?
If you cannot say, surely it would be reasonable to state that **your experience** of reality was pretty much just set on pause. And yet, people around you saw you crying out in pain (and horror) and doing some stuff well before that, before calling the ambulance.
Sleep is somewhat similar. Your experience of life and reality is essentially just... gone. You can probably remember lying on your bed before you woke up. But you don't remember the transition into sleep, so could you say that you "lived" through that any more than you lived through a blackout? Is it not the same as your experience of life and reality essentially being put on pause? Even if you may have done something like putting yourself in a more comfortable position.
So it stands to reason that, since I do not register any new memories during a blackout, I will revert to who I was before it, no matter what may have happened during the blackout. So my experience of reality basically just skipped a whole section of time.
Admittedly, my lack of knowledge may stifle my argument, regarding the sleep comparison.
Apart from the anecdotal evidence (that a lot of people probably share), my belief stems from the following: I believe that a memory is integral to the whole of a person. A man who loses memory of his entire life, while still retaining some characteristics like stubbornness, optimism and etc., lingual skills, muscle memory of sorts (balancing, playing instruments, skills in sports/games, writing), can never be the same ever again, even if all the memories of **what happened** are somehow inserted into him, like watching a film of everything one could remember upon suggestion or spontaneous recollection of past events, like recalling some specific moment in childhood with no hints.
(In the exceptional case of memories being regained in a manner that lets the person somehow experience [or be immersed into] all memories yet again, that person may perhaps become essentially the same as before any memory loss. But the sudden loss of identity that follows such types of memory loss, will surely cause issues still.)
_____
> *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: blackouts (as a result of drinking) are essentially equal to a pause to your experience of life and reality. Following a comment in which I mentioned a blackout, I wanted to discuss just what blackouts do to us.
**Keep in mind**: I am not educated in how the body works (or how it responds to influences) to any noteworthy degree. So do enlighten me if I am severely mistaken in some way. Worst case, I've made some faulty assumptions, leaps of logic and etc.
________
During a blackout, you do not register your experiences, not even the passage of time having passed. No new memories are created. **There's a gap in time, but it doesn't seem to exist to you unless there is someone or something that informs you about it.** There is definitely some level of transition from being very drunk to blackout-drunk, and while you may act as your typical drunk self, there is a major distinction to be made between you before entering the blackout phase, and after leaving it.
Let's say you break a limb during a blackout, and wake up at a hospital in bed. You are clearly experiencing what it feels like **to have** a broken limb, but can you say you know what it feels like, **to break** said limb?
If you cannot say, surely it would be reasonable to state that **your experience** of reality was pretty much just set on pause. And yet, people around you saw you crying out in pain (and horror) and doing some stuff well before that, before calling the ambulance.
Sleep is somewhat similar. Your experience of life and reality is essentially just... gone. You can probably remember lying on your bed before you woke up. But you don't remember the transition into sleep, so could you say that you "lived" through that any more than you lived through a blackout? Is it not the same as your experience of life and reality essentially being put on pause? Even if you may have done something like putting yourself in a more comfortable position.
So it stands to reason that, since I do not register any new memories during a blackout, I will revert to who I was before it, no matter what may have happened during the blackout. So my experience of reality basically just skipped a whole section of time.
Admittedly, my lack of knowledge may stifle my argument, regarding the sleep comparison.
Apart from the anecdotal evidence (that a lot of people probably share), my belief stems from the following: I believe that a memory is integral to the whole of a person. A man who loses memory of his entire life, while still retaining some characteristics like stubbornness, optimism and etc., lingual skills, muscle memory of sorts (balancing, playing instruments, skills in sports/games, writing), can never be the same ever again, even if all the memories of **what happened** are somehow inserted into him, like watching a film of everything one could remember upon suggestion or spontaneous recollection of past events, like recalling some specific moment in childhood with no hints.
(In the exceptional case of memories being regained in a manner that lets the person somehow experience [or be immersed into] all memories yet again, that person may perhaps become essentially the same as before any memory loss. But the sudden loss of identity that follows such types of memory loss, will surely cause issues still.)
|
t3_5m8l13 | CMV: All news media and journalism must always be held to maintain objectivity. | When discussing an event or issue, the facts on both sides must be provided clearly and without adjustment based on the information available to the network/journalist. Both sides of an issue are to be given equal emphasis.
Further, any persuasion attempts must be explicitly stated as such to inform the viewer/reader that biased inferences are being made about the facts provided.
This will allow the viewer to make a decision regarding the topic, free of manipulation and solely based on their own logic and reason in correspondence with the facts provided.
Change my View. | CMV: All news media and journalism must always be held to maintain objectivity. When discussing an event or issue, the facts on both sides must be provided clearly and without adjustment based on the information available to the network/journalist. Both sides of an issue are to be given equal emphasis.
Further, any persuasion attempts must be explicitly stated as such to inform the viewer/reader that biased inferences are being made about the facts provided.
This will allow the viewer to make a decision regarding the topic, free of manipulation and solely based on their own logic and reason in correspondence with the facts provided.
Change my View. |
t3_61g95w | CMV: People Accusing Ghost in the Shell of Whitewashing don't Actually Care. | People complaining about Ghost in the Shell being "white washing" and cultural appropriation don't actually care about it. If they did they would be going after the new power rangers film with the same intensity, but they aren't because they want the points for acting outraged, not that they actually care about a white actress playing an asian character. They simply are going after Ghost in the Shell because it has a higher profile cast and because it will generate the most clicks on social media. | CMV: People Accusing Ghost in the Shell of Whitewashing don't Actually Care. People complaining about Ghost in the Shell being "white washing" and cultural appropriation don't actually care about it. If they did they would be going after the new power rangers film with the same intensity, but they aren't because they want the points for acting outraged, not that they actually care about a white actress playing an asian character. They simply are going after Ghost in the Shell because it has a higher profile cast and because it will generate the most clicks on social media. |
t3_2i0v9b | CMV: I don't believe in Marriage, because I believe Divorce is Unethical, yet I believe in a person's freedom to leave any relationship. | I personally highly value committed relationships, that survive for years and push through hardships. I am in favor of couples making commitments towards that end, not leaving each other in moments of hardship for temporary amounts of time, supporting each other in sickness, etc. However, I still feel like everyone needs the freedom to get out at any time, because relationships can become manipulative even for the best people. There is no way I can predict what I or my SO will be like in 50 years, am I willing to tell a person that I will, with absolute certainty, still be their best friend in 50y? So here are my arguments:
1.) I don't believe that love is entirely a choice. Thus it is not something you can promise to maintain. Thus marriage vows are not yours to make and therefore meaningless.
2.) Furthermore, I believe divorce is unethical, because once you get divorced your vows are reveled as lies. As long as this remains an option, it makes vows meaningless, because breaking them is a consideration, and thus are they are not vows.
3.) Nor do I think people should be together just for the sake of a promise when they hate each other. People should be free to leave a relationship at any time, because they are free agents, and people change. People shouldn't make commitments which limit them in this manner. Thus marriage is unwise.
So, those make up my three part argument against marriage. CMV. But also, what do you think is a good alternative assuming one takes all the views I stated above to heart? In a year or two, I would like some equivalent myself, so I'm contemplating it. What kind of ceremony, vows, or symbols of commitment could me and my SO give to each other to take our relationship to a more stable, life long partnership (hypothetically of course)?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't believe in Marriage, because I believe Divorce is Unethical, yet I believe in a person's freedom to leave any relationship. I personally highly value committed relationships, that survive for years and push through hardships. I am in favor of couples making commitments towards that end, not leaving each other in moments of hardship for temporary amounts of time, supporting each other in sickness, etc. However, I still feel like everyone needs the freedom to get out at any time, because relationships can become manipulative even for the best people. There is no way I can predict what I or my SO will be like in 50 years, am I willing to tell a person that I will, with absolute certainty, still be their best friend in 50y? So here are my arguments:
1.) I don't believe that love is entirely a choice. Thus it is not something you can promise to maintain. Thus marriage vows are not yours to make and therefore meaningless.
2.) Furthermore, I believe divorce is unethical, because once you get divorced your vows are reveled as lies. As long as this remains an option, it makes vows meaningless, because breaking them is a consideration, and thus are they are not vows.
3.) Nor do I think people should be together just for the sake of a promise when they hate each other. People should be free to leave a relationship at any time, because they are free agents, and people change. People shouldn't make commitments which limit them in this manner. Thus marriage is unwise.
So, those make up my three part argument against marriage. CMV. But also, what do you think is a good alternative assuming one takes all the views I stated above to heart? In a year or two, I would like some equivalent myself, so I'm contemplating it. What kind of ceremony, vows, or symbols of commitment could me and my SO give to each other to take our relationship to a more stable, life long partnership (hypothetically of course)?
|
t3_1x8l5i | I do not believe Amelia Earhart should be a hero. CMV. | There is an Olympic commercial right now with an inspirational Amelia Earhart soundbyte on it. I don't get it. Why is she an inspiration? She tried to do something and died in the attempt yet people idolize her. Every child gets told she is a hero. I'm not saying her story isn't tragic, but why is it inspirational? If anything, she should be used as a warning of what happens when you reach too far. She reached for her dreams and failed, it's not a motivational story. I understand she is a feminist icon, but there are plenty of other women who have succeeded at their goals, why is the one who failed so famous? | I do not believe Amelia Earhart should be a hero. CMV. There is an Olympic commercial right now with an inspirational Amelia Earhart soundbyte on it. I don't get it. Why is she an inspiration? She tried to do something and died in the attempt yet people idolize her. Every child gets told she is a hero. I'm not saying her story isn't tragic, but why is it inspirational? If anything, she should be used as a warning of what happens when you reach too far. She reached for her dreams and failed, it's not a motivational story. I understand she is a feminist icon, but there are plenty of other women who have succeeded at their goals, why is the one who failed so famous? |
t3_2bovxa | CMV: You should spend your money when you're young and worry about being frugal later. | This isnt a very common or popular opinion amongst most but I personally believe you should spend your money when we are young and able to do the things we enjoy, to a certain extent. I'm not saying completely abolish saving I think you should have that safety net for emergencies and for things such a new vehicle. But rather that if you want that shirt buy it, if you want to go skiing go, if you want to go to the pub with your friends go and enjoy yourself. There is no point in stressing yourself out over saving when you are in your prime because when your older and cant do the things that you enjoy and are able to now (physically or due to children etc.) you'll regret not doing them. There is a time to save and be frugal and I dont believe that time is when you are young. | CMV: You should spend your money when you're young and worry about being frugal later. This isnt a very common or popular opinion amongst most but I personally believe you should spend your money when we are young and able to do the things we enjoy, to a certain extent. I'm not saying completely abolish saving I think you should have that safety net for emergencies and for things such a new vehicle. But rather that if you want that shirt buy it, if you want to go skiing go, if you want to go to the pub with your friends go and enjoy yourself. There is no point in stressing yourself out over saving when you are in your prime because when your older and cant do the things that you enjoy and are able to now (physically or due to children etc.) you'll regret not doing them. There is a time to save and be frugal and I dont believe that time is when you are young. |
t3_6afx55 | CMV: Taken to its logical conclusion, vegans shouldn't be avoiding meat. They should be eating cats. | The typical vegan argument goes something like this: we should be minimizing unnecessary harm to sentient creatures. Eating meat increases the demand for unnecessary harm. Therefore, we should not be eating meat.
But eating meat and killing animals does not, necessarily, increase the net harm in the world. If a bear is going to kill you and your family, you can kill the bear and even eat it (since there is nothing in the argument that eating meat is wrong in itself. In fact, wasting food is probably wrong since it is an inefficient use of resources.)
So, in general, we should be compelled to kill animals if they will cause needless suffering. Even if they are just natural predators looking for food. As long as it doesn't throw the ecosystem out of whack.
Domestic cats cause lots of needless suffering. They almost all eat meat products and they kill small animals for fun and food. They are not contributing to a balanced ecosystem. So killing cats, especially feral cats with no attachments would be a net positive.
In general, they're probably also compelled to kill other kinds of predators and destructive animals. But the cat is the one that most obviously demonstrates the needless suffering caused by certain animals.
EDIT: I thought my idea might be unique, but it seems like [William MacAskill](https://qz.com/497675/to-truly-end-animal-suffering-the-most-ethical-choice-is-to-kill-all-predators-especially-cecil-the-lion/) has a similar idea: "By killing predators, we can save the lives of the many prey animals like wildebeests, zebras, and buffalos in the local area that would otherwise be killed in order to keep the animals at the top of the food chain alive. And there’s no reason for considering the lives of predators like lions to be more important than the lives of their prey."
_____
> *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: Taken to its logical conclusion, vegans shouldn't be avoiding meat. They should be eating cats. The typical vegan argument goes something like this: we should be minimizing unnecessary harm to sentient creatures. Eating meat increases the demand for unnecessary harm. Therefore, we should not be eating meat.
But eating meat and killing animals does not, necessarily, increase the net harm in the world. If a bear is going to kill you and your family, you can kill the bear and even eat it (since there is nothing in the argument that eating meat is wrong in itself. In fact, wasting food is probably wrong since it is an inefficient use of resources.)
So, in general, we should be compelled to kill animals if they will cause needless suffering. Even if they are just natural predators looking for food. As long as it doesn't throw the ecosystem out of whack.
Domestic cats cause lots of needless suffering. They almost all eat meat products and they kill small animals for fun and food. They are not contributing to a balanced ecosystem. So killing cats, especially feral cats with no attachments would be a net positive.
In general, they're probably also compelled to kill other kinds of predators and destructive animals. But the cat is the one that most obviously demonstrates the needless suffering caused by certain animals.
EDIT: I thought my idea might be unique, but it seems like [William MacAskill](https://qz.com/497675/to-truly-end-animal-suffering-the-most-ethical-choice-is-to-kill-all-predators-especially-cecil-the-lion/) has a similar idea: "By killing predators, we can save the lives of the many prey animals like wildebeests, zebras, and buffalos in the local area that would otherwise be killed in order to keep the animals at the top of the food chain alive. And there’s no reason for considering the lives of predators like lions to be more important than the lives of their prey."
|
t3_6qiwi4 | CMV: Gay Pride Hurts LGBT People More Than It Helps Them | As a gay teen, I believe that pride and other such events hurt LGBT people more than it helps them.
What I mean by this is that the whole point of pride is to make a big deal about being gay or whatever you call yourself, to shout it loud and be proud. Except that's not what I, or most of my other gay friends actually want. We just want to be accepted into society as regular, everyday people. These events making a big deal about sexuality and acting like it's something to be proud of actively try to place us on a different level to straight people, which is the last thing I want
TLDR; Me and most of the other gay people I talk to just want to be treated like everyone else, and gay pride actively goes against that
CMV | CMV: Gay Pride Hurts LGBT People More Than It Helps Them. As a gay teen, I believe that pride and other such events hurt LGBT people more than it helps them.
What I mean by this is that the whole point of pride is to make a big deal about being gay or whatever you call yourself, to shout it loud and be proud. Except that's not what I, or most of my other gay friends actually want. We just want to be accepted into society as regular, everyday people. These events making a big deal about sexuality and acting like it's something to be proud of actively try to place us on a different level to straight people, which is the last thing I want
TLDR; Me and most of the other gay people I talk to just want to be treated like everyone else, and gay pride actively goes against that
CMV |
t3_1c55zq | I do not believe in happy marriages, CMV. | Title kind of sums it up, but I'll give some context and background to the view for you lovely folks.
I grew up in a pretty okay household. My family has some issues, parts of it stem of alcoholism (relatives, not immediate), life expectations (mom wanted me to stay and carry on her business), and some emotional/mental problems (mother has anger management issues and father is emotionally distant).
Up until a few years ago I honestly did believe in happy marriages and had a 'love conquers all' philosophy. I had a lot of friends growing up who had divorced parents, or came from broken homes and I used to think 'wow, I'm so glad my parents have their shit together'.
This all changed ~~when the fire nation attacked~~ after I graduated college; suddenly all these skeletons pop out of the closet due to my father's mother and her admission to a hospice. Suddenly I hear from unknown relatives, revoked inheritance for me and my sisters, and the true nature of my parent's marriage. I felt like I had been standing next to a cliff in the dark and had now just been made aware of it.
I'd like to see if marriages can be a good thing, and if you can why you should. | I do not believe in happy marriages, CMV. Title kind of sums it up, but I'll give some context and background to the view for you lovely folks.
I grew up in a pretty okay household. My family has some issues, parts of it stem of alcoholism (relatives, not immediate), life expectations (mom wanted me to stay and carry on her business), and some emotional/mental problems (mother has anger management issues and father is emotionally distant).
Up until a few years ago I honestly did believe in happy marriages and had a 'love conquers all' philosophy. I had a lot of friends growing up who had divorced parents, or came from broken homes and I used to think 'wow, I'm so glad my parents have their shit together'.
This all changed ~~when the fire nation attacked~~ after I graduated college; suddenly all these skeletons pop out of the closet due to my father's mother and her admission to a hospice. Suddenly I hear from unknown relatives, revoked inheritance for me and my sisters, and the true nature of my parent's marriage. I felt like I had been standing next to a cliff in the dark and had now just been made aware of it.
I'd like to see if marriages can be a good thing, and if you can why you should. |
t3_1earet | I dont believe there were any good reasons to start the war in Iraq CMV | I know my current opinion is popular on reddit but I want someone with a more nuanced understanding to shed some light here- surely no one would just start a war for shits and giggles. I dont buy that it was about oil, so I guess I just don't get it at all. I can't figure out what the reasoning was so right now I guess I just believe there wasn't any other than a bunch of bullshit and hype... so, like, no justifiable reason.
What are the counterarguments? Even if you agree with me, sharpen your debate skills and CMV. | I dont believe there were any good reasons to start the war in Iraq CMV. I know my current opinion is popular on reddit but I want someone with a more nuanced understanding to shed some light here- surely no one would just start a war for shits and giggles. I dont buy that it was about oil, so I guess I just don't get it at all. I can't figure out what the reasoning was so right now I guess I just believe there wasn't any other than a bunch of bullshit and hype... so, like, no justifiable reason.
What are the counterarguments? Even if you agree with me, sharpen your debate skills and CMV. |
t3_2c2k5h | CMV: I believe that the WBC AMA on August 10th is a good thing and shouldn't be ignored because we don't analyze extremes well enough to learn from our history. | I always hear about how if only we as a society would ignore WBC they'd go away and dissolve. I don't believe this. They are going to be in our history books because, despite what people want, they have gained enough attention to be placed so. I'm in no way saying I agree with them. But one thing that's good about their existence is extremism. I believe we as a culture, nation, even the world, should study more on extremism. It pushes people to do the craziest shit and we seem to get blindsided all the time by extremists. Why not analyze what these people believe and learn what makes them tick so we can learn from them? They believe in their minds they're right and we as a society are wrong.
If we study the extremes, we can take better care of ourselves and watch out for the people who seem to win over nations, races, and society and cause them to do horrific things. So, change my view. | CMV: I believe that the WBC AMA on August 10th is a good thing and shouldn't be ignored because we don't analyze extremes well enough to learn from our history. I always hear about how if only we as a society would ignore WBC they'd go away and dissolve. I don't believe this. They are going to be in our history books because, despite what people want, they have gained enough attention to be placed so. I'm in no way saying I agree with them. But one thing that's good about their existence is extremism. I believe we as a culture, nation, even the world, should study more on extremism. It pushes people to do the craziest shit and we seem to get blindsided all the time by extremists. Why not analyze what these people believe and learn what makes them tick so we can learn from them? They believe in their minds they're right and we as a society are wrong.
If we study the extremes, we can take better care of ourselves and watch out for the people who seem to win over nations, races, and society and cause them to do horrific things. So, change my view. |
t3_1i60nu | I think trayvon martin and all his supporters should **** off. CMV | I think trayvon martin WAS a punk and was walking around like a sketchball in the rain like he owned the place. If I were in a gated community and saw him it would not matter if he was black white red or blue, I'd call the cops and definitely follow him to see whats up. A resident of the community got out of the car and asked this kid he didn't recognize wtf he was doing walking in between houses in the rain and the kid got pissed and assaulted zimmerman who is obviously a pussy and landed on his ass. The kid loved getting to attack his 'racial aggressor' because he had nothing going for him -- broken home, bad grades, precious for a girlfriend, talked about guns and drugs….his color doesn't matter here! he's a punk! did everybody forget having friends like this when they were younger? how are they doing now?
trayvon found out what most teenagers don't need to so fatally -- you don't fuck with other men unless you're putting your life on the line. Zim had a gun, popped the kid, and Trayvon didn't get to beat the shit out of some concerned resident he decided targeted him because of his race. Trayvon, his family, and the zombies that blindly pledge allegiance to his complete innocence are racist in my opinion -- even in the trial its apparent in the conversation he was having on the phone that race was exactly what was on trayvons mind. All zimmerman says is the kid is a punk and asshole.
I see all of this bullshit on twitter #staycalmfortrayvon, and black communities saying this is an abomination and all. Standing up for a kid who assaulted somebody asking him why the fuck he was creeping at night in the rain. I believe theyre all just stupid people looking for that extra step of racial leverage.
I am NOT racist, and i confidently say this because Im a white guy, and my girlfriend of 3 years is black. She is from miami and agrees with me. She is college educated, and moved from that area exactly because of this sort of atmosphere.
i DONT think trayvon deserved to die, I just think he was stupid to act this way and expect to come out on top. If I punched zimmerman in the face because i didn't think i should have been questioned late at night, he would have probably shot me too. This is natural selection, not racial profiling. not in this case. If i were walking in between my neighbors houses with a hoodie on, meandering about on the phone like a weirdo Id get the cops called on me and people on my ass in most places in america. This whole thing is bullshit and just a way for the ignorant blacks that believe racism is ever-present to falsely convince themselves they're still persecuted and expediently maintain their societal footing we all have to tip toe around as it is.
Change my view…despite my strong feelings about this I know most people vehemently disagree with me and this is why I'm posting this online. Please don't hate, because ill just laugh at your comment. Id like an intelligent discussion. CMV | I think trayvon martin and all his supporters should **** off. CMV. I think trayvon martin WAS a punk and was walking around like a sketchball in the rain like he owned the place. If I were in a gated community and saw him it would not matter if he was black white red or blue, I'd call the cops and definitely follow him to see whats up. A resident of the community got out of the car and asked this kid he didn't recognize wtf he was doing walking in between houses in the rain and the kid got pissed and assaulted zimmerman who is obviously a pussy and landed on his ass. The kid loved getting to attack his 'racial aggressor' because he had nothing going for him -- broken home, bad grades, precious for a girlfriend, talked about guns and drugs….his color doesn't matter here! he's a punk! did everybody forget having friends like this when they were younger? how are they doing now?
trayvon found out what most teenagers don't need to so fatally -- you don't fuck with other men unless you're putting your life on the line. Zim had a gun, popped the kid, and Trayvon didn't get to beat the shit out of some concerned resident he decided targeted him because of his race. Trayvon, his family, and the zombies that blindly pledge allegiance to his complete innocence are racist in my opinion -- even in the trial its apparent in the conversation he was having on the phone that race was exactly what was on trayvons mind. All zimmerman says is the kid is a punk and asshole.
I see all of this bullshit on twitter #staycalmfortrayvon, and black communities saying this is an abomination and all. Standing up for a kid who assaulted somebody asking him why the fuck he was creeping at night in the rain. I believe theyre all just stupid people looking for that extra step of racial leverage.
I am NOT racist, and i confidently say this because Im a white guy, and my girlfriend of 3 years is black. She is from miami and agrees with me. She is college educated, and moved from that area exactly because of this sort of atmosphere.
i DONT think trayvon deserved to die, I just think he was stupid to act this way and expect to come out on top. If I punched zimmerman in the face because i didn't think i should have been questioned late at night, he would have probably shot me too. This is natural selection, not racial profiling. not in this case. If i were walking in between my neighbors houses with a hoodie on, meandering about on the phone like a weirdo Id get the cops called on me and people on my ass in most places in america. This whole thing is bullshit and just a way for the ignorant blacks that believe racism is ever-present to falsely convince themselves they're still persecuted and expediently maintain their societal footing we all have to tip toe around as it is.
Change my view…despite my strong feelings about this I know most people vehemently disagree with me and this is why I'm posting this online. Please don't hate, because ill just laugh at your comment. Id like an intelligent discussion. CMV |
t3_5smzf1 | CMV: I don't understand why adult undocumented immigrants (who were not born in the US) of any race should be above immigration laws, and why preventing illegal immigration is wrong. | My university is currently trying to declare itself a [sanctuary campus] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_campus). Personally, I think that if you were born here, it makes sense for you to be considered a citizen of the US. And if you were brought here below a certain age (maybe 14) by illegal immigrants, it makes sense for you to be "legalized".
However, I am not sure that adults who illegally immigrated here should be given special protection against immigration laws. This is difficult for me, because I identify as liberal. But I am also a legal immigrant, and while I have enormous sympathy for anyone trying to find a better way of life, I also can't wrap my mind around the idea that undocumented adult immigrants simply should be "allowed in" and protected against law enforcement. I think we should let refugees in, but I also think the vetting process exists for a reason. I think the exact same for other kinds of immigration.
In addition, will these protections apply to all illegal immigrants, including the many from Asia? Personally, I don't think an illegal adult immigrant from Asia should be allowed to live here if they haven't gone through the proper vetting processes. So I feel it's hypocritical if I don't apply the same logic to immigrants from, say, Mexico.
Also just to clarify, I'm against expensive and unpractical means of prevention like that stupid wall.
Sorry if this was rambly, hope to hear your thoughts!
| CMV: I don't understand why adult undocumented immigrants (who were not born in the US) of any race should be above immigration laws, and why preventing illegal immigration is wrong. My university is currently trying to declare itself a [sanctuary campus] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_campus). Personally, I think that if you were born here, it makes sense for you to be considered a citizen of the US. And if you were brought here below a certain age (maybe 14) by illegal immigrants, it makes sense for you to be "legalized".
However, I am not sure that adults who illegally immigrated here should be given special protection against immigration laws. This is difficult for me, because I identify as liberal. But I am also a legal immigrant, and while I have enormous sympathy for anyone trying to find a better way of life, I also can't wrap my mind around the idea that undocumented adult immigrants simply should be "allowed in" and protected against law enforcement. I think we should let refugees in, but I also think the vetting process exists for a reason. I think the exact same for other kinds of immigration.
In addition, will these protections apply to all illegal immigrants, including the many from Asia? Personally, I don't think an illegal adult immigrant from Asia should be allowed to live here if they haven't gone through the proper vetting processes. So I feel it's hypocritical if I don't apply the same logic to immigrants from, say, Mexico.
Also just to clarify, I'm against expensive and unpractical means of prevention like that stupid wall.
Sorry if this was rambly, hope to hear your thoughts!
|
t3_4n0irq | CMV: Emperor Palpatine deliberately allowed Mace Windu to 'win' during their duel on Coruscant. | On the surface it seems Palpatine was defeated by Master Windu, only to be saved by Anakin at the last moment. I believe this was all part of his plan and that Mace did not actually beat him. Here's why:
- Darth Sideous was incredibly powerful. Not even Yoda, a ~900 year old Master Jedi, was able to defeat him in single combat. This altercation of theirs only ended in a stalemate.
Furthermore, at the commencement of his duel with Windu, Palpatine killed not one, not two, but three Jedi Masters of the High Council, all in a matter of seconds. I understand Mace was revered as being exceptionally powerful at the time, but I doubt he would have been able to slay the three Jedi Masters just as easily had the tables been turned.
- Secondly, I believe it was part of his plan to allow Windu to 'win'. Anakin had yet to turn to the dark side and the Emperor needed to give him that final push. By making himself appear weak and helpless after 'losing', he made Master Windu appear as the aggressor to Anakin. Another indication that Palpstine was feigning his defeat and subsequent weakness, can be seen by his immediate reaction to Anakin's decision to cut Mace's arm off. One second he's saying "help me I'm too weak" and the next he's shouting "UNLIMITED POWER"...
Here's a link to the scene in question:
https://youtu.be/ciL7nZQNJuU | CMV: Emperor Palpatine deliberately allowed Mace Windu to 'win' during their duel on Coruscant. On the surface it seems Palpatine was defeated by Master Windu, only to be saved by Anakin at the last moment. I believe this was all part of his plan and that Mace did not actually beat him. Here's why:
- Darth Sideous was incredibly powerful. Not even Yoda, a ~900 year old Master Jedi, was able to defeat him in single combat. This altercation of theirs only ended in a stalemate.
Furthermore, at the commencement of his duel with Windu, Palpatine killed not one, not two, but three Jedi Masters of the High Council, all in a matter of seconds. I understand Mace was revered as being exceptionally powerful at the time, but I doubt he would have been able to slay the three Jedi Masters just as easily had the tables been turned.
- Secondly, I believe it was part of his plan to allow Windu to 'win'. Anakin had yet to turn to the dark side and the Emperor needed to give him that final push. By making himself appear weak and helpless after 'losing', he made Master Windu appear as the aggressor to Anakin. Another indication that Palpstine was feigning his defeat and subsequent weakness, can be seen by his immediate reaction to Anakin's decision to cut Mace's arm off. One second he's saying "help me I'm too weak" and the next he's shouting "UNLIMITED POWER"...
Here's a link to the scene in question:
https://youtu.be/ciL7nZQNJuU |
t3_25pbj7 | CMV: The primary concern of women when dating is finding a stable partner for security and child rearing, not romantic love | I'm talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.
Women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment-phobes more interested in sex. I don't think this is accurate. Women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because (consciously or unconsciously) they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children. Romantic love is a secondary concern to them. Men, however *do* have romantic love as their primary concern. Or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.
I put this down to evolutionary biology. It is in men's interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction. Women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.
_____
> *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 primary concern of women when dating is finding a stable partner for security and child rearing, not romantic love. I'm talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.
Women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment-phobes more interested in sex. I don't think this is accurate. Women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because (consciously or unconsciously) they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children. Romantic love is a secondary concern to them. Men, however *do* have romantic love as their primary concern. Or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.
I put this down to evolutionary biology. It is in men's interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction. Women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.
|
t3_1s0yci | I think the Paleo diet is ridiculous. CMV | To begin, I think the general tenets of the paleo diet are perfectly fine. People should eat less process food and more lean meats and fresh produce. I fully agree that this is a healthy lifestyle that is conducive to losing weight. I would ask that, whenever possible, your responses be cited to actual scientific sources (not Bro Science sources). Here's my problem:
1. The idea that this diet is modeled on "Evolution" is preposterous. The theory that we didn't "evolve" to eat grains and legumes ignores the fact that we do, in fact, digest grains and legumes and derive nutrients from them. We did not evolve to eat wood, so we do not digest and derive nutrients from it. Further, why is there this assumption that evolution stopped 10,000 years ago? Just because our cave-dwelling ancestors couldn't do something doesn't mean modern homo sapiens still can't do it. Evolution is a continuous process.
2. The meat and vegetables available to our cave-dwelling ancestors are totally different than the farmed products we get in the store today. There is almost no comparison. And you know what? If our ancestors had access to the meal aisle they'd eat the fattiest stuff available to them.
3. Cavemen not only ate differently, they had entirely different lifestyles. The most nutritious thing for a hunting caveman, who only eats every couple days and is super active is very different from what a modern person may need.
4. The main reason this diet works for weight loss is that it forces you to eat high-nutrient, lower calorie food because you are cutting so many carbohydrates and refined sugars. The reality is that weight loss is about calories-in vs. calories-out and this diet is simply another way to reduce the calories in. (Please note that I separate weight loss from overall health and recognize there are lots of other health reasons someone might eat this way)
5. And this is my problem with any fad diet-- there is no one perfect diet. People are different from each other. What might be good for one person may not be good for another. Just because something worked for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. | I think the Paleo diet is ridiculous. CMV. To begin, I think the general tenets of the paleo diet are perfectly fine. People should eat less process food and more lean meats and fresh produce. I fully agree that this is a healthy lifestyle that is conducive to losing weight. I would ask that, whenever possible, your responses be cited to actual scientific sources (not Bro Science sources). Here's my problem:
1. The idea that this diet is modeled on "Evolution" is preposterous. The theory that we didn't "evolve" to eat grains and legumes ignores the fact that we do, in fact, digest grains and legumes and derive nutrients from them. We did not evolve to eat wood, so we do not digest and derive nutrients from it. Further, why is there this assumption that evolution stopped 10,000 years ago? Just because our cave-dwelling ancestors couldn't do something doesn't mean modern homo sapiens still can't do it. Evolution is a continuous process.
2. The meat and vegetables available to our cave-dwelling ancestors are totally different than the farmed products we get in the store today. There is almost no comparison. And you know what? If our ancestors had access to the meal aisle they'd eat the fattiest stuff available to them.
3. Cavemen not only ate differently, they had entirely different lifestyles. The most nutritious thing for a hunting caveman, who only eats every couple days and is super active is very different from what a modern person may need.
4. The main reason this diet works for weight loss is that it forces you to eat high-nutrient, lower calorie food because you are cutting so many carbohydrates and refined sugars. The reality is that weight loss is about calories-in vs. calories-out and this diet is simply another way to reduce the calories in. (Please note that I separate weight loss from overall health and recognize there are lots of other health reasons someone might eat this way)
5. And this is my problem with any fad diet-- there is no one perfect diet. People are different from each other. What might be good for one person may not be good for another. Just because something worked for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. |
t3_23xw5n | CMV: Rich people should not be judged solely because of their wealth. This is ignorant and hateful. Please change my view. | A rich person could be rich because he stole it.
A rich person could be rich because he cheated for it.
A rich person could be rich because he inherited it.
A rich person could be rich because he won the lottery.
A rich person could be rich because he was a good poker player.
A rich person could be rich because he worked very hard for it.
A rich person could be rich because he succeeded in business.
Being rich has little to no connections as to what type of person he is.
A poor person could be poor because he was scammed out of his money.
A poor person could be poor because his parents were poor.
A poor person could be poor because he gambled his wealth away.
A poor person could be poor because he was a druggy and an alcoholic.
A poor person could be poor because he was extremely unfortunate.
The likelihood of a poor person being an asshole is equal to that of a rich person being a prick.
One should NEVER judge a person solely based on what they have and what they don't have.
If you are young and drive a nice sports car, I should NOT automatically think that you are a prick.
If you are young and is struggling to pay off your student loans, I should NOT automatically think that you are a nice person.
Because I am young and I am fortunate enough to drive a nice car, people DO sometimes see me as an undeserving asshole. Though those who know me and know of my aspirations of wanting to help those truly unfortunate out there, see me as a genuine person. I am frustrated and confused as to why this occurs and sometimes I am lead to believe that if I sold my car and purchased a cheap one, the prejudice that I receive will stop.
_____
> *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: Rich people should not be judged solely because of their wealth. This is ignorant and hateful. Please change my view. A rich person could be rich because he stole it.
A rich person could be rich because he cheated for it.
A rich person could be rich because he inherited it.
A rich person could be rich because he won the lottery.
A rich person could be rich because he was a good poker player.
A rich person could be rich because he worked very hard for it.
A rich person could be rich because he succeeded in business.
Being rich has little to no connections as to what type of person he is.
A poor person could be poor because he was scammed out of his money.
A poor person could be poor because his parents were poor.
A poor person could be poor because he gambled his wealth away.
A poor person could be poor because he was a druggy and an alcoholic.
A poor person could be poor because he was extremely unfortunate.
The likelihood of a poor person being an asshole is equal to that of a rich person being a prick.
One should NEVER judge a person solely based on what they have and what they don't have.
If you are young and drive a nice sports car, I should NOT automatically think that you are a prick.
If you are young and is struggling to pay off your student loans, I should NOT automatically think that you are a nice person.
Because I am young and I am fortunate enough to drive a nice car, people DO sometimes see me as an undeserving asshole. Though those who know me and know of my aspirations of wanting to help those truly unfortunate out there, see me as a genuine person. I am frustrated and confused as to why this occurs and sometimes I am lead to believe that if I sold my car and purchased a cheap one, the prejudice that I receive will stop.
|
t3_3c6jkn | CMV: Commenting that a CMV post is a 'complete shitpost' is a shitty and lazy thing to do by itself. | I believe that commenting that a CMV post is a 'complete shitpost' is a shitty and lazy thing to do by itself.
"Why do you believe this is a lazy thing to do?"
I believe this is a lazy thing to do because this doesn't change opinions. Instead of saying "You are wrong, and this is why." (which is what this subreddit is about), some couch potato will blast harsh words at OP and call his post shitty. It just takes up good thread space, which could be used for the commenter to provide examples where OP has completely ignored the other arguments.
_____
> *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: Commenting that a CMV post is a 'complete shitpost' is a shitty and lazy thing to do by itself. I believe that commenting that a CMV post is a 'complete shitpost' is a shitty and lazy thing to do by itself.
"Why do you believe this is a lazy thing to do?"
I believe this is a lazy thing to do because this doesn't change opinions. Instead of saying "You are wrong, and this is why." (which is what this subreddit is about), some couch potato will blast harsh words at OP and call his post shitty. It just takes up good thread space, which could be used for the commenter to provide examples where OP has completely ignored the other arguments. |
t3_1wtvq6 | CMV the purpose of society is not to provide a good quality of life for all individuals | An organism is composed of multiple cells that cooperate to aid in their survival and reproduction. Cells specialize in function to aid in this process and in some cases some cells are sacrificed for the good of the collective.
Society can be viewed as a superorganism. Just as individual nerve cells don't understand the thoughts of an organism, individual humans do not understand the purpose of society.
For the good of the organism there are mechanisms to eliminate damaged cells so they do not harm other cells, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phagocyte
For the good of society mechanisms to eliminate damaged individuals should be used instead of trying to extend the life of all individuals. The only value of individuals is their contribution to society.
EDIT: many have argued for the value of human life but have not argued that individuals are more important than society.
EDIT: to change my view you would need to provide evidence that society has a purpose and that it is to provide a good quality of life to all its members. In general, the only purpose of life is to survive. | CMV the purpose of society is not to provide a good quality of life for all individuals. An organism is composed of multiple cells that cooperate to aid in their survival and reproduction. Cells specialize in function to aid in this process and in some cases some cells are sacrificed for the good of the collective.
Society can be viewed as a superorganism. Just as individual nerve cells don't understand the thoughts of an organism, individual humans do not understand the purpose of society.
For the good of the organism there are mechanisms to eliminate damaged cells so they do not harm other cells, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phagocyte
For the good of society mechanisms to eliminate damaged individuals should be used instead of trying to extend the life of all individuals. The only value of individuals is their contribution to society.
EDIT: many have argued for the value of human life but have not argued that individuals are more important than society.
EDIT: to change my view you would need to provide evidence that society has a purpose and that it is to provide a good quality of life to all its members. In general, the only purpose of life is to survive. |
t3_1nzmgg | I believe that humans are special. We are more than the sum of our parts, and are more than just highly evolved animals. CMV | I just can't see humans as a highly evolved animal. I think that something about us is fundamentally different than the rest of nature. I believe in evolution for the most part, but I think that there is more to being a human than getting lucky with mutation. I understand that we are still effected by natural selection, but I think we are outside of the world's ecosystem.
We have language, art, technology... we are literally changing the climate of our whole planet. We put ourselves on the moon, and robots on mars! I don't necessarily believe in god, but I do believe in the "soul", or something extra that humans have and no other life does.
I know this is kind of vague so I'll try to sum it up as best I can:
It is my opinion that humans have something extra about us, some "paranormal" that can't necessarily be explained by science, that makes us superior to other life on earth. Change my view to the contrary, that we are just another animal that because of environmental factors and sheer luck became the dominant life form of the planet. | I believe that humans are special. We are more than the sum of our parts, and are more than just highly evolved animals. CMV. I just can't see humans as a highly evolved animal. I think that something about us is fundamentally different than the rest of nature. I believe in evolution for the most part, but I think that there is more to being a human than getting lucky with mutation. I understand that we are still effected by natural selection, but I think we are outside of the world's ecosystem.
We have language, art, technology... we are literally changing the climate of our whole planet. We put ourselves on the moon, and robots on mars! I don't necessarily believe in god, but I do believe in the "soul", or something extra that humans have and no other life does.
I know this is kind of vague so I'll try to sum it up as best I can:
It is my opinion that humans have something extra about us, some "paranormal" that can't necessarily be explained by science, that makes us superior to other life on earth. Change my view to the contrary, that we are just another animal that because of environmental factors and sheer luck became the dominant life form of the planet. |
t3_1zhhsj | I don't feel obligated to tip 10% if the service is terrible or the waiter is rude. CMV. | I've never understood why I should feel obligated to leave a waiter a tip if they give bad service. Most people state that you should always give 10% because they make below minimum wage - this doesn't make me sympathize. I understand that sometimes there are many factors out of their control but I am not talking about those cases either. Specifically, lets assume everything was fine with the meal, restaurant, etc, but the waiter ruined my experience. Why should I tip?
If I got a haircut and the barber butchered my hair - I wouldn't pay him for that. Why should I do so in the case of a waiter/waitress/bartender? | I don't feel obligated to tip 10% if the service is terrible or the waiter is rude. CMV. I've never understood why I should feel obligated to leave a waiter a tip if they give bad service. Most people state that you should always give 10% because they make below minimum wage - this doesn't make me sympathize. I understand that sometimes there are many factors out of their control but I am not talking about those cases either. Specifically, lets assume everything was fine with the meal, restaurant, etc, but the waiter ruined my experience. Why should I tip?
If I got a haircut and the barber butchered my hair - I wouldn't pay him for that. Why should I do so in the case of a waiter/waitress/bartender? |
t3_6rw4rm | Thoughts have the ability to program our senses only when we believe enough in the quality of their content. | I believe awareness should be considered another sense even though we don’t consider it to be one.
I believe that thought experiments can be a very dangerous thing when dealing with parts of your belief system. As our reality stems from the beliefs we hold, our mind become focused on different aspects of our awareness. I’m doin so, our senses become enhanced to the point where our awareness extends beyond what is considered normal. Which brings me to my conclusion that thoughts can influence our senses to believe even the most outrageous things.
Do you a perspective on thoughts influencing our belief system? CMV!
| Thoughts have the ability to program our senses only when we believe enough in the quality of their content. I believe awareness should be considered another sense even though we don’t consider it to be one.
I believe that thought experiments can be a very dangerous thing when dealing with parts of your belief system. As our reality stems from the beliefs we hold, our mind become focused on different aspects of our awareness. I’m doin so, our senses become enhanced to the point where our awareness extends beyond what is considered normal. Which brings me to my conclusion that thoughts can influence our senses to believe even the most outrageous things.
Do you a perspective on thoughts influencing our belief system? CMV!
|
t3_3ddw70 | CMV: NYC sucks | I used to want to live in NYC, but after travelling there multiple times and talking to friends who have lived/currently live there, I could not be more dead set against ever moving there. In fact, I have come to despise that place. As a quick note about the perspective I have: I'm a 3rd-year law student. I grew up in South FL, and currently live in Boston, MA. I'm not a stranger to life in a northeastern American city; maybe city life in general is not for me, although I do like Boston *much* better than New York.
First, it's filthy. There is trash *everywhere*, the water is polluted, and the air simply does not smell clean. Being an old Northeastern city, it's filled with old buildings, many of which are in varying degrees of disrepair. It's just generally a dirty, sad place for me to be.
It's also crowded. NYC has ~8.5 million people crammed into around 300 square miles. To walk anywhere, you must wade through a sea of drab, disheveled humanity. The public transit is packed. Driving in NYC is one of the most hellish experiences I've ever had.
The cost of living is exorbitant, as everyone already knows. Rent alone takes up most of my friends' paychecks, and their places aren't even that nice or spacious. New Yorkers seem like they pay through the nose for a standard of living that ain't that great.
Then there's the climate. The winters are frigid and soul-crushing, complete with biting wind and extended periods of low sunlight or darkness. The summers are sweltering, and the heat only exacerbates the ever-present smell of rotting garbage. Plus, central air is apparently only for the wealthy northeasterners, because it is conspicuously scarce in most homes/apartments I've visited.
I can't understand the allure of that city. The wealthy live comfortable lives while most everyone else pays through the nose to live wretchedly. People get an inexplicable sense of self-importance and accomplishment simply by moving there and living there for a bit, regardless of what they're doing. Maybe I'd feel accomplished too, if I paid $800/month to live in a cardboard box and resisted the temptation to commit suicide by antagonizing the psychotic, fascist police to which NYC is a home.
TL;DR NYC is a crowded, dirty, dismal place and I cannot ever picture myself being happy there. CMV.
Edit: I'm well aware of the shitty aspects of Boston life; to me, NYC's bads are more...well, *bad* than Boston's, that's my point. Also, inb4 "hurr Florida has bad things about it too." I definitely know that's true!
Edit 2: FOLKS, this post isn't about "Boston > NYC"; I'm well aware that there are bad parts about Boston too. Pointing out bad shit about other cities doesn't help make the case for NY.
Edit 3: For everyone who keeps bitching at me about the delta I gave to u/whattodo-whattodo - READ THE FUCKING RULES. Quoting rule 4's explanation of delta: "Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', *it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion*. A delta =/= end of discussion" (emphasis added). I've gotten so many replies to the effect of "hurr, you're a law student and you gave up dat easy?" Those people can choke on a phallus; I'm just giving credit where it's due, per the rules.
_____
> *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: NYC sucks. I used to want to live in NYC, but after travelling there multiple times and talking to friends who have lived/currently live there, I could not be more dead set against ever moving there. In fact, I have come to despise that place. As a quick note about the perspective I have: I'm a 3rd-year law student. I grew up in South FL, and currently live in Boston, MA. I'm not a stranger to life in a northeastern American city; maybe city life in general is not for me, although I do like Boston *much* better than New York.
First, it's filthy. There is trash *everywhere*, the water is polluted, and the air simply does not smell clean. Being an old Northeastern city, it's filled with old buildings, many of which are in varying degrees of disrepair. It's just generally a dirty, sad place for me to be.
It's also crowded. NYC has ~8.5 million people crammed into around 300 square miles. To walk anywhere, you must wade through a sea of drab, disheveled humanity. The public transit is packed. Driving in NYC is one of the most hellish experiences I've ever had.
The cost of living is exorbitant, as everyone already knows. Rent alone takes up most of my friends' paychecks, and their places aren't even that nice or spacious. New Yorkers seem like they pay through the nose for a standard of living that ain't that great.
Then there's the climate. The winters are frigid and soul-crushing, complete with biting wind and extended periods of low sunlight or darkness. The summers are sweltering, and the heat only exacerbates the ever-present smell of rotting garbage. Plus, central air is apparently only for the wealthy northeasterners, because it is conspicuously scarce in most homes/apartments I've visited.
I can't understand the allure of that city. The wealthy live comfortable lives while most everyone else pays through the nose to live wretchedly. People get an inexplicable sense of self-importance and accomplishment simply by moving there and living there for a bit, regardless of what they're doing. Maybe I'd feel accomplished too, if I paid $800/month to live in a cardboard box and resisted the temptation to commit suicide by antagonizing the psychotic, fascist police to which NYC is a home.
TL;DR NYC is a crowded, dirty, dismal place and I cannot ever picture myself being happy there. CMV.
Edit: I'm well aware of the shitty aspects of Boston life; to me, NYC's bads are more...well, *bad* than Boston's, that's my point. Also, inb4 "hurr Florida has bad things about it too." I definitely know that's true!
Edit 2: FOLKS, this post isn't about "Boston > NYC"; I'm well aware that there are bad parts about Boston too. Pointing out bad shit about other cities doesn't help make the case for NY.
Edit 3: For everyone who keeps bitching at me about the delta I gave to u/whattodo-whattodo - READ THE FUCKING RULES. Quoting rule 4's explanation of delta: "Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', *it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion*. A delta =/= end of discussion" (emphasis added). I've gotten so many replies to the effect of "hurr, you're a law student and you gave up dat easy?" Those people can choke on a phallus; I'm just giving credit where it's due, per the rules. |
t3_3cx5tk | CMV: if you believe existence has no purpose, then you should not have a moral code beyond pure hedonism | If life is meaningless, then all moral judgements are meaningless. Nothing is morally good or bad intrinsically. Your actions should be dictated by maximizing pleasure and nothing else (if you want to call yourself a rational agent). So, lying isn't wrong, so lie to people if it benefits you. Murder isn't wrong, so murder away! Struggling to see how rational materialist atheism doesn't lead to this. Please CMV
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: if you believe existence has no purpose, then you should not have a moral code beyond pure hedonism. If life is meaningless, then all moral judgements are meaningless. Nothing is morally good or bad intrinsically. Your actions should be dictated by maximizing pleasure and nothing else (if you want to call yourself a rational agent). So, lying isn't wrong, so lie to people if it benefits you. Murder isn't wrong, so murder away! Struggling to see how rational materialist atheism doesn't lead to this. Please CMV
|
t3_2wkowt | CMV: The fact that the American People can be manipulated is a testament to restraining total democracy and the manipulators are blameless. | This is going to be a tough one.
I repeatedly see posts and comments on Reddit and elsewhere that those who manipulate are evil in some way. That the fault lies with them.
I think it's important to 1) demonize the manipulator, but then 2) do something about it. We the People seem to fuck up step to and play a victim. This cycle gets repeated over and over with We the People constantly brooding about, essentially, the failure of democracy.
Our system has an 'out'. We can vote. We can run for office.
Voting does nothing!
It does. And We the People, at 98.5%, chose either the GOP or Democrat candidate in the 2012 election. The two 3rd part candidates received 1.5% of the popular vote.
But money in politics!
Youtube is free. Twitter is free. Facebook is free.
But people over 40 don't use the Internet! It doesn't capture We the People!
Memaw uses the Internet with her nine toolbars. And you know that 1.5% captures the 18-30 crowd. So those who bitch about not having a third party candidate probably voted for the big two.
But the majority system drowns out a 3rd party!
You know damn well that's meaningless at 1.5%. Even if you account for 'people who do not want to throw their vote away'.
--police brutality---
Police Brutality is on the rise/ out of control!
Not likely. DOJ stats show 16 mil police/ civilian interactions in 2008. Venture a number that go wrong. The only thing that has gone up is the amount of video of said brutality.
And the video. I'm not saying police are blameless or not the aggressors. But video is manipulated. The video of the Davis cop 'watering the hippies'. The video was edited. The beginning showed the crowd encircling the police who were lawfully arresting an aggressive protester. But what was shown?
But we can't remove the bad apples!
Yes we can. City counsels control the resources. They have the purse. They choose to buy the armored cars. BECAUSE THE VOTERS WANT IT. Run for counsel and all the others vote. It's usually a 5-7 seat organization. You can choose to issue cops 6 shooters.
We want someone else to handle shit for us then bitch at the results. The bitchy should step up and organize. | CMV: The fact that the American People can be manipulated is a testament to restraining total democracy and the manipulators are blameless. This is going to be a tough one.
I repeatedly see posts and comments on Reddit and elsewhere that those who manipulate are evil in some way. That the fault lies with them.
I think it's important to 1) demonize the manipulator, but then 2) do something about it. We the People seem to fuck up step to and play a victim. This cycle gets repeated over and over with We the People constantly brooding about, essentially, the failure of democracy.
Our system has an 'out'. We can vote. We can run for office.
Voting does nothing!
It does. And We the People, at 98.5%, chose either the GOP or Democrat candidate in the 2012 election. The two 3rd part candidates received 1.5% of the popular vote.
But money in politics!
Youtube is free. Twitter is free. Facebook is free.
But people over 40 don't use the Internet! It doesn't capture We the People!
Memaw uses the Internet with her nine toolbars. And you know that 1.5% captures the 18-30 crowd. So those who bitch about not having a third party candidate probably voted for the big two.
But the majority system drowns out a 3rd party!
You know damn well that's meaningless at 1.5%. Even if you account for 'people who do not want to throw their vote away'.
--police brutality---
Police Brutality is on the rise/ out of control!
Not likely. DOJ stats show 16 mil police/ civilian interactions in 2008. Venture a number that go wrong. The only thing that has gone up is the amount of video of said brutality.
And the video. I'm not saying police are blameless or not the aggressors. But video is manipulated. The video of the Davis cop 'watering the hippies'. The video was edited. The beginning showed the crowd encircling the police who were lawfully arresting an aggressive protester. But what was shown?
But we can't remove the bad apples!
Yes we can. City counsels control the resources. They have the purse. They choose to buy the armored cars. BECAUSE THE VOTERS WANT IT. Run for counsel and all the others vote. It's usually a 5-7 seat organization. You can choose to issue cops 6 shooters.
We want someone else to handle shit for us then bitch at the results. The bitchy should step up and organize. |
t3_61t1yc | CMV:Climate change is an apocalyptic level threat and everything should be done to combat it | There is a 97% consensus amongst scientists that man-made climate change is real.
Republicans are against doing anything to combat it because they're bought off by their donors and special interests.
Our sea levels are rising by historic levels, the weather is warming at a historic rate, we will pay for the massive consequences that come with us if we don't address this issue.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4334712/Man-climate-change-real-no-room-doubt.html
_____
> *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:Climate change is an apocalyptic level threat and everything should be done to combat it. There is a 97% consensus amongst scientists that man-made climate change is real.
Republicans are against doing anything to combat it because they're bought off by their donors and special interests.
Our sea levels are rising by historic levels, the weather is warming at a historic rate, we will pay for the massive consequences that come with us if we don't address this issue.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4334712/Man-climate-change-real-no-room-doubt.html |
t3_5v0ucw | CMV: Implementing a consumption tax only law would benefit the economy and society as a whole. | I think this idea would benefit most people for a variety of reasons. First, people would feel like they have more control of their money and how much they are choosing to contribute. Second, they will probably contribute more with a bigger paycheck. Taxes could be increased on things like alcohol, ciggarettes (think, perhaps, marijuana :), dining out and people would still pay for it. The ability to consume a variety of goods in American is what makes this country so great. I am paying taxes only on things I want to which I think would increase peoples overall happiness and self-satisfaction. There would be more money in peoples pockets and less fear to invest or start a business.
_____
> *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: Implementing a consumption tax only law would benefit the economy and society as a whole. I think this idea would benefit most people for a variety of reasons. First, people would feel like they have more control of their money and how much they are choosing to contribute. Second, they will probably contribute more with a bigger paycheck. Taxes could be increased on things like alcohol, ciggarettes (think, perhaps, marijuana :), dining out and people would still pay for it. The ability to consume a variety of goods in American is what makes this country so great. I am paying taxes only on things I want to which I think would increase peoples overall happiness and self-satisfaction. There would be more money in peoples pockets and less fear to invest or start a business. |
t3_53vmmn | CMV:People who are trying to improve their health/figure should use physical achievements and not weight as a measurement of progress. | Weight is often people's focus when they are trying to improve their health and their physique. I think that this is a flawed approach that can in many cases be detrimental to someone's progress. A company I worked with had a contest among certain workers where they were weighing them and giving bonus money and time off to the groups that lost the most weight. This inspired some unhealthy practices and hardly anyone participating seemed to be approaching their physical fitness in a way that would give them long term health benefits (which was what this was supposed to be all about).
I'm sure we are all aware of some of the potential shortcomings of weight-loss as an indicator of health: Someone who is not drinking enough water and starts to drink more could gain weight in spite of being better off, muscle growth will cause weight gain and weight can be removed by any number of diets that may or may not be healthy at all.
My view is that people should largely forget about the scale and use physical accomplishments or a combination of physical accomplishments and some measure of body fat % to measure progress instead. Physical accomplishments could include time it takes to walk/run a mile, stats on any number of cardio machines, amount of weight and number of repetitions lifted, etc, etc, etc.
I think that these metrics would provide a better and more useful measurement of improvements to long term health than numbers on a scale.
_____
> *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 are trying to improve their health/figure should use physical achievements and not weight as a measurement of progress. Weight is often people's focus when they are trying to improve their health and their physique. I think that this is a flawed approach that can in many cases be detrimental to someone's progress. A company I worked with had a contest among certain workers where they were weighing them and giving bonus money and time off to the groups that lost the most weight. This inspired some unhealthy practices and hardly anyone participating seemed to be approaching their physical fitness in a way that would give them long term health benefits (which was what this was supposed to be all about).
I'm sure we are all aware of some of the potential shortcomings of weight-loss as an indicator of health: Someone who is not drinking enough water and starts to drink more could gain weight in spite of being better off, muscle growth will cause weight gain and weight can be removed by any number of diets that may or may not be healthy at all.
My view is that people should largely forget about the scale and use physical accomplishments or a combination of physical accomplishments and some measure of body fat % to measure progress instead. Physical accomplishments could include time it takes to walk/run a mile, stats on any number of cardio machines, amount of weight and number of repetitions lifted, etc, etc, etc.
I think that these metrics would provide a better and more useful measurement of improvements to long term health than numbers on a scale. |
t3_4od06p | CMV: Britain should vote to Remain in the EU | This is probably mostly for the Brits here, but other perspectives are welcome!
So we now have a week to go until the big EU referendum here in the UK, and the polls are [closer than ever](https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/743397909832556544) - and with a slight lead for Vote Leave.
I am of the opinion that we should vote to stay in the EU. Why? Because I am yet to be convinced that leaving would benefit us as a country in the long run. [Countless studies](http://i.imgur.com/MZiT3In.png) and [predictions](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36548460) all point to the dangers of Brexit. The vast majority of experts agree it would be bad for us economically, and that's without going into the [NHS, workers' rights, lost funding for scientific research, or the effect on Britain's global influence](http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#f9sedilYz5913xhO.97). Elsewhere, for example, the majority of Americans (except Trump) [have the same opinion](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/britain-flirts-with-economic-insanity/2016/05/01/bb8d7a4a-0e1f-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html).
Meanwhile, the arguments I have heard for leaving the EU all seem to centre around "sovereignty" (whatever that means), immigration scaremongering, and [outright lies](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week). And that's before you (speculatively) consider that the main reason Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are Leave supporters is probably because they see career opportunities if they win.
There are many things I could say to support my title's statement, so I know I've missed a lot out.
So, reddit, change my view! Convince me that Britain should leave the EU.
_____
> *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: Britain should vote to Remain in the EU. This is probably mostly for the Brits here, but other perspectives are welcome!
So we now have a week to go until the big EU referendum here in the UK, and the polls are [closer than ever](https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/743397909832556544) - and with a slight lead for Vote Leave.
I am of the opinion that we should vote to stay in the EU. Why? Because I am yet to be convinced that leaving would benefit us as a country in the long run. [Countless studies](http://i.imgur.com/MZiT3In.png) and [predictions](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36548460) all point to the dangers of Brexit. The vast majority of experts agree it would be bad for us economically, and that's without going into the [NHS, workers' rights, lost funding for scientific research, or the effect on Britain's global influence](http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#f9sedilYz5913xhO.97). Elsewhere, for example, the majority of Americans (except Trump) [have the same opinion](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/britain-flirts-with-economic-insanity/2016/05/01/bb8d7a4a-0e1f-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html).
Meanwhile, the arguments I have heard for leaving the EU all seem to centre around "sovereignty" (whatever that means), immigration scaremongering, and [outright lies](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week). And that's before you (speculatively) consider that the main reason Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are Leave supporters is probably because they see career opportunities if they win.
There are many things I could say to support my title's statement, so I know I've missed a lot out.
So, reddit, change my view! Convince me that Britain should leave the EU. |
t3_16s77g | I feel that becoming successful as a musician is soon to be impossible, CMV? | There's been a few things in the news recently, like HMV going into administration and Universal taking over about 50% of the music business that make me think my dream of being signed to a record label, releasing albums etc. may soon become impossible? I don't really know enough about what's going on but I've heard the music business is headed for disaster, and that it will become harder for small bands to get noticed. | I feel that becoming successful as a musician is soon to be impossible, CMV? . There's been a few things in the news recently, like HMV going into administration and Universal taking over about 50% of the music business that make me think my dream of being signed to a record label, releasing albums etc. may soon become impossible? I don't really know enough about what's going on but I've heard the music business is headed for disaster, and that it will become harder for small bands to get noticed. |
t3_4o2hlv | CMV:If you believe that Omar Mateen should not have been able to purchase firearms than you believe that U.S. gun policy needs reform. | Firstly, if you think he should have been allowed to buy guns do please explain why. Secondly, if you believe he should not have been allowed to, then policies surrounding gun access and ownership are what failed and they need reforming. Whether you blame his conflicted sexuality, his mental health, his faith, or his past you are essentially saying that something disqualifies him from being the "responsible gun owner" that is hailed as the reason we cannot possible do anything to inhibit gun access.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV:If you believe that Omar Mateen should not have been able to purchase firearms than you believe that U.S. gun policy needs reform. Firstly, if you think he should have been allowed to buy guns do please explain why. Secondly, if you believe he should not have been allowed to, then policies surrounding gun access and ownership are what failed and they need reforming. Whether you blame his conflicted sexuality, his mental health, his faith, or his past you are essentially saying that something disqualifies him from being the "responsible gun owner" that is hailed as the reason we cannot possible do anything to inhibit gun access. |
t3_1g0l6x | I believe that speeding by itself should not be illegal but that the fines for accidents and damages caused by reckless driving should be raised. CMV. | Frankly, most people speed by the generally allowed margin (limit+5mph) and will continue to pretty much no matter how high the limit is. The real problem is not the speeding but the accidents that are made *easier* by speeding.
Also, if this line seems too dangerous, **tell me where you think the line between freedom and safety should be drawn**. Seriously, I'd like to know where you stand if you disagree with my position. That's the whole point of this subreddit. | I believe that speeding by itself should not be illegal but that the fines for accidents and damages caused by reckless driving should be raised. CMV. Frankly, most people speed by the generally allowed margin (limit+5mph) and will continue to pretty much no matter how high the limit is. The real problem is not the speeding but the accidents that are made *easier* by speeding.
Also, if this line seems too dangerous, **tell me where you think the line between freedom and safety should be drawn**. Seriously, I'd like to know where you stand if you disagree with my position. That's the whole point of this subreddit. |
t3_1lxeal | I believe video game streamers are abusing charities. CMV | The whole deal with charity and streams seem ridiculous to me. I see too many streamers nowadays playing games they don't enjoy and doing charities nobody has ever heard of under the pretense that they are doing it in the name of the kids.
Almost every single streamer has some sort of donation system and we're talking about a huge number of people that play video games. I would understand donations at tournaments or other such events, but to be playing video games all day and streaming while you take donations seems like a ridiculous way of abusing the system in order to appear good hearted and gain more viewers.
Athene for example sucks in the games he plays 99% of the time. He would talk crap about the game, squint, not pay attention to chat, and yet always has a little bar on the side for a random charity.
What exactly is the motivation behind giving donations to people like Athene? | I believe video game streamers are abusing charities. CMV. The whole deal with charity and streams seem ridiculous to me. I see too many streamers nowadays playing games they don't enjoy and doing charities nobody has ever heard of under the pretense that they are doing it in the name of the kids.
Almost every single streamer has some sort of donation system and we're talking about a huge number of people that play video games. I would understand donations at tournaments or other such events, but to be playing video games all day and streaming while you take donations seems like a ridiculous way of abusing the system in order to appear good hearted and gain more viewers.
Athene for example sucks in the games he plays 99% of the time. He would talk crap about the game, squint, not pay attention to chat, and yet always has a little bar on the side for a random charity.
What exactly is the motivation behind giving donations to people like Athene? |
t3_2cn4s5 | CMV: It's completely hypocritical to be pro-choice and refuse to eat eggs. | This is only if a person is doing it for ethical reasons, and not for dietary purposes. Usually people that refuse to eat eggs from an ethical stand point are vegan, so I will be referring to people who don't eat eggs as vegan from now on.
The P.E.T.A website does not discriminate between those who choose pro-life or pro-choice, so from their point of view, it doesn't matter where you stand on the matter. ([Source] (http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-believe-that-pro-life-activists-should-be-vegetarian/)) However, anyone who is a true vegan would have to completely give up eating eggs.
So, why would a vegan refuse to eat an egg, but be fine with terminating a fetus? A vegan forum I read said that one reason for not eating eggs was because "they contain animal tissue." ([Source](http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-believe-that-pro-life-activists-should-be-vegetarian/)) Well, fetuses contain animal tissue as well. In fact, that's what a fetus mostly is. Tissue. Just because you're not eating it, doesn't mean that it's not "killing" it.
Hopefully there are some vegans on here that are pro-choice that can tell me why it's okay to be pro-choice and be a vegan.
| CMV: It's completely hypocritical to be pro-choice and refuse to eat eggs. This is only if a person is doing it for ethical reasons, and not for dietary purposes. Usually people that refuse to eat eggs from an ethical stand point are vegan, so I will be referring to people who don't eat eggs as vegan from now on.
The P.E.T.A website does not discriminate between those who choose pro-life or pro-choice, so from their point of view, it doesn't matter where you stand on the matter. ([Source] (http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-believe-that-pro-life-activists-should-be-vegetarian/)) However, anyone who is a true vegan would have to completely give up eating eggs.
So, why would a vegan refuse to eat an egg, but be fine with terminating a fetus? A vegan forum I read said that one reason for not eating eggs was because "they contain animal tissue." ([Source](http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-believe-that-pro-life-activists-should-be-vegetarian/)) Well, fetuses contain animal tissue as well. In fact, that's what a fetus mostly is. Tissue. Just because you're not eating it, doesn't mean that it's not "killing" it.
Hopefully there are some vegans on here that are pro-choice that can tell me why it's okay to be pro-choice and be a vegan.
|