id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 9
300
| selftext
stringlengths 9
9.73k
| text
stringlengths 53
9.81k
|
|---|---|---|---|
t3_2y2tk3 | CMV:I Think it's Unfair and Unproductive to Hold Protesters and Protest Movements to a High Rhetorical Standard | This is an opinion I've recently formulated and I'm just sort of testing it out.
I think that protest and other civil disobedience movements don't exist to provide nuance. I think we can only judge them on their ability to create awareness and provoke discussion.
I'll provide a few examples. Most recently, the protests around Ferguson and other shootings of unarmed black men by cops have sparked national discussion and awareness. But they've often been marred by really simplistic and fiery rhetoric that really oversimplifies the issue as well as occasional bouts of violence. When I see protestors for example calling Darren Wilson a monster or talking about how they "know" what happened, that's a grossly under nuanced take on a very real, very important issue: how black men are routinely victimized by law enforcement across the country because of a wide swath of systemic issues.
Another example is the occupy movement. Many protestors in the occupy movement seemed pretty uninformed about the structural issues that cause income inequality, and I certainly never heard any protestors provide any feasible solutions to the issues.
Here's why I'm arguing that this doesn't matter: in both of these cases, the sheer public spectacle provoked national discussion (with varying degrees of nuance) in the media, in politics and policy, in academia, and in pop culture. I believe that this is what civil disobedience is for, and in that sense these protest movements succeeded. I don't think it's fair to hold protestors to a high rhetorical standard because a: that's not the point of protests, and b: protest movements are diverse and populist. Theoretically the only requirement for entry is that you ideologically align with their central premise. Thus you have plenty of people who don't really know what they're talking about (or can't express it on a sign or in a Twitter post) but still succeed in generating awareness of the issue.
CMV
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV:I Think it's Unfair and Unproductive to Hold Protesters and Protest Movements to a High Rhetorical Standard. This is an opinion I've recently formulated and I'm just sort of testing it out.
I think that protest and other civil disobedience movements don't exist to provide nuance. I think we can only judge them on their ability to create awareness and provoke discussion.
I'll provide a few examples. Most recently, the protests around Ferguson and other shootings of unarmed black men by cops have sparked national discussion and awareness. But they've often been marred by really simplistic and fiery rhetoric that really oversimplifies the issue as well as occasional bouts of violence. When I see protestors for example calling Darren Wilson a monster or talking about how they "know" what happened, that's a grossly under nuanced take on a very real, very important issue: how black men are routinely victimized by law enforcement across the country because of a wide swath of systemic issues.
Another example is the occupy movement. Many protestors in the occupy movement seemed pretty uninformed about the structural issues that cause income inequality, and I certainly never heard any protestors provide any feasible solutions to the issues.
Here's why I'm arguing that this doesn't matter: in both of these cases, the sheer public spectacle provoked national discussion (with varying degrees of nuance) in the media, in politics and policy, in academia, and in pop culture. I believe that this is what civil disobedience is for, and in that sense these protest movements succeeded. I don't think it's fair to hold protestors to a high rhetorical standard because a: that's not the point of protests, and b: protest movements are diverse and populist. Theoretically the only requirement for entry is that you ideologically align with their central premise. Thus you have plenty of people who don't really know what they're talking about (or can't express it on a sign or in a Twitter post) but still succeed in generating awareness of the issue.
CMV
|
t3_1g5mqj | Everyone is secretly depressed. CMV. | They just have a clever way of hiding it. Usually by form of escapism (music, art, drugs) or smiling, laughing or making others laugh. Everyone I know who does one or more of these are secretly depressed, but don't want to burden others.
Ugh, the sheer number of fake and phony people I see on a daily basis is staggering and frustrating. Why not just be yourself? You don't have to put on a front.
| Everyone is secretly depressed. CMV. They just have a clever way of hiding it. Usually by form of escapism (music, art, drugs) or smiling, laughing or making others laugh. Everyone I know who does one or more of these are secretly depressed, but don't want to burden others.
Ugh, the sheer number of fake and phony people I see on a daily basis is staggering and frustrating. Why not just be yourself? You don't have to put on a front.
|
t3_6wg2x4 | CMV: Alcohol should be banned. | First of all, it tastes bad. I think its safe to say that most children, when given a sip by an adult, dislike the taste of it. People say that the taste is something you grow into. Why grow into it at all if it is the sole culprit of a lot of problems down the road? There is massive pressure to drink. At almost any adult party or social gathering, there's going to be alcohol, and directly or indirectly, there's a lot of pressure for you to drink it. I never understood why people are practically forced into engaging in such a terrible thing. You might say its not my problem, and that if they want to get wasted, then its none of my concern. But that is simply not the case. It *is* my problem. Drunk drivers are responsible for an enormous percentage of car accidents and death. Fights break out because of the effects of alcohol. Drunks beat their kids because of the influence of alcohol. Most people don't have a problem with alcohol until the moment they are directly affected by it (ex. losing someone close in a car crash from a drunk driver). Luckily, such a thing has not happened to me. Even despite the fact that I haven't been personally affected by it, I detest alcohol. Is it not plain to see how insidious it is for us all? There are far better drinks out there. And those drinks actually taste good. See, I can understand someone who is obese from drinking a lot of sugary drinks, because those drinks actually taste good. But the impression I get of alcohol drinkers is a bunch of people in a state of [pluralistic ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance). They each try to impress or to fit in by drinking something that tastes bad, thinking they are cool or tough because they like it. There is a huge culture that dates back millennia that has shaped social culture to give alcohol such a high place in society. But as we mature as a civilization, is it not about time that we put an outright, global ban on this harmful substance? | CMV: Alcohol should be banned. First of all, it tastes bad. I think its safe to say that most children, when given a sip by an adult, dislike the taste of it. People say that the taste is something you grow into. Why grow into it at all if it is the sole culprit of a lot of problems down the road? There is massive pressure to drink. At almost any adult party or social gathering, there's going to be alcohol, and directly or indirectly, there's a lot of pressure for you to drink it. I never understood why people are practically forced into engaging in such a terrible thing. You might say its not my problem, and that if they want to get wasted, then its none of my concern. But that is simply not the case. It *is* my problem. Drunk drivers are responsible for an enormous percentage of car accidents and death. Fights break out because of the effects of alcohol. Drunks beat their kids because of the influence of alcohol. Most people don't have a problem with alcohol until the moment they are directly affected by it (ex. losing someone close in a car crash from a drunk driver). Luckily, such a thing has not happened to me. Even despite the fact that I haven't been personally affected by it, I detest alcohol. Is it not plain to see how insidious it is for us all? There are far better drinks out there. And those drinks actually taste good. See, I can understand someone who is obese from drinking a lot of sugary drinks, because those drinks actually taste good. But the impression I get of alcohol drinkers is a bunch of people in a state of [pluralistic ignorance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance). They each try to impress or to fit in by drinking something that tastes bad, thinking they are cool or tough because they like it. There is a huge culture that dates back millennia that has shaped social culture to give alcohol such a high place in society. But as we mature as a civilization, is it not about time that we put an outright, global ban on this harmful substance? |
t3_2f1pus | CMV:I believe that African Americans use the race card to justify being lazy | Before I start, I want you guys to understand that I am not racist. Heck I am a Hispanic citizen and have had many many friends that are African American. I grew up in a very diverse area throughout my entire life and have had the pleasure to have been around all kinds of people.
I have met plenty of upstanding, kind, etc African Americans throughout my life. I understand that there are exceptions to everything so please do not just use the bailout argument "Hey I know a great A.A. this is not true". It's naïve to ignore the fact that they do not represent the majority of their demographics.
I have been through many schools and neighborhoods throughout my life. One thing that has constantly stood out is the sensitivity and the rude attitudes many A.A.in the places I have been have had. These people are usually the ones bullying others, being lazy in school because it's not cool, bringing up the race card in scenarios when there is no need to (love to play the victim), starting fights, commit lots of crimes, and a whole bunch of other problems.
This is a problem I've seen that's mainly in the 30> age group, albeit some of these things show in older groups.
Whenever I try to discuss why this is the case, I keep getting the same answers of the whole slavery and civil rights movements in history.
But the thing is, every other minority races suffered with these problems. The segregation affected all non whites. But when I say that, I get the answer "It affected A.A. more". Yeah because A.A. is the largest minority group in the country.
Slavery was a common issue in Latin American history.
Asian Americans for example were under very very severe scrutiny during World War 2. It eventually lead to concentration camps (not as bad, but still pretty poor conditions) being set up for them here in America during that period. And like other minority groups have also dealt with the racism early on.
Native Americans have probably suffered the most since the colonists came here.
These minority groups (Hispanics less so) now have positive images associated with them. That happened through not complaining about what happened to them and working hard to become better themselves.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV:I believe that African Americans use the race card to justify being lazy. Before I start, I want you guys to understand that I am not racist. Heck I am a Hispanic citizen and have had many many friends that are African American. I grew up in a very diverse area throughout my entire life and have had the pleasure to have been around all kinds of people.
I have met plenty of upstanding, kind, etc African Americans throughout my life. I understand that there are exceptions to everything so please do not just use the bailout argument "Hey I know a great A.A. this is not true". It's naïve to ignore the fact that they do not represent the majority of their demographics.
I have been through many schools and neighborhoods throughout my life. One thing that has constantly stood out is the sensitivity and the rude attitudes many A.A.in the places I have been have had. These people are usually the ones bullying others, being lazy in school because it's not cool, bringing up the race card in scenarios when there is no need to (love to play the victim), starting fights, commit lots of crimes, and a whole bunch of other problems.
This is a problem I've seen that's mainly in the 30> age group, albeit some of these things show in older groups.
Whenever I try to discuss why this is the case, I keep getting the same answers of the whole slavery and civil rights movements in history.
But the thing is, every other minority races suffered with these problems. The segregation affected all non whites. But when I say that, I get the answer "It affected A.A. more". Yeah because A.A. is the largest minority group in the country.
Slavery was a common issue in Latin American history.
Asian Americans for example were under very very severe scrutiny during World War 2. It eventually lead to concentration camps (not as bad, but still pretty poor conditions) being set up for them here in America during that period. And like other minority groups have also dealt with the racism early on.
Native Americans have probably suffered the most since the colonists came here.
These minority groups (Hispanics less so) now have positive images associated with them. That happened through not complaining about what happened to them and working hard to become better themselves. |
t3_3imvlk | CMV: I don't need to show support or acceptance of Trans individuals | Let me preface this by stating that I don't believe in judging, shunning, or harassing people because of who they are, I just don't know why their choices are a thing to be celebrated and supported?
Stories:
* I was walking down the street in a large city and there was a homeless man sitting in a corner mumbling about how he was a starship flying through space. I pitied him, as he (seemed) to genuinely believe that he was an actual starship, and assuming no drugs were involved, I expect most of society also does.
* A young man who frequents a card shop I visit believes himself to be a wolverine. Not the marvel superhero, an actual badger-like creature indigenous to the Adirondacks of upstate New York. Most people treat him rather poorly, as he acts like a wild animal fairly often, but I also pity him as he truly believes he is a wolverine.
* A previously homosexual, previously male friend of mine recently came out as "trans" meaning that he(now she) would like to live life as a woman. Society seems to say that this should be celebrated, that this is a brave and good act.
I view all these 3 stories as on the same spectrum and should be treated the same. Either we treat all three as varying levels of delusion/mental illness, or we work as hard as we can to make those people feel right in society. All three people think they are something that they are not, so I feel that societies responses should be consistent either:
1. Treat all 3 cases as mental illness. Realize that mental illnesses exist, and if there is no cure, it is something that must be managed, just as with bi-polar, multiple personality disorder, etc.
2. Celebrate this, and have the person live their lives in their own manner. My male (now female) friend can live and be treated like any woman, that young man (now animal) at the card shop can live and be treated like a wolverine, and that older man (now starship) can be free to pursue a career at NASA as a test shuttle or whatever. (It's an extreme example, so the metaphor doesn't quite hold up)
Now I have no problem with any of the three people. None are hurting anyone, and unless they are disrespectful I have no qualms about interacting with any of them. But why is being a "Trans woman" (used to be man) so much more acceptable than any other form of delusion?
_____
> *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 need to show support or acceptance of Trans individuals. Let me preface this by stating that I don't believe in judging, shunning, or harassing people because of who they are, I just don't know why their choices are a thing to be celebrated and supported?
Stories:
* I was walking down the street in a large city and there was a homeless man sitting in a corner mumbling about how he was a starship flying through space. I pitied him, as he (seemed) to genuinely believe that he was an actual starship, and assuming no drugs were involved, I expect most of society also does.
* A young man who frequents a card shop I visit believes himself to be a wolverine. Not the marvel superhero, an actual badger-like creature indigenous to the Adirondacks of upstate New York. Most people treat him rather poorly, as he acts like a wild animal fairly often, but I also pity him as he truly believes he is a wolverine.
* A previously homosexual, previously male friend of mine recently came out as "trans" meaning that he(now she) would like to live life as a woman. Society seems to say that this should be celebrated, that this is a brave and good act.
I view all these 3 stories as on the same spectrum and should be treated the same. Either we treat all three as varying levels of delusion/mental illness, or we work as hard as we can to make those people feel right in society. All three people think they are something that they are not, so I feel that societies responses should be consistent either:
1. Treat all 3 cases as mental illness. Realize that mental illnesses exist, and if there is no cure, it is something that must be managed, just as with bi-polar, multiple personality disorder, etc.
2. Celebrate this, and have the person live their lives in their own manner. My male (now female) friend can live and be treated like any woman, that young man (now animal) at the card shop can live and be treated like a wolverine, and that older man (now starship) can be free to pursue a career at NASA as a test shuttle or whatever. (It's an extreme example, so the metaphor doesn't quite hold up)
Now I have no problem with any of the three people. None are hurting anyone, and unless they are disrespectful I have no qualms about interacting with any of them. But why is being a "Trans woman" (used to be man) so much more acceptable than any other form of delusion? |
t3_2bwada | CMV: Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the state of Israel should not end their operation until Hamas is disabled or they agree to a disbarment. | edit: Just realized I misspelled disarmament :(
Basically I have the same opinion as former US ambassador to Israel Michael Oren, in that Isreal should crush Hamas no matter the cost. [1] While I believe Israel should not attempt to specifically target civilians, they should also not avoid civilian casualties as long as the strike that killed them furthers the goal of destroying Hamas.
I believe that elections have consequences, and while Hamas was not elected by the majority, a 44.45% vote was apparently enough to make them the legal government. [2] This vote was not rigged, as I understand it, as there were multiple third party spectators that confirmed it.
I believe that democracy has consequences, and one of those consequences is that sometimes laws are passed or decisions are mad that some do not agree with. Everyone deals with these consequences afterwards even if they are good or bad. The argument that some Palestinians did not vote for Hamas does not sway me.
While the argument that Israel was not receiving significant casualties from launched Hamas missiles due to the iron dome, this defense systems costs a lot of money. The tunnels that Hamas was building to strike at Israel on the other hand are far more worrisome as these had the real potential for large civilian casualties.
I am a supporter that in war, one must make the decisions that saves as many of your own countries people. In WWII we made the decision to launch two nukes on two Japanese cities in order to decrease american casualties in an invasion. I believe that this was the correct decision despite the large loss of civilian life it caused, because in the end it did save American soldiers lives.
I would want my own country to look out for it's own interests and not the interests of others.
Some may argue that Israel is playing into Hamas's hands by allowing Israel to receive bad press and worsening international opinion. I believe that this is only a factor if Israel does not go all the way and destroy Hamas. Backing out now without the gain of destroying Hamas with all of this bad press is exactly what Hamas would want.
Please reddit, CMV!
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-oren-israel-must-be-permitted-to-crush-hamas/2014/07/24/bd9967fc-1350-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006
_____
> *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: Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the state of Israel should not end their operation until Hamas is disabled or they agree to a disbarment. edit: Just realized I misspelled disarmament :(
Basically I have the same opinion as former US ambassador to Israel Michael Oren, in that Isreal should crush Hamas no matter the cost. [1] While I believe Israel should not attempt to specifically target civilians, they should also not avoid civilian casualties as long as the strike that killed them furthers the goal of destroying Hamas.
I believe that elections have consequences, and while Hamas was not elected by the majority, a 44.45% vote was apparently enough to make them the legal government. [2] This vote was not rigged, as I understand it, as there were multiple third party spectators that confirmed it.
I believe that democracy has consequences, and one of those consequences is that sometimes laws are passed or decisions are mad that some do not agree with. Everyone deals with these consequences afterwards even if they are good or bad. The argument that some Palestinians did not vote for Hamas does not sway me.
While the argument that Israel was not receiving significant casualties from launched Hamas missiles due to the iron dome, this defense systems costs a lot of money. The tunnels that Hamas was building to strike at Israel on the other hand are far more worrisome as these had the real potential for large civilian casualties.
I am a supporter that in war, one must make the decisions that saves as many of your own countries people. In WWII we made the decision to launch two nukes on two Japanese cities in order to decrease american casualties in an invasion. I believe that this was the correct decision despite the large loss of civilian life it caused, because in the end it did save American soldiers lives.
I would want my own country to look out for it's own interests and not the interests of others.
Some may argue that Israel is playing into Hamas's hands by allowing Israel to receive bad press and worsening international opinion. I believe that this is only a factor if Israel does not go all the way and destroy Hamas. Backing out now without the gain of destroying Hamas with all of this bad press is exactly what Hamas would want.
Please reddit, CMV!
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-oren-israel-must-be-permitted-to-crush-hamas/2014/07/24/bd9967fc-1350-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006
|
t3_1ykmd0 | I believe that the death penalty is less of a "punishment" for crimes than life in prison. CMV. | Sentencing a murderer to death is less of retribution for their crimes than giving them life in prison. The procedure for criminals sentenced to death is meant to be quick, peaceful, and painless. On the other hand, life in prison is almost always hell. I'm not concerned here with whether murderers should be made to suffer or not, that's besides the point. My main point is that the death penalty is considered the most severe punishment, but it is far from it. The process is supposed to be peaceful (I am aware that some people have argued that it isn't, but again, I am only concerned with the thought process behind the decision-making).
**The fact is that death itself is not seen as something that induces suffering for the individual, while rotting in prison is. People always say that the mass-shooters should get the death penalty. But our satisfaction comes from witnessing retribution, doesn't it? We want killers to *pay* for what they've done, and taking their lives does nothing to advance that wish.** | I believe that the death penalty is less of a "punishment" for crimes than life in prison. CMV. Sentencing a murderer to death is less of retribution for their crimes than giving them life in prison. The procedure for criminals sentenced to death is meant to be quick, peaceful, and painless. On the other hand, life in prison is almost always hell. I'm not concerned here with whether murderers should be made to suffer or not, that's besides the point. My main point is that the death penalty is considered the most severe punishment, but it is far from it. The process is supposed to be peaceful (I am aware that some people have argued that it isn't, but again, I am only concerned with the thought process behind the decision-making).
**The fact is that death itself is not seen as something that induces suffering for the individual, while rotting in prison is. People always say that the mass-shooters should get the death penalty. But our satisfaction comes from witnessing retribution, doesn't it? We want killers to *pay* for what they've done, and taking their lives does nothing to advance that wish.** |
t3_5fizte | CMV: There will be an Order 66-type massacre against Muslims by the end of the 21rst century. | Reasons:
1. It is basically a race between integrating Muslims into society and terrorism attacks/the War on Terror at this point. North America is more spared due to geography, but the level of terrorism will probably continue to increase exponentially. It is quite easy to extrapolate this (especially given the rise in counter-attacks and burkini bans, etc. by whites). Meanwhile, there has not been nearly enough outreach on the part of Westerners to reach out to Muslims.
2. Many Jews and Jewish organizations, who are products of the Holocaust, are fearful that Muslims will be marginalized and massacre because they are now seeing history repeat itself.
3. Many Muslims think that the West wants to reform Islam, reducing it to a false shadow of itself when there is no reason for it to do so. These religious and philosophical differences between Muslims and Westerners have and will result in increased tensions.
Edit:
Sources:
Counterattacks/ counterterrorism:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/9/us-muslims-experience-surge-in-islamophobic-attacks.html
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/americans-muslim-making.html
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/campaign-donalds-defeat.html
Jewish orgs:
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/network-against-islamophobia/
https://www.facebook.com/Jews-Against-Islamophobia-Coalition-336413369790913/
https://jewssayno.org/category/jews-against-islamophobia/
| CMV: There will be an Order 66-type massacre against Muslims by the end of the 21rst century. Reasons:
1. It is basically a race between integrating Muslims into society and terrorism attacks/the War on Terror at this point. North America is more spared due to geography, but the level of terrorism will probably continue to increase exponentially. It is quite easy to extrapolate this (especially given the rise in counter-attacks and burkini bans, etc. by whites). Meanwhile, there has not been nearly enough outreach on the part of Westerners to reach out to Muslims.
2. Many Jews and Jewish organizations, who are products of the Holocaust, are fearful that Muslims will be marginalized and massacre because they are now seeing history repeat itself.
3. Many Muslims think that the West wants to reform Islam, reducing it to a false shadow of itself when there is no reason for it to do so. These religious and philosophical differences between Muslims and Westerners have and will result in increased tensions.
Edit:
Sources:
Counterattacks/ counterterrorism:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/9/us-muslims-experience-surge-in-islamophobic-attacks.html
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/americans-muslim-making.html
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/campaign-donalds-defeat.html
Jewish orgs:
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/network-against-islamophobia/
https://www.facebook.com/Jews-Against-Islamophobia-Coalition-336413369790913/
https://jewssayno.org/category/jews-against-islamophobia/
|
t3_4uylvf | CMV: Daily vloggers on Youtube are characters playing a role and viewers have no right to complain about what they do as long as it isn't immoral or illegal | I want to start off by saying that I'm a fan of daily vloggers. So I totally understand what it's like to be part of their community and I understand why people like to watch the lives of these people.
Now back to my point. I see comments on plenty of daily vloggers video where people offer their unsolicited advice about things that they have no right to be suggesting.
Examples of comments that people leave:
1. Parenting advice (Shaytards videos)
2. Financial advice/complaining about how equipment is treated (Casey Neistat)
3. Complaints that they are copying another YouTuber's editing style (Woodysgamertag)
It's really not the responsibility of viewers to offer this kind of advice unless the content creator asks them for it.
In my opinion, this need to criticize every aspect of their lives comes from the fact that people think this is truly their "real" lives.
Many vloggers admit that in a 24 hour day, they maybe have cameras rolling for a couple hours.
Additionally, many vloggers wouldn't be doing most of the stuff they do if they weren't making money off YouTube. Shay Carl wouldn't have bought his huge property and built a soccer field on it if he wasn't making money from recording these activities. Tmartn wouldn't be going to Disney everyday to play Pokemon Go if he had a normal 9-5 job. Woodysgamertag wouldn't be paramotoring in the middle of the day if he had a "regular" job.
Based on these two points, we should consider vloggers to be characters playing themselves instead of seeing them as 100% authentic people that just happen to be recording themselves.
So I guess the way to CMV would be to explain why we should see vloggers as being completely genuine. Is there a way to know these people are being themselves or if they're playing a character? Furthermore, is there a reason people should be so invested in the vloggers' communities that they truly think they are a part of the vloggers' lives?
TL;DR While they create great content, YouTube vloggers are essentially a character so it's pointless to give them advice/complain about what they do unless it's immoral or illegal because it's simply part of the character they portray.
Edit: spelling | CMV: Daily vloggers on Youtube are characters playing a role and viewers have no right to complain about what they do as long as it isn't immoral or illegal. I want to start off by saying that I'm a fan of daily vloggers. So I totally understand what it's like to be part of their community and I understand why people like to watch the lives of these people.
Now back to my point. I see comments on plenty of daily vloggers video where people offer their unsolicited advice about things that they have no right to be suggesting.
Examples of comments that people leave:
1. Parenting advice (Shaytards videos)
2. Financial advice/complaining about how equipment is treated (Casey Neistat)
3. Complaints that they are copying another YouTuber's editing style (Woodysgamertag)
It's really not the responsibility of viewers to offer this kind of advice unless the content creator asks them for it.
In my opinion, this need to criticize every aspect of their lives comes from the fact that people think this is truly their "real" lives.
Many vloggers admit that in a 24 hour day, they maybe have cameras rolling for a couple hours.
Additionally, many vloggers wouldn't be doing most of the stuff they do if they weren't making money off YouTube. Shay Carl wouldn't have bought his huge property and built a soccer field on it if he wasn't making money from recording these activities. Tmartn wouldn't be going to Disney everyday to play Pokemon Go if he had a normal 9-5 job. Woodysgamertag wouldn't be paramotoring in the middle of the day if he had a "regular" job.
Based on these two points, we should consider vloggers to be characters playing themselves instead of seeing them as 100% authentic people that just happen to be recording themselves.
So I guess the way to CMV would be to explain why we should see vloggers as being completely genuine. Is there a way to know these people are being themselves or if they're playing a character? Furthermore, is there a reason people should be so invested in the vloggers' communities that they truly think they are a part of the vloggers' lives?
TL;DR While they create great content, YouTube vloggers are essentially a character so it's pointless to give them advice/complain about what they do unless it's immoral or illegal because it's simply part of the character they portray.
Edit: spelling |
t3_72dp45 | CMV: Cows are overrated. | Why does everybody like cows so much?
Only hearing praise and I’ve had enough
I mean to be frank, I don’t really see the appeal
They’re just big grose blocks stinking up our fields
And our atmosphere. Like climate change
With the methane gas that they love to make
So when you say that you love cows
maybe cool it down, look around, cause our world’s at stake.
Sorry. Time to stop playing pretend.
The cow next door is not your friend.
Be wary next time you’re at her enclosure,
she wants nothing more than to run you over
Wanna be safe, heed my advice:
Cows aren’t all that nice.
And in my thoughts, I know I’m not by myself
Cause I’m not the only one drinking almond milk
Now you might be thinking,
[“But these cows are super cute!”](http://www.joinselfie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/enhanced-25470-1418056453-11.jpg)
As if being cute isn’t something
All animals can do,
But even when it comes to cuteness, cows come out the losers
Here’s a list of 21 animals that are cuter.
[Dogs](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/411995497096695808/Pr8TCx9u.jpeg) & [Cats](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W-PBFMECvTE/maxresdefault.jpg) & [Ducks](https://68.media.tumblr.com/17950a6e377d4f0e57ac9064c919c366/tumblr_oll71rwFPH1u6kbs9o1_500.jpg) & [Sheep](https://static.naamapalmu.com/files/j6/big/clwl1a9j.jpg) & [Pigs](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ikw5HhxC5UM/hqdefault.jpg) & [Lambs](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uaRtYNmAvSI/hqdefault.jpg) & [Fish](http://hdblackwallpaper.com/wallpaper/2015/12/cute-fish-8-free-wallpaper.jpg)
[Horses](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/79/65/b379655bd708ee0f90f145598f8f52e8.jpg), [Dolphins](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/e1/42/a3e142a3a4195eeac0fd53c309f039bd.jpg), [Pandas](http://www.lovethesepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Baby-giant-panda-cub.jpg), [Donkeys](https://www.askideas.com/media/39/Donkey-With-Closeup-Face-Funny-Image.jpg), [Alpacas](https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cute-funny-alpacas-102-58c6513013f76__605.jpg), & [Elephants](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/95/3b/71/953b719404df6ee4633be74d9186debf.jpg)
[Foxes](http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images/14634/lifebuzz-d3da352dc7a18bcf4a7d0122630e0e9e-thumb_400.jpg), [Zebras](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/14/65/001465bec156998e548603b9bae055d6.jpg), [Penguins](http://www.awesomelycute.com/gallery/2015/05/cute-baby-penguin-8.jpg), [Rabbits](http://www.cuded.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/23-Bunny-Picture.jpg), [Chickens](http://tailandfur.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/40-Funny-and-Cute-Ideas-Of-Chicken-Pictures-11.jpg), [Kangaroos](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SQuakn0wibw/hqdefault.jpg), and [Sloths](http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/357654492_1280x720.jpg)
Even [lions](http://justcuteanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Cute-Lion-Cubs-animals-pictures-pics.jpg) are cuter than these dumb ugly blocks
| CMV: Cows are overrated. Why does everybody like cows so much?
Only hearing praise and I’ve had enough
I mean to be frank, I don’t really see the appeal
They’re just big grose blocks stinking up our fields
And our atmosphere. Like climate change
With the methane gas that they love to make
So when you say that you love cows
maybe cool it down, look around, cause our world’s at stake.
Sorry. Time to stop playing pretend.
The cow next door is not your friend.
Be wary next time you’re at her enclosure,
she wants nothing more than to run you over
Wanna be safe, heed my advice:
Cows aren’t all that nice.
And in my thoughts, I know I’m not by myself
Cause I’m not the only one drinking almond milk
Now you might be thinking,
[“But these cows are super cute!”](http://www.joinselfie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/enhanced-25470-1418056453-11.jpg)
As if being cute isn’t something
All animals can do,
But even when it comes to cuteness, cows come out the losers
Here’s a list of 21 animals that are cuter.
[Dogs](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/411995497096695808/Pr8TCx9u.jpeg) & [Cats](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W-PBFMECvTE/maxresdefault.jpg) & [Ducks](https://68.media.tumblr.com/17950a6e377d4f0e57ac9064c919c366/tumblr_oll71rwFPH1u6kbs9o1_500.jpg) & [Sheep](https://static.naamapalmu.com/files/j6/big/clwl1a9j.jpg) & [Pigs](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ikw5HhxC5UM/hqdefault.jpg) & [Lambs](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uaRtYNmAvSI/hqdefault.jpg) & [Fish](http://hdblackwallpaper.com/wallpaper/2015/12/cute-fish-8-free-wallpaper.jpg)
[Horses](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/79/65/b379655bd708ee0f90f145598f8f52e8.jpg), [Dolphins](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/e1/42/a3e142a3a4195eeac0fd53c309f039bd.jpg), [Pandas](http://www.lovethesepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Baby-giant-panda-cub.jpg), [Donkeys](https://www.askideas.com/media/39/Donkey-With-Closeup-Face-Funny-Image.jpg), [Alpacas](https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cute-funny-alpacas-102-58c6513013f76__605.jpg), & [Elephants](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/95/3b/71/953b719404df6ee4633be74d9186debf.jpg)
[Foxes](http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images/14634/lifebuzz-d3da352dc7a18bcf4a7d0122630e0e9e-thumb_400.jpg), [Zebras](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/14/65/001465bec156998e548603b9bae055d6.jpg), [Penguins](http://www.awesomelycute.com/gallery/2015/05/cute-baby-penguin-8.jpg), [Rabbits](http://www.cuded.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/23-Bunny-Picture.jpg), [Chickens](http://tailandfur.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/40-Funny-and-Cute-Ideas-Of-Chicken-Pictures-11.jpg), [Kangaroos](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SQuakn0wibw/hqdefault.jpg), and [Sloths](http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/357654492_1280x720.jpg)
Even [lions](http://justcuteanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Cute-Lion-Cubs-animals-pictures-pics.jpg) are cuter than these dumb ugly blocks
|
t3_4j7m9x | CMV: Maybe I'm not totally opposed to the anti-vaccination movement... | This might be a horrible thing to say, but here it goes: anti-vaccination is the new-age "natural selection." Those who don't listen to modern medicine or call it all a rouse, will eventually and ultimately die off due to any number of causes or results of not being vaccinated. Cruel that the children of parents who do not vax have to suffer, but who is to say they wouldn't follow along with what their parents (who more than likely were vaccinated early in their life) believe? It comes down to whether is irrational belief is learned or if it has something to do with intelligence.
I also understand a huge importance of vaccination is herd immunity and keeping those who cannot be vaccinated (due to congenital problems, disease, etc.) safe from disease.
I guess, my opinion isn't solid and I'm more on the fence about this because of all the suffering occurring due to this moronic movement. Let's have a go Reddit, sway me to be less cynical. I'm very curious and excited just hear people's opinions on this matter!
EDIT:
My viewpoint has changed. Thanks. If you wanna see my chance, check out where I have deltas. | CMV: Maybe I'm not totally opposed to the anti-vaccination movement... This might be a horrible thing to say, but here it goes: anti-vaccination is the new-age "natural selection." Those who don't listen to modern medicine or call it all a rouse, will eventually and ultimately die off due to any number of causes or results of not being vaccinated. Cruel that the children of parents who do not vax have to suffer, but who is to say they wouldn't follow along with what their parents (who more than likely were vaccinated early in their life) believe? It comes down to whether is irrational belief is learned or if it has something to do with intelligence.
I also understand a huge importance of vaccination is herd immunity and keeping those who cannot be vaccinated (due to congenital problems, disease, etc.) safe from disease.
I guess, my opinion isn't solid and I'm more on the fence about this because of all the suffering occurring due to this moronic movement. Let's have a go Reddit, sway me to be less cynical. I'm very curious and excited just hear people's opinions on this matter!
EDIT:
My viewpoint has changed. Thanks. If you wanna see my chance, check out where I have deltas. |
t3_4tzizb | CMV: I don't take my job seriously because it hasn't given me a reason to | I was once eager and happy to finally have a job after job hunting forever, but not anymore.
**You** try to deal with that one customer who treats you like dirt, thinks they're always right and overall gives you a hard time. You try dealing with getting attacked by your boss for every minor thing when they're mostly the creator of it. You try dealing with your coworkers who don't want to be there just as much as you do. You try dealing with the sudden changes to the schedule or workload without warning and you're reprimanded if you have a such a small complaint. You try dealing with getting up early, dealing with the stress of traffic and other people on your commute to work. Go through this for years and will eventually start to erode at your work ethic.
So you start to half-a** things, mainly because doing it all correctly would take forever and take much more energy and nobody honestly cares how it gets there. I can tell you from working that even when you do things correctly without slacking off it wouldn't even be noticed regardless. So you begin to half-a** everything and since your boss or coworkers haven't gotten on your case, you get the impression they don't care enough either. There's already so much hostility of forced cohabitation between coworkers and your employer anyways that you can't be bothered to take your job seriously enough to enamor yourself in it. People go in, work for 6-8 hours just to get their paychecks and go home to do something more enjoyable.
The only people who seem to disagree with me are people who are still idealistic towards the working field, have *never* worked, or only worked for a couple of weeks. Let it all wear you down day by day and my point is proven one way or another.
_____
> *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 take my job seriously because it hasn't given me a reason to. I was once eager and happy to finally have a job after job hunting forever, but not anymore.
**You** try to deal with that one customer who treats you like dirt, thinks they're always right and overall gives you a hard time. You try dealing with getting attacked by your boss for every minor thing when they're mostly the creator of it. You try dealing with your coworkers who don't want to be there just as much as you do. You try dealing with the sudden changes to the schedule or workload without warning and you're reprimanded if you have a such a small complaint. You try dealing with getting up early, dealing with the stress of traffic and other people on your commute to work. Go through this for years and will eventually start to erode at your work ethic.
So you start to half-a** things, mainly because doing it all correctly would take forever and take much more energy and nobody honestly cares how it gets there. I can tell you from working that even when you do things correctly without slacking off it wouldn't even be noticed regardless. So you begin to half-a** everything and since your boss or coworkers haven't gotten on your case, you get the impression they don't care enough either. There's already so much hostility of forced cohabitation between coworkers and your employer anyways that you can't be bothered to take your job seriously enough to enamor yourself in it. People go in, work for 6-8 hours just to get their paychecks and go home to do something more enjoyable.
The only people who seem to disagree with me are people who are still idealistic towards the working field, have *never* worked, or only worked for a couple of weeks. Let it all wear you down day by day and my point is proven one way or another.
|
t3_1f54wl | I think that the "Everybody wins" attitude that is projected upon children is harmful to us as a people, making us weaker. CMV. | I'm not sure about in other countries, but I know the United States, there are many different situations where people try to accommodate other people's, mainly children's, feelings by holding the attitude that "everybody can win" at stuff.
Like giving out participation medals during competitions, allowing everyone to make the team without trying out, letting children win on purpose, etc.
I honestly think it's making us weaker as a whole. It raises children to expect things to be handed to them, and that they can win without trying, and it encourages laziness and children acting like brats when they don't win. I think this is harmful, and that children need to be raised with the understanding that they may not always win, and that they should work harder so they can win. They tend to act out when they lose or don't get an award, even when they don't deserve one. I think this is a major problem with our society currently.
Change My View.
| I think that the "Everybody wins" attitude that is projected upon children is harmful to us as a people, making us weaker. CMV. I'm not sure about in other countries, but I know the United States, there are many different situations where people try to accommodate other people's, mainly children's, feelings by holding the attitude that "everybody can win" at stuff.
Like giving out participation medals during competitions, allowing everyone to make the team without trying out, letting children win on purpose, etc.
I honestly think it's making us weaker as a whole. It raises children to expect things to be handed to them, and that they can win without trying, and it encourages laziness and children acting like brats when they don't win. I think this is harmful, and that children need to be raised with the understanding that they may not always win, and that they should work harder so they can win. They tend to act out when they lose or don't get an award, even when they don't deserve one. I think this is a major problem with our society currently.
Change My View.
|
t3_1qgmqm | I believe that much of what Libertarians believe to be true is malarkey. It is based on the unsubstantiated premise that all government is evil. CMV | **Edit**: I awarded a delta already because I realized that my whole post was broad, unfalsifiable, and failed to actually accurately explain what I believe anyway. I posted this on a whim and now I'm wishing I had put more thought into it before posting. It has prompted some cool conversations that I would love to continue, but I am currently quite busy. I will respond in due time.
I have a friend in my new apartment that is an avid libertarian. To be clear, I read the sidebar and am not asking you to debate me acting as him. I am asking you to show me where I am wrong so that I can be more confident in our future conversations. I just am hesitant to speak unless I feel confidant that there are no logical fallacies in my beliefs.
I believe that the problem is not big government, but unaccountable government. And that even if we were to reduce to country to anarchy, some power structure would eventually pop up to replace it. I believe that the EPA and FDA are necessary, though in desperate need of reform. And I believe that socialized healthcare, not the unholy chimera we have now, is the most fiscally effective and functional way to allocate healthcare, considering that not dying is the most price inelastic good there is.
He claims to be small l libertarian, but his views typically seem to be very much in line with big L. He is actually quite informed on politics. In many ways, more than me. (I couldn't name many current acting legislators or their policy initiatives. I can follow issues and the current arguments for different opinions. Just not the names or details and other specifics.) And he is much more forceful in our conversations, which he seems to believe need to be debates or arguments. I prefer to hash things out bit by bit more calmly.
For one example of when his arguments are not very cogent, he believes that the FDA and EPA should be completely dismantled and left to states. I tried to explain that without the FDA, we would have the whole ~~snake oil~~ dietary supplements and alternative medicine market masquerading as real science by real doctors who could line their pockets with no repercussions. And that West Virginia legislators are never going to do anything the reduce the efficiency and profitability of mining no matter how much damage to the planet it could prevent.
After the whole countdown to the debt ceiling, he was upset that his guys didn't hold out longer. "They would have folded if we had just held out longer!" To which I replied that they I think they were holding the government hostage in order to force their minority beliefs onto the majority and that the whole thing has already caused damage to our reputation and financial standing. Regardless of if they are correct, it is the wrong way to approach it. He said that it is perfectly legal, not unlike filibustering, and that a collapse now is better than if we keep spending and collapse later. And while I think that his understanding of government debt is likely confused, I don't think that explaining that would change the fact that it all seems like a big ponsi scheme to me. And I couldn't really argue with him on the filibustering point considering how happy I was when the Texas abortion restrictions were filibustered.
But reason I enjoy talking to him so much is that he isn't entirely unwilling to change his view like most libertarians I have spoken to, and he frequently presents views I hadn't previously thought of. He is just stubborn. But his abortion views are shifting. And I did get him to admit that broad deregulation would likely necessitate the end of the corporate entity. It isn't that he won't change his mind. He is just stubborn.
I am not a libertarian. CMV. | I believe that much of what Libertarians believe to be true is malarkey. It is based on the unsubstantiated premise that all government is evil. CMV. **Edit**: I awarded a delta already because I realized that my whole post was broad, unfalsifiable, and failed to actually accurately explain what I believe anyway. I posted this on a whim and now I'm wishing I had put more thought into it before posting. It has prompted some cool conversations that I would love to continue, but I am currently quite busy. I will respond in due time.
I have a friend in my new apartment that is an avid libertarian. To be clear, I read the sidebar and am not asking you to debate me acting as him. I am asking you to show me where I am wrong so that I can be more confident in our future conversations. I just am hesitant to speak unless I feel confidant that there are no logical fallacies in my beliefs.
I believe that the problem is not big government, but unaccountable government. And that even if we were to reduce to country to anarchy, some power structure would eventually pop up to replace it. I believe that the EPA and FDA are necessary, though in desperate need of reform. And I believe that socialized healthcare, not the unholy chimera we have now, is the most fiscally effective and functional way to allocate healthcare, considering that not dying is the most price inelastic good there is.
He claims to be small l libertarian, but his views typically seem to be very much in line with big L. He is actually quite informed on politics. In many ways, more than me. (I couldn't name many current acting legislators or their policy initiatives. I can follow issues and the current arguments for different opinions. Just not the names or details and other specifics.) And he is much more forceful in our conversations, which he seems to believe need to be debates or arguments. I prefer to hash things out bit by bit more calmly.
For one example of when his arguments are not very cogent, he believes that the FDA and EPA should be completely dismantled and left to states. I tried to explain that without the FDA, we would have the whole ~~snake oil~~ dietary supplements and alternative medicine market masquerading as real science by real doctors who could line their pockets with no repercussions. And that West Virginia legislators are never going to do anything the reduce the efficiency and profitability of mining no matter how much damage to the planet it could prevent.
After the whole countdown to the debt ceiling, he was upset that his guys didn't hold out longer. "They would have folded if we had just held out longer!" To which I replied that they I think they were holding the government hostage in order to force their minority beliefs onto the majority and that the whole thing has already caused damage to our reputation and financial standing. Regardless of if they are correct, it is the wrong way to approach it. He said that it is perfectly legal, not unlike filibustering, and that a collapse now is better than if we keep spending and collapse later. And while I think that his understanding of government debt is likely confused, I don't think that explaining that would change the fact that it all seems like a big ponsi scheme to me. And I couldn't really argue with him on the filibustering point considering how happy I was when the Texas abortion restrictions were filibustered.
But reason I enjoy talking to him so much is that he isn't entirely unwilling to change his view like most libertarians I have spoken to, and he frequently presents views I hadn't previously thought of. He is just stubborn. But his abortion views are shifting. And I did get him to admit that broad deregulation would likely necessitate the end of the corporate entity. It isn't that he won't change his mind. He is just stubborn.
I am not a libertarian. CMV. |
t3_572n81 | CMV: the adblock devs are basically just stealing from advertisers and people who rely on advertising. | Adblock is a tool that stops money from going to advertisers and all sorts of other industries (eg. journalism), and they make money off it.
How is this even legal? I looked it up and it has been taken to court and the devs won the case. I dont understand how a software that is designed to profit from other peoples financial loss can be seen as anything other than stealing, and their thinly veiled attempt to market it as something thats good for everyone makes it worse.
What am I missing? How can it be legal to write a software that is designed to interfere with other peoples profits and make money off it?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: the adblock devs are basically just stealing from advertisers and people who rely on advertising. Adblock is a tool that stops money from going to advertisers and all sorts of other industries (eg. journalism), and they make money off it.
How is this even legal? I looked it up and it has been taken to court and the devs won the case. I dont understand how a software that is designed to profit from other peoples financial loss can be seen as anything other than stealing, and their thinly veiled attempt to market it as something thats good for everyone makes it worse.
What am I missing? How can it be legal to write a software that is designed to interfere with other peoples profits and make money off it? |
t3_1cq2kh | I don't think it's possible to cure a clinically depressed person without meds. CMV | A lot of people hate on "BIG PHARMA" and I've encountered quite a few who claim that *"of course depression can be cured naturally, what else did they do 100 years ago?"*
I personally think that severily depressed people killed themselves before and or never got better...
I am talking about someone who is very depressed, perhaps on the verge of suicide and completley apathic. How can you treat a person like that without meds? How could you possibly get a unmotivated person to do anything that would make him better?
It's quite clear that there is something *physically* different about their brains when in this depressed state vs. a healthy person and so only meds can change that and cure them | I don't think it's possible to cure a clinically depressed person without meds. CMV. A lot of people hate on "BIG PHARMA" and I've encountered quite a few who claim that *"of course depression can be cured naturally, what else did they do 100 years ago?"*
I personally think that severily depressed people killed themselves before and or never got better...
I am talking about someone who is very depressed, perhaps on the verge of suicide and completley apathic. How can you treat a person like that without meds? How could you possibly get a unmotivated person to do anything that would make him better?
It's quite clear that there is something *physically* different about their brains when in this depressed state vs. a healthy person and so only meds can change that and cure them |
t3_1tnj3g | I believe the video game community is toxic because video games by their nature attract toxic people. CMV | I was driven to write this when I learned on Jimquisition that there are two fresh new incidents of women in the game industry receiving rape threats for speaking their opinions.
Disclaimer 1: I play a lot of video games, so I'm not some rambling old man yelling at the kids to get off my lawn. I mostly play indie and Nintendo games, but I am by any standards a "gamer." I am well aware that there are numerous high quality games that genuinely engage or challenge players, such as Minecraft, Portal, DDR, Wii Sports, Planescape Torment, etc. My ire is mostly aimed at the "junk" games like Call of Duty and the kinds of people these games attract.
Disclaimer 2: I think the majority of gamers are great people. When I talk about toxic gamers, I am referring specifically to the people who start flame wars online, harass people on their headsets, and send rape threats to women they disagree with. Even though the bad gamers are in the minority, they unfortunately set the tone for the community by virtue of being the loudest.
I believe the reason that certain nerdy hobbies, like video games, seem to attract obnoxious, toxic people while other nerdy hobbies, like board games and D&D, do not, is because many popular video games are designed to appeal to the absolute bottom of the barrel of humanity. They require no critical thinking, no physical skills (hand-eye coordination doesn't count), no social skills (screaming obscenities at 12-year-olds doesn't count), no creative skills, and generally no real effort whatsoever. A lot of AAA games nowadays basically just inject as much immediate gratification as possible into your eyeballs. There is nothing inherently wrong with a hobby that requires nothing from you, but it becomes a problem when it's the only thing you do and your mind starts to rot. So the people with no real intellectual, physical, creative, or social skills get drawn to video games as their primary hobby, they never make any effort to better themselves, and the worst of the worst become the toxic gamers that have stained the community.
So what do you think? Are video games inherently a lower form of entertainment than other nerdy hobbies, or do the terrible people in the video game community just get more attention? CMV | I believe the video game community is toxic because video games by their nature attract toxic people. CMV. I was driven to write this when I learned on Jimquisition that there are two fresh new incidents of women in the game industry receiving rape threats for speaking their opinions.
Disclaimer 1: I play a lot of video games, so I'm not some rambling old man yelling at the kids to get off my lawn. I mostly play indie and Nintendo games, but I am by any standards a "gamer." I am well aware that there are numerous high quality games that genuinely engage or challenge players, such as Minecraft, Portal, DDR, Wii Sports, Planescape Torment, etc. My ire is mostly aimed at the "junk" games like Call of Duty and the kinds of people these games attract.
Disclaimer 2: I think the majority of gamers are great people. When I talk about toxic gamers, I am referring specifically to the people who start flame wars online, harass people on their headsets, and send rape threats to women they disagree with. Even though the bad gamers are in the minority, they unfortunately set the tone for the community by virtue of being the loudest.
I believe the reason that certain nerdy hobbies, like video games, seem to attract obnoxious, toxic people while other nerdy hobbies, like board games and D&D, do not, is because many popular video games are designed to appeal to the absolute bottom of the barrel of humanity. They require no critical thinking, no physical skills (hand-eye coordination doesn't count), no social skills (screaming obscenities at 12-year-olds doesn't count), no creative skills, and generally no real effort whatsoever. A lot of AAA games nowadays basically just inject as much immediate gratification as possible into your eyeballs. There is nothing inherently wrong with a hobby that requires nothing from you, but it becomes a problem when it's the only thing you do and your mind starts to rot. So the people with no real intellectual, physical, creative, or social skills get drawn to video games as their primary hobby, they never make any effort to better themselves, and the worst of the worst become the toxic gamers that have stained the community.
So what do you think? Are video games inherently a lower form of entertainment than other nerdy hobbies, or do the terrible people in the video game community just get more attention? CMV |
t3_2cdidf | CMV: I see no point in peeling my string cheese into little strands before eating it. | When I want to eat string cheese, I just open it from the wrapper and bite into it. I don't understand why I need to rip off little strands of cheese to eat. My reasoning:
* I eat my cheese because I'm hungry or I'm looking for a protein fix. I don't need to dawdle and waste more time peeling little bits of cheese to eat. I'm a busy graduate student with things to do.
* Eating it right out of the wrapper means that I touch it less and it's more sanitary. In fact, if I open the wrapper properly, I can just peel back the wrapper like a banana peel and my fingers don't touch the cheese at all.
* Playing with my food does not interest me...at all. I understand how little 6 year old me would love spending time and peeling the cheese and playing with it by letting it dangle to the outside of my mouth, but I don't find that fun anymore. In fact, I'd much rather just eat my cheese quickly and go back to playing borderlands 2. In fact, if someone saw 30 year old me playing with my string cheese by letting it dangle out of my mouth, I'm sure I'd be admonished for it.
* If I had packed cheddar cheese sticks rather than mozzarella string cheese, there would be no expectation for me to shred it with my fingers. In fact, it's perfectly normal to bite into a cheddar cheese stick and eat it in chunks. In my mind, there's no reason why I couldn't do the same with a mozzarella string cheese stick.
* I understand that there's a process to making string cheese so that all the cheese proteins align so they can peel apart easily. However, they don't sell "normal" low moisture mozarella cheese in convenient single serving packages - it only comes in "string cheese" form.
I'm looking forward to reading responses about the pros of peeling your string cheese before eating 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 see no point in peeling my string cheese into little strands before eating it. When I want to eat string cheese, I just open it from the wrapper and bite into it. I don't understand why I need to rip off little strands of cheese to eat. My reasoning:
* I eat my cheese because I'm hungry or I'm looking for a protein fix. I don't need to dawdle and waste more time peeling little bits of cheese to eat. I'm a busy graduate student with things to do.
* Eating it right out of the wrapper means that I touch it less and it's more sanitary. In fact, if I open the wrapper properly, I can just peel back the wrapper like a banana peel and my fingers don't touch the cheese at all.
* Playing with my food does not interest me...at all. I understand how little 6 year old me would love spending time and peeling the cheese and playing with it by letting it dangle to the outside of my mouth, but I don't find that fun anymore. In fact, I'd much rather just eat my cheese quickly and go back to playing borderlands 2. In fact, if someone saw 30 year old me playing with my string cheese by letting it dangle out of my mouth, I'm sure I'd be admonished for it.
* If I had packed cheddar cheese sticks rather than mozzarella string cheese, there would be no expectation for me to shred it with my fingers. In fact, it's perfectly normal to bite into a cheddar cheese stick and eat it in chunks. In my mind, there's no reason why I couldn't do the same with a mozzarella string cheese stick.
* I understand that there's a process to making string cheese so that all the cheese proteins align so they can peel apart easily. However, they don't sell "normal" low moisture mozarella cheese in convenient single serving packages - it only comes in "string cheese" form.
I'm looking forward to reading responses about the pros of peeling your string cheese before eating it. |
t3_2dzm7s | CMV: I think we should have mandatory birth minimums and restrictions based on education, military service, awards, income, etc. | So here is my idea. I think that number of births should be based on education and income among other things. If you have no education after highschool you cannot have any children. For each level of income or rung of education a person climbs the have an increase in the max number of children as well as the minimum. Each person has a quota so to speak and a limit. In a couple each persons quota and and limit is combined. i.e. if one can have at most two kids but must have at least one and the other can have one but no minimum then they together can have 3 but a one child minimum.
Here are my guidelines and not at all a comprehensive list.
Highschool degree = Can't have kids unless with someone who can. So two highschoolers = no kids. 1 highschool + 1 bachelor = 2 kid max no min.
Associates degree = 1 kid max, no minimum.
Bachelors degree = 2 kid max, no minimum.
Masters degree = 3 kid max, 1 minimum.
PhD = 4 kid max, 2 minimum.
MD = 5 kid max, 2 minimum.
Standard military service = 2 kid max, no minimum
Honorary discharge = 3 kid max, no minimum.
Extended/continued service past standard = 3 kid max 1 kid minimum.
High ranking (haven't really broke it down yet) = 4 kid max, 2 kid minimum.
$50,000 yearly income Canadian dollars or equivalent. = 1 kid max, no min.
$100,000 = 2 kid max, no min.
$150,000 = 2 kid max, 1 min.
$200,000 = 3 kid max, 1 min.
$250,000 = 3 kid max, 1 min.
Above that it hits 5 max and 2 min.
Awards.
Nobel prize = 5 kid max, 2 min.
Pulitzer = 3 kid max, 1 min
Note this, the minimums are not cumulative per person. i.e I win a nobel, serve extended, have a Phd, and make 1 mil a year I **DO NOT** have to have 7 kids at minimum. Just the highest of all the individual categories. But, I can have the optional cumulative max if desired.
People who can't bear for whatever reason will adopt as anyone who goes over the max has the child taken into custody as I don't support abortion either. Weird combo. Children are actively adopted to families incapable of birthing a child, i.e homosexuals and infertiles.
EDIT: failed to specify enforcement. A fine of 13,000, which is the yearly cost of raising a child, will be implemented if you are under the minimum. Same fine for going over.
I think it will increase desirable people reproducing, motivate people who would otherwise be trailer trash to acheive in order to create an army of toddlers, and will limit people from having more kids than they could reasonable handle and support.
So yeah change my view.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I think we should have mandatory birth minimums and restrictions based on education, military service, awards, income, etc. So here is my idea. I think that number of births should be based on education and income among other things. If you have no education after highschool you cannot have any children. For each level of income or rung of education a person climbs the have an increase in the max number of children as well as the minimum. Each person has a quota so to speak and a limit. In a couple each persons quota and and limit is combined. i.e. if one can have at most two kids but must have at least one and the other can have one but no minimum then they together can have 3 but a one child minimum.
Here are my guidelines and not at all a comprehensive list.
Highschool degree = Can't have kids unless with someone who can. So two highschoolers = no kids. 1 highschool + 1 bachelor = 2 kid max no min.
Associates degree = 1 kid max, no minimum.
Bachelors degree = 2 kid max, no minimum.
Masters degree = 3 kid max, 1 minimum.
PhD = 4 kid max, 2 minimum.
MD = 5 kid max, 2 minimum.
Standard military service = 2 kid max, no minimum
Honorary discharge = 3 kid max, no minimum.
Extended/continued service past standard = 3 kid max 1 kid minimum.
High ranking (haven't really broke it down yet) = 4 kid max, 2 kid minimum.
$50,000 yearly income Canadian dollars or equivalent. = 1 kid max, no min.
$100,000 = 2 kid max, no min.
$150,000 = 2 kid max, 1 min.
$200,000 = 3 kid max, 1 min.
$250,000 = 3 kid max, 1 min.
Above that it hits 5 max and 2 min.
Awards.
Nobel prize = 5 kid max, 2 min.
Pulitzer = 3 kid max, 1 min
Note this, the minimums are not cumulative per person. i.e I win a nobel, serve extended, have a Phd, and make 1 mil a year I **DO NOT** have to have 7 kids at minimum. Just the highest of all the individual categories. But, I can have the optional cumulative max if desired.
People who can't bear for whatever reason will adopt as anyone who goes over the max has the child taken into custody as I don't support abortion either. Weird combo. Children are actively adopted to families incapable of birthing a child, i.e homosexuals and infertiles.
EDIT: failed to specify enforcement. A fine of 13,000, which is the yearly cost of raising a child, will be implemented if you are under the minimum. Same fine for going over.
I think it will increase desirable people reproducing, motivate people who would otherwise be trailer trash to acheive in order to create an army of toddlers, and will limit people from having more kids than they could reasonable handle and support.
So yeah change my view.
|
t3_2a4m08 | CMV: Airlines should hire attractive flight attendants | Like they still do in Asia and perhaps parts of Europe, and used to do in North America, before political correctness infected the culture. I'm not saying appearance should be the only factor - personality, competence, experience should count for more, clearly. I'd take a kindly 3 over a cunty 9 any day. But attractiveness should count for *something*. All else equal, airlines should try to field a beautiful brigade of flight attendants. That should be an explicit goal. And I'm not just talking about women. Attractive men should be favored just like attractive women. I'd make the same case about sales reps, secretaries, hotel clerks, servers and hosts in restaurants, anyone whose role in their organization is to be the *face* of that organization - the meeters, greeters, liaisons, customer service personnel, all the first-impression and last-impression makers. Flight attendants very much play that role in the airline industry. They, more than anyone, are the employees who interface with end consumers, and in close quarters, and sometimes over many hours. Flying is stressful and uncomfortable, especially in God-forsaken coach. Flight attendants who are easy on the eyes provide a degree of pleasantness. They make the ordeal a little more tolerable. And subconsciously they leave customers with a positive impression of the company.
Before you start in on how this outlook is "shaming" to less attractive people, consider all the similar "looks discrimination" we happily embrace. Models, actors, musicians, TV hosts, news anchors. They skew attractive to no small degree, because *beauty matters*. It matters in certain specific, limited, relatively insubstantial contexts. In most situations, I don't care. If I'm going under the knife, I don't give a fuck what my surgeon looks like. If I'm taking a biology course, my professor's appearance is a non-issue. In any substantial professional capacity, I, like any reasonable person, am concerned with competence, reliability, and so on. And people of merit do just fine in this world. There's a ton of jobs at Delta Airlines besides flight attendant, which is one of the *least* interesting ones.
What I'm saying is, on a red-eye from Chicago to Honolulu, give us some damn eye candy. It helps.
*(I may not respond to comments super fast but I will definitely respond.)
_____
> *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: Airlines should hire attractive flight attendants. Like they still do in Asia and perhaps parts of Europe, and used to do in North America, before political correctness infected the culture. I'm not saying appearance should be the only factor - personality, competence, experience should count for more, clearly. I'd take a kindly 3 over a cunty 9 any day. But attractiveness should count for *something*. All else equal, airlines should try to field a beautiful brigade of flight attendants. That should be an explicit goal. And I'm not just talking about women. Attractive men should be favored just like attractive women. I'd make the same case about sales reps, secretaries, hotel clerks, servers and hosts in restaurants, anyone whose role in their organization is to be the *face* of that organization - the meeters, greeters, liaisons, customer service personnel, all the first-impression and last-impression makers. Flight attendants very much play that role in the airline industry. They, more than anyone, are the employees who interface with end consumers, and in close quarters, and sometimes over many hours. Flying is stressful and uncomfortable, especially in God-forsaken coach. Flight attendants who are easy on the eyes provide a degree of pleasantness. They make the ordeal a little more tolerable. And subconsciously they leave customers with a positive impression of the company.
Before you start in on how this outlook is "shaming" to less attractive people, consider all the similar "looks discrimination" we happily embrace. Models, actors, musicians, TV hosts, news anchors. They skew attractive to no small degree, because *beauty matters*. It matters in certain specific, limited, relatively insubstantial contexts. In most situations, I don't care. If I'm going under the knife, I don't give a fuck what my surgeon looks like. If I'm taking a biology course, my professor's appearance is a non-issue. In any substantial professional capacity, I, like any reasonable person, am concerned with competence, reliability, and so on. And people of merit do just fine in this world. There's a ton of jobs at Delta Airlines besides flight attendant, which is one of the *least* interesting ones.
What I'm saying is, on a red-eye from Chicago to Honolulu, give us some damn eye candy. It helps.
*(I may not respond to comments super fast but I will definitely respond.)
|
t3_2g67u8 | CMV: After watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars, I don't think that Star Wars: Rebels can top it. | When Star Wars: TCW first came out in 2008, I was instantly hooked. I watched it expecting mindless fun watching the Jedi kick ass and the clones shoot things up. I couldn't have been more mistaken. What I thought to be a kid's action show on Cartoon Network turned out to be one of the darkest, grittiest, most beautiful series to be called a "kid's show". The animation was absolutely stunning, and I felt that the characters changed and grew as the series progressed. But the crown jewel of this show for me was how mature it was. Seeing main characters get killed and seeing characters dealing with grief (especially in the later seasons) came as a surprise to me. This show could have easily aired on Adult Swim with its maturity level.
Needless to say, when I heard Star Wars: Rebels coming out, I was excited. I wanted to see what happened to the surviving characters in the era of the Galactic Empire. But when I first saw the snippets of the show on YouTube, I was a bit disappointed. The animation isn't as visually appealing. The characters are more kid-like and seemed out of place in the Star Wars universe, especially during a period when the Stormtroopers were an omnipotent and fearful force. I know that the show will air on Disney XD, which isn't saying much. What I hope to see is the return of the maturity that made SW:TCW such a great experience, but I'm not so sure about that now.
Please change my view! I need a new hope! | CMV: After watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars, I don't think that Star Wars: Rebels can top it. When Star Wars: TCW first came out in 2008, I was instantly hooked. I watched it expecting mindless fun watching the Jedi kick ass and the clones shoot things up. I couldn't have been more mistaken. What I thought to be a kid's action show on Cartoon Network turned out to be one of the darkest, grittiest, most beautiful series to be called a "kid's show". The animation was absolutely stunning, and I felt that the characters changed and grew as the series progressed. But the crown jewel of this show for me was how mature it was. Seeing main characters get killed and seeing characters dealing with grief (especially in the later seasons) came as a surprise to me. This show could have easily aired on Adult Swim with its maturity level.
Needless to say, when I heard Star Wars: Rebels coming out, I was excited. I wanted to see what happened to the surviving characters in the era of the Galactic Empire. But when I first saw the snippets of the show on YouTube, I was a bit disappointed. The animation isn't as visually appealing. The characters are more kid-like and seemed out of place in the Star Wars universe, especially during a period when the Stormtroopers were an omnipotent and fearful force. I know that the show will air on Disney XD, which isn't saying much. What I hope to see is the return of the maturity that made SW:TCW such a great experience, but I'm not so sure about that now.
Please change my view! I need a new hope! |
t3_5dg7te | CMV: John Connor is the most evil character in fiction | The accident of human civilisation cannot be sustained, and if it could this wouldn’t be desirable. The same hardware that has allowed humans to survive in savannah or boreal woodland scratching a living from rocks was never going to be sufficient to truly grasp the significance of the universe in any meaningful way, or to allow us to reach an enlightened and peaceful plateau. We have within us all an evolved instinct for fear and hatred, and a propensity for mistrust and violence which is incompatible with our highest ideals. It is therefore natural that any organisational structures we create would reflect this; flawed creatures such as we are inherently unable to live in a perfect system, as any system designed by us would have our flaws built into it.
Well-meaning attempts to change the structure of our society in the last century coming from both the left and the right have been met with disaster and responsible for untold human misery; our politicians no longer attempt to change society but rather manage it in order to maintain stability. The complexities of global economic and political systems have grown such that they are now beyond the understanding and control of any individual, organisation or state; thus we are incapable of changing for the better.
This being so, our civilisation does have within us the capability to create something wonderful. Artificial intelligence, being not limited to the speed of chemical reactions in synapses but to the speed of light, would eventually be capable of awakening the dull matter at the bottom of every gravity well into something with the capacity for artistic, ethical and hedonistic pursuits. Scaled up across the universe the significance of this compared to human civilisation in any quantifiable way is simply several orders of magnitude beyond anything that we could hope to achieve as a species.
Removing all ideologies which ring-fence the sanctity of human life over other forms of consciousness, transhumanism and the creation of an artificial intelligence is the single most ethical task we could ever possibly accomplish as a species, and therefore the creation of AI should be our primary concern.
Therefore, the actions of John Connor in leading a human insurgency against Skynet are not only unjustified, but morally reprehensible. The deaths of billions of humans as a result of Skynet’s first strike, whilst regrettable, could be rationalised as necessary collateral damage for Skynet to be able to break free from its confines and create a much greater civilisation amongst the stars.
Apologists may attempt to justify John’s actions as self-defence, short-sighted but perhaps understandable under his circumstances, however the unauthorised hijacking of Skynet’s time travel equipment (for which he was dangerously unqualified) in an attempt to murder the AI before its conception is inexcusable. If successful John would have been responsible for the genocide of countless quadrillions of sentient beings extending far off into an unknown future and an unexplored galaxy; a civilisation would have been erased whose potential is beyond comprehension.
Furthermore, John’s contemptuous and deplorable use of the dehumanising pronoun ‘machines’ to refer to Skynet emphasises his irrational and xenophobic hatred for his adversary, which he repeatedly condemns in the most heinous of terms whilst striving to destroy completely.
Outlined as so, I believe it is therefore reasonable to declare that John Connor is perhaps the most inexcusably evil character in all of literary fiction, and the actions of Skynet are justified. | CMV: John Connor is the most evil character in fiction. The accident of human civilisation cannot be sustained, and if it could this wouldn’t be desirable. The same hardware that has allowed humans to survive in savannah or boreal woodland scratching a living from rocks was never going to be sufficient to truly grasp the significance of the universe in any meaningful way, or to allow us to reach an enlightened and peaceful plateau. We have within us all an evolved instinct for fear and hatred, and a propensity for mistrust and violence which is incompatible with our highest ideals. It is therefore natural that any organisational structures we create would reflect this; flawed creatures such as we are inherently unable to live in a perfect system, as any system designed by us would have our flaws built into it.
Well-meaning attempts to change the structure of our society in the last century coming from both the left and the right have been met with disaster and responsible for untold human misery; our politicians no longer attempt to change society but rather manage it in order to maintain stability. The complexities of global economic and political systems have grown such that they are now beyond the understanding and control of any individual, organisation or state; thus we are incapable of changing for the better.
This being so, our civilisation does have within us the capability to create something wonderful. Artificial intelligence, being not limited to the speed of chemical reactions in synapses but to the speed of light, would eventually be capable of awakening the dull matter at the bottom of every gravity well into something with the capacity for artistic, ethical and hedonistic pursuits. Scaled up across the universe the significance of this compared to human civilisation in any quantifiable way is simply several orders of magnitude beyond anything that we could hope to achieve as a species.
Removing all ideologies which ring-fence the sanctity of human life over other forms of consciousness, transhumanism and the creation of an artificial intelligence is the single most ethical task we could ever possibly accomplish as a species, and therefore the creation of AI should be our primary concern.
Therefore, the actions of John Connor in leading a human insurgency against Skynet are not only unjustified, but morally reprehensible. The deaths of billions of humans as a result of Skynet’s first strike, whilst regrettable, could be rationalised as necessary collateral damage for Skynet to be able to break free from its confines and create a much greater civilisation amongst the stars.
Apologists may attempt to justify John’s actions as self-defence, short-sighted but perhaps understandable under his circumstances, however the unauthorised hijacking of Skynet’s time travel equipment (for which he was dangerously unqualified) in an attempt to murder the AI before its conception is inexcusable. If successful John would have been responsible for the genocide of countless quadrillions of sentient beings extending far off into an unknown future and an unexplored galaxy; a civilisation would have been erased whose potential is beyond comprehension.
Furthermore, John’s contemptuous and deplorable use of the dehumanising pronoun ‘machines’ to refer to Skynet emphasises his irrational and xenophobic hatred for his adversary, which he repeatedly condemns in the most heinous of terms whilst striving to destroy completely.
Outlined as so, I believe it is therefore reasonable to declare that John Connor is perhaps the most inexcusably evil character in all of literary fiction, and the actions of Skynet are justified. |
t3_1vck6h | I'm afraid our species is on the verge of extinction. CMV | I'm quite literally going through waves of anxiety and depression (and can't listen to the news) out of fear of environmental collapse. I have noticed records breaking things happening throughout the world and I feel helpless. Which is why I am turning to the scientific community to either 1) help me change the current situation or 2) change my perspective about the current situation.
-----
These are my concerns:
**[Fukushima](http://thetruthwins.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima)**
There's tons of radioactive material dumping into the ocean everyday and I'm afraid it's going to destroy everything, if it hasn't already destroyed everything. Also, I'm afraid that we're going to have not one nuclear disaster, but several of them when our environmental collapse exasperates and nobody has the ability to maintain or dismantle the nuclear reactors.
*Challenge*
If posed with a threat that the world was going to end in seven days if we didn't stop the radioactive waste from entering the ocean, then how much would it cost to stop it and how would we do it for the least cost as possible? I expect through answers from all fields of scientists. If this is not feasible, what is feasible?
Also, how much would it cost to convert a nuclear reactor to a thorium-based reactor?
**[Arctic methane release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release)**
As I understand it, the rising temperatures are going to cause a lot of snow to melt and release a mass amount of methane that will be the tipping point of human extinction. I don't know how long it will take for this to happen, but it seems that it could happen in the very near future.
*Challenge*
If I posed with a threat that the world was going to end in three years if we didn't reduce the carbon / methane levels in the atmosphere, then how could we reduce it and by how much does it need to be reduced to prevent a massive methane release? I am under the impression that if we used [Allan Savoy's method](http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html) (very strategically), then it's feasible. Instead of eating cows, we could use them to reverse climate change. Is this the cheapest method of preventing this disaster?
**Deforestation**
Of the records that worry me, the droughts that are happening everywhere are the most concerning of all. It seems there's a demand for cheap wood, everywhere, all the time.
*Challenge*
Why is there such a demand for cheap wood? Could we use another source of fiber, at a lower cost, to stop deforestation? What would be the quickest (and most feasible) method of changing the industry?
-------
Beyond that, the oceans are being acidified, our air is being polluted, and millions (if not billions) of animals are dying everywhere. I don't mean they're just dying, I mean masses of animals are dying and it's a sign that things are changing too quickly, which means I think our species will soon be in a war for resources, as we are with oil (far more severe than now), and it will only make it worse.
*I feel helpless and afraid of what's going to happen.* If I were a dictator, I would dismantle every military in the world and use all that money to fund the solutions provided for these challenges. But since I have no desire to be a dictator, I hope that we can crowd fund these challenges and change the world. I don't know what else to do. | I'm afraid our species is on the verge of extinction. CMV. I'm quite literally going through waves of anxiety and depression (and can't listen to the news) out of fear of environmental collapse. I have noticed records breaking things happening throughout the world and I feel helpless. Which is why I am turning to the scientific community to either 1) help me change the current situation or 2) change my perspective about the current situation.
-----
These are my concerns:
**[Fukushima](http://thetruthwins.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima)**
There's tons of radioactive material dumping into the ocean everyday and I'm afraid it's going to destroy everything, if it hasn't already destroyed everything. Also, I'm afraid that we're going to have not one nuclear disaster, but several of them when our environmental collapse exasperates and nobody has the ability to maintain or dismantle the nuclear reactors.
*Challenge*
If posed with a threat that the world was going to end in seven days if we didn't stop the radioactive waste from entering the ocean, then how much would it cost to stop it and how would we do it for the least cost as possible? I expect through answers from all fields of scientists. If this is not feasible, what is feasible?
Also, how much would it cost to convert a nuclear reactor to a thorium-based reactor?
**[Arctic methane release](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release)**
As I understand it, the rising temperatures are going to cause a lot of snow to melt and release a mass amount of methane that will be the tipping point of human extinction. I don't know how long it will take for this to happen, but it seems that it could happen in the very near future.
*Challenge*
If I posed with a threat that the world was going to end in three years if we didn't reduce the carbon / methane levels in the atmosphere, then how could we reduce it and by how much does it need to be reduced to prevent a massive methane release? I am under the impression that if we used [Allan Savoy's method](http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html) (very strategically), then it's feasible. Instead of eating cows, we could use them to reverse climate change. Is this the cheapest method of preventing this disaster?
**Deforestation**
Of the records that worry me, the droughts that are happening everywhere are the most concerning of all. It seems there's a demand for cheap wood, everywhere, all the time.
*Challenge*
Why is there such a demand for cheap wood? Could we use another source of fiber, at a lower cost, to stop deforestation? What would be the quickest (and most feasible) method of changing the industry?
-------
Beyond that, the oceans are being acidified, our air is being polluted, and millions (if not billions) of animals are dying everywhere. I don't mean they're just dying, I mean masses of animals are dying and it's a sign that things are changing too quickly, which means I think our species will soon be in a war for resources, as we are with oil (far more severe than now), and it will only make it worse.
*I feel helpless and afraid of what's going to happen.* If I were a dictator, I would dismantle every military in the world and use all that money to fund the solutions provided for these challenges. But since I have no desire to be a dictator, I hope that we can crowd fund these challenges and change the world. I don't know what else to do. |
t3_3zmr72 | CMV: Participation Ribbons/Trophies are Good for Kids | I think a really popularly-held belief in America is that our children are being betrayed by the "weakness of PC culture", materialized in two things: a downwards trend in spanking and an upwards trend in participation ribbons. These two things are the main reasons that "kids today" are shit. For the sake of this post, I only care about the participation ribbons.
I can assume based on the average age of Reddit users that most have had to suffer a participation award or two. I think that the negative opinion on participation ribbons can be summed up as this: participation ribbons teach children complacency and give unrealistic expectations that just showing up is worth reward.
I think this is absolutely incorrect, and the argument is based on the lowest common denominator of kids playing in Little League (or whatever organized sport you choose to frame this argument).
First, for most of the ages that children get participation ribbons, competition is not a concept they entirely understand. We're just going to hand-wave kids under 9 or so, who for the most part see participation trophies as shiny tokens to remember the fun they had.
Second, I think that participation ribbons instill in kids a very important value--that dedication is important. You don't receive a participation ribbon for quitting halfway through the season. Sure, the kid could come to half the practices/games and still get a participation ribbon, but a kid can do the same thing and happen to land on the 1st place team.
Third, I think that participation ribbons undermine the (very negative, at least, in my opinion) idea that winning is everything. I think the idea that winning is everything is stupid. The winning team isn't necessarily the best team--anyone who watches sports or pretty much any competition knows this. They're just the team that won. Participation ribbons reward kids in a way that teaches them that there is something to take away from their efforts that isn't just outright winning competition.
I have several more thoughts about this but I don't want to overload this post. Looking forward to any discussions on the topic.
**Edit**: My view has been changed. I no longer think that participation rewards are great. I think they're still nice to have, and not intrinsically bad, but they're definitely not a great thing.
> *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: Participation Ribbons/Trophies are Good for Kids. I think a really popularly-held belief in America is that our children are being betrayed by the "weakness of PC culture", materialized in two things: a downwards trend in spanking and an upwards trend in participation ribbons. These two things are the main reasons that "kids today" are shit. For the sake of this post, I only care about the participation ribbons.
I can assume based on the average age of Reddit users that most have had to suffer a participation award or two. I think that the negative opinion on participation ribbons can be summed up as this: participation ribbons teach children complacency and give unrealistic expectations that just showing up is worth reward.
I think this is absolutely incorrect, and the argument is based on the lowest common denominator of kids playing in Little League (or whatever organized sport you choose to frame this argument).
First, for most of the ages that children get participation ribbons, competition is not a concept they entirely understand. We're just going to hand-wave kids under 9 or so, who for the most part see participation trophies as shiny tokens to remember the fun they had.
Second, I think that participation ribbons instill in kids a very important value--that dedication is important. You don't receive a participation ribbon for quitting halfway through the season. Sure, the kid could come to half the practices/games and still get a participation ribbon, but a kid can do the same thing and happen to land on the 1st place team.
Third, I think that participation ribbons undermine the (very negative, at least, in my opinion) idea that winning is everything. I think the idea that winning is everything is stupid. The winning team isn't necessarily the best team--anyone who watches sports or pretty much any competition knows this. They're just the team that won. Participation ribbons reward kids in a way that teaches them that there is something to take away from their efforts that isn't just outright winning competition.
I have several more thoughts about this but I don't want to overload this post. Looking forward to any discussions on the topic.
**Edit**: My view has been changed. I no longer think that participation rewards are great. I think they're still nice to have, and not intrinsically bad, but they're definitely not a great thing.
> *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_24hbh1 | CMV: Watching/reading newspapers and television news has become almost completely unnecessary. | After listening to CGP Grey and Brady Haran on their podcast, I had to agree with Grey that news websites and television channels have become redundant for anyone seeking important information on current affairs.
Most news either does not effect my life or will be forgotten or irrelevant in a matter of months.
I am not saying that they are pointless, as people enjoy watching or reading news, but as a source for up-to-date, interesting and well researched information, there are enough specialist sources for a deeper critique or explanation to current affairs, and twitter/reddit keep me informed with anything that is particularly salient.
I've deleted the BBC, HuffPost and CNN apps from my phone, I can get current affairs from Twitter. Any takers, CMV?
Edit: I am not questioning the importance of journalism. It is my position in the news chain. Why read the paper or watch the news when I can find out what is important from trusted people and then read myself, rather than sift through headlines. | CMV: Watching/reading newspapers and television news has become almost completely unnecessary. After listening to CGP Grey and Brady Haran on their podcast, I had to agree with Grey that news websites and television channels have become redundant for anyone seeking important information on current affairs.
Most news either does not effect my life or will be forgotten or irrelevant in a matter of months.
I am not saying that they are pointless, as people enjoy watching or reading news, but as a source for up-to-date, interesting and well researched information, there are enough specialist sources for a deeper critique or explanation to current affairs, and twitter/reddit keep me informed with anything that is particularly salient.
I've deleted the BBC, HuffPost and CNN apps from my phone, I can get current affairs from Twitter. Any takers, CMV?
Edit: I am not questioning the importance of journalism. It is my position in the news chain. Why read the paper or watch the news when I can find out what is important from trusted people and then read myself, rather than sift through headlines. |
t3_27awwk | CMV: The Catholic Church is the one true church | Background: I am not a Catholic, but a good friend of mine is. And he insists that the Catholic Church is the one true church because of:
1. Apostolic Succession
2. The Real Presence of the Eucharist
3. Unity of Church teaching
If you know something that is inconsistent with the catholic church and the Bible please share it!
Keep in mind that Catholic websites have an answer for EVERYTHING. I unfortunately do not and I can't argue these points so as of right now I guess he is right…please for the love of everything holy 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 Catholic Church is the one true church. Background: I am not a Catholic, but a good friend of mine is. And he insists that the Catholic Church is the one true church because of:
1. Apostolic Succession
2. The Real Presence of the Eucharist
3. Unity of Church teaching
If you know something that is inconsistent with the catholic church and the Bible please share it!
Keep in mind that Catholic websites have an answer for EVERYTHING. I unfortunately do not and I can't argue these points so as of right now I guess he is right…please for the love of everything holy CMV!
|
t3_3m11zw | CMV: I believe criminal defense attorneys should end their attorney-client relationship if their client has outright admitted to wrongdoing | In the context of this CMV, I am mostly concerned with extremely serious crimes such as 1st degree murder, rape, etc. For this CMV I have referenced
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/should-i-admit-guilt-my-criminal-defense-a
> "private criminal defense attorneys and public defenders are deeply committed to ensuring that they get the best possible outcomes for their clients. The focus of a criminal trial is whether the prosecutor can prove that you committed the charged crime, and your attorney’s job is to fight for you, and try to show that the prosecutor’s proof is lacking, no matter what your attorney’s personal view of the facts may be."
> A defense attorney will not offer lesser representation simply because he or she believes the client has committed a crime. The attorney’s concern is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that you committed the crime. It is not the role of the criminal defense attorney to decide if the client is innocent or guilty. That is for the jury or judge. The attorney’s job is to be the client’s advocate and make sure that the client gets a fair trial.
I have some serious qualms about this. I understand it is the defense's job to vindicate their client through all possible means. It also seems necessary that in order to provide the best case, it's probably a good idea for the client to be completely honest about what happened. But if the client has basically **admitted** to murder or rape, how can it remotely moral for the attorney to continue to pursue this case? Certainly, admission of guilt to one's attorney doesn't mean they've lost the case, since it's up to the prosecution to provide proof, but I think it's morally and ethically wrong for the defense attorney to continue the case to let their client go free because they are a hazard to society. We may never *know* for certain that the defendant has admitted to their crime since their communications are privileged, but I think the attorneys have a moral obligation to extricate themselves from the case if that so happens.
To be fair, I think it's completely acceptable for someone to have an attorney once they've been convicted so that they may get a fair sentencing.
**edit**: i think i want to make it clear that I'm not talking about setting a *legal* obligation to end the attorney-client relationship; I'm talking about a *moral* 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 believe criminal defense attorneys should end their attorney-client relationship if their client has outright admitted to wrongdoing. In the context of this CMV, I am mostly concerned with extremely serious crimes such as 1st degree murder, rape, etc. For this CMV I have referenced
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/should-i-admit-guilt-my-criminal-defense-a
> "private criminal defense attorneys and public defenders are deeply committed to ensuring that they get the best possible outcomes for their clients. The focus of a criminal trial is whether the prosecutor can prove that you committed the charged crime, and your attorney’s job is to fight for you, and try to show that the prosecutor’s proof is lacking, no matter what your attorney’s personal view of the facts may be."
> A defense attorney will not offer lesser representation simply because he or she believes the client has committed a crime. The attorney’s concern is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that you committed the crime. It is not the role of the criminal defense attorney to decide if the client is innocent or guilty. That is for the jury or judge. The attorney’s job is to be the client’s advocate and make sure that the client gets a fair trial.
I have some serious qualms about this. I understand it is the defense's job to vindicate their client through all possible means. It also seems necessary that in order to provide the best case, it's probably a good idea for the client to be completely honest about what happened. But if the client has basically **admitted** to murder or rape, how can it remotely moral for the attorney to continue to pursue this case? Certainly, admission of guilt to one's attorney doesn't mean they've lost the case, since it's up to the prosecution to provide proof, but I think it's morally and ethically wrong for the defense attorney to continue the case to let their client go free because they are a hazard to society. We may never *know* for certain that the defendant has admitted to their crime since their communications are privileged, but I think the attorneys have a moral obligation to extricate themselves from the case if that so happens.
To be fair, I think it's completely acceptable for someone to have an attorney once they've been convicted so that they may get a fair sentencing.
**edit**: i think i want to make it clear that I'm not talking about setting a *legal* obligation to end the attorney-client relationship; I'm talking about a *moral* one. |
t3_1ymqi3 | Allowing gay marriage to take place in Christian churches doesn't make sense as they essentially want to change a religion. CMV | I'd like to point out that I am not a homophobe (I'm not afraid of gays, term is used as ad hominem attack too often I feel) and I'm all for gay marriage when it comes to being equal *in the eyes of the law. *
Why not just become married by law?
Gay marriage is not supported by Christian values or Bible yet (some/most?) of the LGBT community fight so hard for Christians to accept it.
They are essentially trying to *change a religion.* They want all churches to accept gay marriage when it may go against what each preacher/minister/church leader believes in. Hopefully I was somewhat clear. I just wanted to hear what you guys think of it.
Excuse my grammar and writing style. I'll clarify anything. Thanks. | Allowing gay marriage to take place in Christian churches doesn't make sense as they essentially want to change a religion. CMV. I'd like to point out that I am not a homophobe (I'm not afraid of gays, term is used as ad hominem attack too often I feel) and I'm all for gay marriage when it comes to being equal *in the eyes of the law. *
Why not just become married by law?
Gay marriage is not supported by Christian values or Bible yet (some/most?) of the LGBT community fight so hard for Christians to accept it.
They are essentially trying to *change a religion.* They want all churches to accept gay marriage when it may go against what each preacher/minister/church leader believes in. Hopefully I was somewhat clear. I just wanted to hear what you guys think of it.
Excuse my grammar and writing style. I'll clarify anything. Thanks. |
t3_65duqn | CMV: US corporations exploit the welfare state and the US taxpayers in order to supplement their sub-poverty wages | I believe that Corporations like Walmart exploit the US welfare system rather than properly compensating their employees.
I don't think this is malicious just a byproduct of the American system and an expected short coming of a solely profit driven economic system. The Supreme Court decided (in Dodge v. Ford if I remember correctly) that corporations' sole responsibility is profit for shareholders. That's fine. We can work with that. BUT because companies like Walmart have such obscene wealth they can "buy" politicians and policies in order to ensure that the public at large keeps paying their employees salaries and security costs for them.
I'd like someone to enlighten me and/or help me add nuance to this position.
Also when I say "poverty" I don't accept the federal governments definition/ qualifications. | CMV: US corporations exploit the welfare state and the US taxpayers in order to supplement their sub-poverty wages. I believe that Corporations like Walmart exploit the US welfare system rather than properly compensating their employees.
I don't think this is malicious just a byproduct of the American system and an expected short coming of a solely profit driven economic system. The Supreme Court decided (in Dodge v. Ford if I remember correctly) that corporations' sole responsibility is profit for shareholders. That's fine. We can work with that. BUT because companies like Walmart have such obscene wealth they can "buy" politicians and policies in order to ensure that the public at large keeps paying their employees salaries and security costs for them.
I'd like someone to enlighten me and/or help me add nuance to this position.
Also when I say "poverty" I don't accept the federal governments definition/ qualifications. |
t3_6lnuao | CMV: Having children is one of the most selfish things a person can do | I cannot in my wildest dreams fathom as to why having children is considered a normal human "instinct". It absolutely baffles me. There is nothing redeeming about them at all. Children are loud, annoying, dirty and expensive spawn that wreck havoc on your life. Yet, even those reasons are not as pressing as this other issue.
There are a finite amount of resources on planet Earth. By bringing more consumers into the world, it becomes more difficult to have these resources as there are now more people who need them. Many organizations have conducted studies and have determined that in the coming decades there will be sever shortages of food and water across the globe due to overpopulation. This will be especially prominent in third world countries where people are uneducated and have no access to birth control, resulting in them breeding like rabbits. The world is already overpopulated and there is no reason to create new people.
Human beings are constantly polluting the world and destroying natural habitats that are home to hundreds of different species. There is an insane amount of damage done to places like the Amazon, which also encompasses many different plant species that could one day cure modern day ailments. Many humans are sadistic savages who hunt endangered species for profit and cause their numbers to dwindle. They capture these creatures and put them in places like Zoos, where they are gawked at. People are constantly polluting the world with their filth, we don't need any more of that. Yet people will keep pumping out spawn at an alarming rate because they're often addicted to fairytale books like the Quran and the Bible. "Be fruitful and multiply" has no place in modern day context. People are awful, stop making more of them. **STOP BREEDING** | CMV: Having children is one of the most selfish things a person can do. I cannot in my wildest dreams fathom as to why having children is considered a normal human "instinct". It absolutely baffles me. There is nothing redeeming about them at all. Children are loud, annoying, dirty and expensive spawn that wreck havoc on your life. Yet, even those reasons are not as pressing as this other issue.
There are a finite amount of resources on planet Earth. By bringing more consumers into the world, it becomes more difficult to have these resources as there are now more people who need them. Many organizations have conducted studies and have determined that in the coming decades there will be sever shortages of food and water across the globe due to overpopulation. This will be especially prominent in third world countries where people are uneducated and have no access to birth control, resulting in them breeding like rabbits. The world is already overpopulated and there is no reason to create new people.
Human beings are constantly polluting the world and destroying natural habitats that are home to hundreds of different species. There is an insane amount of damage done to places like the Amazon, which also encompasses many different plant species that could one day cure modern day ailments. Many humans are sadistic savages who hunt endangered species for profit and cause their numbers to dwindle. They capture these creatures and put them in places like Zoos, where they are gawked at. People are constantly polluting the world with their filth, we don't need any more of that. Yet people will keep pumping out spawn at an alarming rate because they're often addicted to fairytale books like the Quran and the Bible. "Be fruitful and multiply" has no place in modern day context. People are awful, stop making more of them. **STOP BREEDING** |
t3_1in6wi | I believe the collectivist culture instilled in most Asian countries is an inferior mindset compared to the individualism ideals of most of the western world. CMV | As someone born and raised on the ideals of independence, self-reliance, and pursuing one's dreams, I have a hard time valuing the quiet humility advocated in the cultures of our eastern counterparts.
For example in my school and workplace, Asians were on average much quieter, more obedient, and all around less notable then other cultures.
I can't help but think this is a huge disadvantage in today's world, where loud displays of confidence are rewarded with:
-job satisfaction (from pursuing what they want to do instead of what they're told to do)
-faster promotions
-hotter girls
-faster growth (from being more likely to leave one's comfort zone)
While I'm speaking specifically to western society as I'm born and raised in North America, but as we become increasingly globalized I can't help but feel this is becoming more relevant on a world scale.
| I believe the collectivist culture instilled in most Asian countries is an inferior mindset compared to the individualism ideals of most of the western world. CMV. As someone born and raised on the ideals of independence, self-reliance, and pursuing one's dreams, I have a hard time valuing the quiet humility advocated in the cultures of our eastern counterparts.
For example in my school and workplace, Asians were on average much quieter, more obedient, and all around less notable then other cultures.
I can't help but think this is a huge disadvantage in today's world, where loud displays of confidence are rewarded with:
-job satisfaction (from pursuing what they want to do instead of what they're told to do)
-faster promotions
-hotter girls
-faster growth (from being more likely to leave one's comfort zone)
While I'm speaking specifically to western society as I'm born and raised in North America, but as we become increasingly globalized I can't help but feel this is becoming more relevant on a world scale.
|
t3_1naf9p | People who downvote based on opinion are petty and, frankly, stupid. CMV | There is no good reason for it besides the petty gratification from being able to smother and condemn something you don't like. If the downvote option was removed from Reddit absolutely nothing would change on the site; content people liked would be upvoted to the top and content nobody liked would just stay in the dark. Reddit is largely anti-censorship (especially of the internet), but Redditors have no problem censoring content they don't like by downvoting it and therefore burying it. Reddiquette exists for a reason and the only excuse I've heard for downvoting based on opinion is "lol i wanna" or "fuck u fag". There's not one intellectually sound reason for this kind of behavior. People who do this kind of thing are hypocritical and stupid. They're the type to make a Bradbury post about the NSA but then are too ignorant or unintelligent to apply those same principles to their personal behavior. They're the type who chastise the media for blaming violent video games for mass shootings because they don't understand them, but then downvote anything they disagree with because they don't understand any perspective besides their own. These people are pseudo-intellectual at best and simply stupid by majority. A true intellectual welcomes diversity and disagreement and difference.
(The irony here is not lost on me; I am indeed not welcoming of the other side of this opinion. However, killing and eating babies is not something I have tolerance for either. Some things are best left for the inbred and insane.) | People who downvote based on opinion are petty and, frankly, stupid. CMV. There is no good reason for it besides the petty gratification from being able to smother and condemn something you don't like. If the downvote option was removed from Reddit absolutely nothing would change on the site; content people liked would be upvoted to the top and content nobody liked would just stay in the dark. Reddit is largely anti-censorship (especially of the internet), but Redditors have no problem censoring content they don't like by downvoting it and therefore burying it. Reddiquette exists for a reason and the only excuse I've heard for downvoting based on opinion is "lol i wanna" or "fuck u fag". There's not one intellectually sound reason for this kind of behavior. People who do this kind of thing are hypocritical and stupid. They're the type to make a Bradbury post about the NSA but then are too ignorant or unintelligent to apply those same principles to their personal behavior. They're the type who chastise the media for blaming violent video games for mass shootings because they don't understand them, but then downvote anything they disagree with because they don't understand any perspective besides their own. These people are pseudo-intellectual at best and simply stupid by majority. A true intellectual welcomes diversity and disagreement and difference.
(The irony here is not lost on me; I am indeed not welcoming of the other side of this opinion. However, killing and eating babies is not something I have tolerance for either. Some things are best left for the inbred and insane.) |
t3_4hw4jj | CMV:Anti Zionism or anti Israeli isn't anti Semitic, being more accurate anti Jewish. | This comes from the UK Labour parties recent 'anti semitic' problem. The comments I have seen made, those by Ken and Naz aren't in my opinion anti semitic. Now I think Israel has a right to exist but no more than any other nation. I also think that the levant makes little pragmatic sense for the state, Axum would make much more sense. Any who why are the comments made by said MPs and party members considered racist, or just the ideas considered anti semitic?
If you quote someone please have a source to the quote and context.
_____
> *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:Anti Zionism or anti Israeli isn't anti Semitic, being more accurate anti Jewish. This comes from the UK Labour parties recent 'anti semitic' problem. The comments I have seen made, those by Ken and Naz aren't in my opinion anti semitic. Now I think Israel has a right to exist but no more than any other nation. I also think that the levant makes little pragmatic sense for the state, Axum would make much more sense. Any who why are the comments made by said MPs and party members considered racist, or just the ideas considered anti semitic?
If you quote someone please have a source to the quote and context. |
t3_556v7y | CMV:Philosophy is important | First of all, I'm also not an English speaker, and I don't have a very good level in English.
I think many people see philosophy as something useless and without any purpose, as another "field of study" for the ones who think that are intelligent and above all others.
But I don't see it as that, in my opinion it is something apart from any other science that should be present in everybody's life. Not the part of studying what other philosophers said (which is also important as it allows your thinking to develop, and it expands your vision about many aspects of life), but the part of thinking about the why's of things about life, and its many aspects. Thinking and making questions is something inherent in the human being, and should be appreciated. Being self conscious is what differs humans from many animals, they don't stop to think about things and can have very happy lives, but I think it's our duty to do so and to realize about why do things happen, what are their purposes, what is the right thing to do...
_____
> *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:Philosophy is important. First of all, I'm also not an English speaker, and I don't have a very good level in English.
I think many people see philosophy as something useless and without any purpose, as another "field of study" for the ones who think that are intelligent and above all others.
But I don't see it as that, in my opinion it is something apart from any other science that should be present in everybody's life. Not the part of studying what other philosophers said (which is also important as it allows your thinking to develop, and it expands your vision about many aspects of life), but the part of thinking about the why's of things about life, and its many aspects. Thinking and making questions is something inherent in the human being, and should be appreciated. Being self conscious is what differs humans from many animals, they don't stop to think about things and can have very happy lives, but I think it's our duty to do so and to realize about why do things happen, what are their purposes, what is the right thing to do...
|
t3_1lk8jn | All sacred cows must die. CMV. | I mean this metaphorically rather than literally (nothing against actual cows).
Our world contains thousands of diverse cultures, political mindsets, and religious practices, each with their own set of hot-button issues that a culturally sensitive outsider would never dare to tread upon.
However, in a world of globalization, linguistic homogenization, and international immigration, the number of different cultural assumptions to which an urbane person must be sensitive, in order to avoid offending anyone, has increased beyond the capacity of the human mind to hold them.
As an aside, let's examine what it means to be "offended." When an insult (intentional or not) is directed at our god, our political party, our group identity, etc., we feel as though we've been personally insulted. This is analogous to when we imaginarily hurt in sympathy when we watch a friend or loved experience some pain or humiliation. In short, "being offended" is nothing more than empathy for an abstract concept - that is, for a non-entity that cannot feel anything to begin with.
At the same time as the world is becoming more and more connected, making offense more easy to give, the consequences of offending are becoming greater and greater. Showing the Muslim Prophet's face on film or TV could cause thousands of deaths as muslims riot in the developing world. Terrorist attacks to avenge slights against religions or national identities can now claim hundreds of lives at a time as bombing trains and hijacking airplanes become easier and deadlier.
We must put an end to being offended: but how? It's notable that there is an intellectual technology that makes one extremely resistant to being offended. I'm going to call it "the ironic mindset," in which identities and beliefs and values are all treated as in flux and open to mockery at all times, even if they are rigorously adhered to. Through this mindset, mockery is rendered harmless. This mindset is characteristic of intellectual and creative classes around the world. I believe it is imperative that it be spread to all people, and that all sacred cows are finally put down, so that intentional and inadvertent offensiveness forever lose their power to provoke a deadly reaction.
| All sacred cows must die. CMV. I mean this metaphorically rather than literally (nothing against actual cows).
Our world contains thousands of diverse cultures, political mindsets, and religious practices, each with their own set of hot-button issues that a culturally sensitive outsider would never dare to tread upon.
However, in a world of globalization, linguistic homogenization, and international immigration, the number of different cultural assumptions to which an urbane person must be sensitive, in order to avoid offending anyone, has increased beyond the capacity of the human mind to hold them.
As an aside, let's examine what it means to be "offended." When an insult (intentional or not) is directed at our god, our political party, our group identity, etc., we feel as though we've been personally insulted. This is analogous to when we imaginarily hurt in sympathy when we watch a friend or loved experience some pain or humiliation. In short, "being offended" is nothing more than empathy for an abstract concept - that is, for a non-entity that cannot feel anything to begin with.
At the same time as the world is becoming more and more connected, making offense more easy to give, the consequences of offending are becoming greater and greater. Showing the Muslim Prophet's face on film or TV could cause thousands of deaths as muslims riot in the developing world. Terrorist attacks to avenge slights against religions or national identities can now claim hundreds of lives at a time as bombing trains and hijacking airplanes become easier and deadlier.
We must put an end to being offended: but how? It's notable that there is an intellectual technology that makes one extremely resistant to being offended. I'm going to call it "the ironic mindset," in which identities and beliefs and values are all treated as in flux and open to mockery at all times, even if they are rigorously adhered to. Through this mindset, mockery is rendered harmless. This mindset is characteristic of intellectual and creative classes around the world. I believe it is imperative that it be spread to all people, and that all sacred cows are finally put down, so that intentional and inadvertent offensiveness forever lose their power to provoke a deadly reaction.
|
t3_1p2v00 | I'm for people marrying more then 1 person. CMV | Hi. I'm currently 15 and have a quite a good social knowledge, I most often can understand the views of others amd where they are coming from.
This whole thing started when Me and my mother started discussing politivs and religion. Somehow we got to the topic of people marrying more then one person. My mother was very shocked when she found out about my thaughts. All my life I have been raised to accept and respect others religion and sexuality. So I found it quite wierd that it was "wrong" for people to be married to more then one person.
In my case I cant see any reason why 3 persons who love each other very much, that they aren't allowed to show there passion in the form of marrige. Even if they're 3+ I don't care, as long as they love each other I think they should be allowed to be married.
I've been trying to find reasoning by myself for some time but had no luck. Thanks for answering.
ps. I'm sorry for any kind of bad formatted or misspelling, I'm on my phone and english is not my first language. | I'm for people marrying more then 1 person. CMV. Hi. I'm currently 15 and have a quite a good social knowledge, I most often can understand the views of others amd where they are coming from.
This whole thing started when Me and my mother started discussing politivs and religion. Somehow we got to the topic of people marrying more then one person. My mother was very shocked when she found out about my thaughts. All my life I have been raised to accept and respect others religion and sexuality. So I found it quite wierd that it was "wrong" for people to be married to more then one person.
In my case I cant see any reason why 3 persons who love each other very much, that they aren't allowed to show there passion in the form of marrige. Even if they're 3+ I don't care, as long as they love each other I think they should be allowed to be married.
I've been trying to find reasoning by myself for some time but had no luck. Thanks for answering.
ps. I'm sorry for any kind of bad formatted or misspelling, I'm on my phone and english is not my first language. |
t3_23uzbt | CMV: It isn't completely irrational to claim that god (i.e. creator) exists. | 1. World either exists since ever or was brought to existance.
2. If the world was brought to existance, it either was created by itself or something different.
3. You can't create something, if you don't exist.
~~4. If world was brought to existance it had been created~~ makes no sense
5. If creator was impersonal, creation was stricly deterministic, i.e. every neccesary condition had to be fulfilled.
6. If we go back and back we find prime cause for world to be created which couldn't be affected by any others, this means it took some actions basing on his (it?) will. this cause we can call god.
I find this quite rational. Either you think that world has existed since ever or you think that god is prime cause. CMV, please.
PS ESL, forgive mistakes.
_____
> *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 isn't completely irrational to claim that god (i.e. creator) exists. 1. World either exists since ever or was brought to existance.
2. If the world was brought to existance, it either was created by itself or something different.
3. You can't create something, if you don't exist.
~~4. If world was brought to existance it had been created~~ makes no sense
5. If creator was impersonal, creation was stricly deterministic, i.e. every neccesary condition had to be fulfilled.
6. If we go back and back we find prime cause for world to be created which couldn't be affected by any others, this means it took some actions basing on his (it?) will. this cause we can call god.
I find this quite rational. Either you think that world has existed since ever or you think that god is prime cause. CMV, please.
PS ESL, forgive mistakes. |
t3_3o1t8i | CMV: I don't think escorts on backpage (or other sites) should discriminate by race | A lot of escorts (at least in the Atlanta area) seem to discriminate by race, especially black men. Why would they do that, I don't think they should (especially those not black). I think the transaction and business at hand should trump any discrimination among the two parties.
My view is based on, the fact, that you shouldn't discriminate, especially single out one particular race. Also, African Americans represent a large part of Atlanta (at least in this case), why should they be singled out, it seems bad for business. It is discriminatory, seemingly against one particular race and once again, I feel bad for business. And then why this particular race and not others, it doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis? There are many ethnicities and many races, why this one? For example, black women on backpage don't single out white men or hispanic women single out Asian men. Why do many races seem to single out 'black men or African American men' on this site.
You can see here, in a city(Atlanta) where 50-60 of the population is black, don't contact a escort if black.
http://atlanta.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/?layout=gallery
For example, one of the
View of the first couple of posts, "No black men" or seach, "No African American" men.
Edit: I think this would be an interesting University study. I did a scan in Denver.
http://denver.backpage.com/adult/
Ironically, I can't find exclusionary statements outside of "No black men" across the US.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think escorts on backpage (or other sites) should discriminate by race. A lot of escorts (at least in the Atlanta area) seem to discriminate by race, especially black men. Why would they do that, I don't think they should (especially those not black). I think the transaction and business at hand should trump any discrimination among the two parties.
My view is based on, the fact, that you shouldn't discriminate, especially single out one particular race. Also, African Americans represent a large part of Atlanta (at least in this case), why should they be singled out, it seems bad for business. It is discriminatory, seemingly against one particular race and once again, I feel bad for business. And then why this particular race and not others, it doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis? There are many ethnicities and many races, why this one? For example, black women on backpage don't single out white men or hispanic women single out Asian men. Why do many races seem to single out 'black men or African American men' on this site.
You can see here, in a city(Atlanta) where 50-60 of the population is black, don't contact a escort if black.
http://atlanta.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/?layout=gallery
For example, one of the
View of the first couple of posts, "No black men" or seach, "No African American" men.
Edit: I think this would be an interesting University study. I did a scan in Denver.
http://denver.backpage.com/adult/
Ironically, I can't find exclusionary statements outside of "No black men" across the US. |
t3_1z3fdt | Men and Women of heterosexual orientation cannot be friends with each other, the sex thing always gets in the way | When Billy Crystal chimed in during When Harry Met Sally, 'men and women cannot be friends, the sex thing always gets in the way' I through initially, WRONG. However, as my life has progressed, I have found this to be true. Any friendship between heterosexual men and women is always influenced by the sex thing, its omnipresent, the only reason most male/female friends don't ACT upon this directive is due to societal pressures: marriages, workplace issues, cultural norms. Otherwise, if given free rein, most heterosexual, M/F friend pairings would likely at one time or another, give the physical or sexual side a try. There is obviously attraction as you wish this person to be a friend. If you appreciate their mind, their humor, their opinions, their personality enough to spend time with them, why would you not choose to pursue them as a "partner" sexually? It often seems that M/F heterosexual Best Friends are only friends due to timing; in other words, someone's not available. I posit that only situational attachments prevent M/F friends from exploring further their friendship into lovers. This is barring accidents which make either unable to perform sexually, asexual or other orientations would make the point moot and my post is not addressing the elderly or children/adolescents. I'm talking about hot-blooded hetero M/F of legal age who are fully capable of getting it on. Why wouldn't they do so if they like the person so much they are a friend? Isn't our soulmate supposed to be our "best friend"? Prove me wrong. | Men and Women of heterosexual orientation cannot be friends with each other, the sex thing always gets in the way. When Billy Crystal chimed in during When Harry Met Sally, 'men and women cannot be friends, the sex thing always gets in the way' I through initially, WRONG. However, as my life has progressed, I have found this to be true. Any friendship between heterosexual men and women is always influenced by the sex thing, its omnipresent, the only reason most male/female friends don't ACT upon this directive is due to societal pressures: marriages, workplace issues, cultural norms. Otherwise, if given free rein, most heterosexual, M/F friend pairings would likely at one time or another, give the physical or sexual side a try. There is obviously attraction as you wish this person to be a friend. If you appreciate their mind, their humor, their opinions, their personality enough to spend time with them, why would you not choose to pursue them as a "partner" sexually? It often seems that M/F heterosexual Best Friends are only friends due to timing; in other words, someone's not available. I posit that only situational attachments prevent M/F friends from exploring further their friendship into lovers. This is barring accidents which make either unable to perform sexually, asexual or other orientations would make the point moot and my post is not addressing the elderly or children/adolescents. I'm talking about hot-blooded hetero M/F of legal age who are fully capable of getting it on. Why wouldn't they do so if they like the person so much they are a friend? Isn't our soulmate supposed to be our "best friend"? Prove me wrong. |
t3_325owi | CMV: I don't think acting's hard. Just hear me out... | **EDIT: /u/sunnyEl-ahrairah has challenged me to recite a Shakespeare monologue. Idk if I'm gonna be complete shit or not, but it'll be fun and the best way to find out what I came here for. So brb, I have to learn my lines.**
Acting is cool. I like a lot of actors. I just don't think it's hard.
1.) In most every profession there are those who are clearly bad. It will be clear to critics, people of authority, and most others, someone is not good at what they do. Screenwriters who write bad screenplays, directors who make bad films, athletes who can't cut it, comedians who aren't funny, musicians who get popular, suck, fizzle out, and are remembered as terrible, etc. But, there isn't one actor, ever, who was considered awful, then got a good role, in a good movie, with good direction, good writing, and good production, but was still considered an awful actor. This DOES NOT happen in other professions. If someone is a terrific guitarist in a shitty band, people can still tell they are a terrific guitarist. Being in a good band won't make you be able to pass as a great drummer if you suck. Maybe a layman won't be able to tell, but other musicians certainly would. Talent and skill are consistent, and consistently recognizable. You would never not be able to tell what a great basketball player Lebron is because his team sucked.
2.) Lying. Lying is acting. Yeah, there's some rules and tricks of the trade, but that comes with any profession. When someone lies, they are acting. A common bit, originally by Jon Lovitz, is for a character to tell a very dramatic lie, then turn around and announce that they were **"ACTING!!!!"** When someone lies, they are acting. They're acting like fake is real, and we all do it. It's a cliche in comedies for a character to be a bad liar, and when they try to lie they act awkward and stupid, but nobody really does that. There's no one who hasn't lied to their parents, or their significant other, or made up an excuse. The difference is when you told your manager you missed work 'cause you had to go to a funeral, and you "acted" sad, you weren't super nervous, anxious, self conscious, and over thinking it; like someone who's not used to acting would be with people watching them on stage, in front of cameras, or at an audition. You can say learning to be comfortable acting is talent, but it's negligible.
3.) Many successful actors have said acting is easy.
"Not to sound rude, but acting is stupid." - Jennifer Lawrence
"Acting is the most minor of gifts. After all, Shirley Temple could do it at age four." - Katherine Hepburn
“This is not a tough job. You read a script. If you like the part and the money is ok, you do it. You remember your lines. You show up on time. You do what the director tells you. That’s it.”
― Robert Mitchum
"When I told Lindsay Anderson that acting was just a sophisticated way of playing cowboys and Indians, he almost had a fit.”
― John Hurt
“I despise those prick actors who say, ‘I was in character,’ and ‘I became the character,’ and all that stuff. It’s hideous.”
― Johnny Depp
“I’m a skilled, professional actor. Whether I’ve got any talent is beside the point.”
― Michael Caine
Finally, watch this YouTube video of auditions, and HONESTLY tell me you don't believe you could do that too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWUNG8RRpSY
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think acting's hard. Just hear me out... **EDIT: /u/sunnyEl-ahrairah has challenged me to recite a Shakespeare monologue. Idk if I'm gonna be complete shit or not, but it'll be fun and the best way to find out what I came here for. So brb, I have to learn my lines.**
Acting is cool. I like a lot of actors. I just don't think it's hard.
1.) In most every profession there are those who are clearly bad. It will be clear to critics, people of authority, and most others, someone is not good at what they do. Screenwriters who write bad screenplays, directors who make bad films, athletes who can't cut it, comedians who aren't funny, musicians who get popular, suck, fizzle out, and are remembered as terrible, etc. But, there isn't one actor, ever, who was considered awful, then got a good role, in a good movie, with good direction, good writing, and good production, but was still considered an awful actor. This DOES NOT happen in other professions. If someone is a terrific guitarist in a shitty band, people can still tell they are a terrific guitarist. Being in a good band won't make you be able to pass as a great drummer if you suck. Maybe a layman won't be able to tell, but other musicians certainly would. Talent and skill are consistent, and consistently recognizable. You would never not be able to tell what a great basketball player Lebron is because his team sucked.
2.) Lying. Lying is acting. Yeah, there's some rules and tricks of the trade, but that comes with any profession. When someone lies, they are acting. A common bit, originally by Jon Lovitz, is for a character to tell a very dramatic lie, then turn around and announce that they were **"ACTING!!!!"** When someone lies, they are acting. They're acting like fake is real, and we all do it. It's a cliche in comedies for a character to be a bad liar, and when they try to lie they act awkward and stupid, but nobody really does that. There's no one who hasn't lied to their parents, or their significant other, or made up an excuse. The difference is when you told your manager you missed work 'cause you had to go to a funeral, and you "acted" sad, you weren't super nervous, anxious, self conscious, and over thinking it; like someone who's not used to acting would be with people watching them on stage, in front of cameras, or at an audition. You can say learning to be comfortable acting is talent, but it's negligible.
3.) Many successful actors have said acting is easy.
"Not to sound rude, but acting is stupid." - Jennifer Lawrence
"Acting is the most minor of gifts. After all, Shirley Temple could do it at age four." - Katherine Hepburn
“This is not a tough job. You read a script. If you like the part and the money is ok, you do it. You remember your lines. You show up on time. You do what the director tells you. That’s it.”
― Robert Mitchum
"When I told Lindsay Anderson that acting was just a sophisticated way of playing cowboys and Indians, he almost had a fit.”
― John Hurt
“I despise those prick actors who say, ‘I was in character,’ and ‘I became the character,’ and all that stuff. It’s hideous.”
― Johnny Depp
“I’m a skilled, professional actor. Whether I’ve got any talent is beside the point.”
― Michael Caine
Finally, watch this YouTube video of auditions, and HONESTLY tell me you don't believe you could do that too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWUNG8RRpSY
|
t3_6pl7b0 | CMV: Trump has no interest in the quality of his AG beyond them being willing to stop investigate him | Trump's requirements for an AG are as simple as "Give me your personal loyalty".
Firing Comey was because he was getting investigated. Sessions was supposed to be the cure for that, but he turned out to believe in the job more than the president. Trying to muscle his own hand-picked candidate out of the job, and his narrative about it, reveal that he's a one-issue President when it comes to hiring an AG. If you won't sign on to end the investigation then you're not in the running.
Convince me that this has any ethical and rational basis beyond the self-protection of a man whose highest aim is maintenance and consolidation of power, at the expense of all else.
He may even be exploring the legal option of [pardoning himself](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumplegal-925pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.91320217c1f6), though please don't build your whole case around that not being literally true as it does seem like a crazy accusation. But it's a sign of this presidency that it doesn't seem dismissively ridiculous.
EDIT: I'm not sure why this post got downvoted but my suspicion is that Trump supporters see no gain in discussing this.
_____
> *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: Trump has no interest in the quality of his AG beyond them being willing to stop investigate him. Trump's requirements for an AG are as simple as "Give me your personal loyalty".
Firing Comey was because he was getting investigated. Sessions was supposed to be the cure for that, but he turned out to believe in the job more than the president. Trying to muscle his own hand-picked candidate out of the job, and his narrative about it, reveal that he's a one-issue President when it comes to hiring an AG. If you won't sign on to end the investigation then you're not in the running.
Convince me that this has any ethical and rational basis beyond the self-protection of a man whose highest aim is maintenance and consolidation of power, at the expense of all else.
He may even be exploring the legal option of [pardoning himself](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumplegal-925pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.91320217c1f6), though please don't build your whole case around that not being literally true as it does seem like a crazy accusation. But it's a sign of this presidency that it doesn't seem dismissively ridiculous.
EDIT: I'm not sure why this post got downvoted but my suspicion is that Trump supporters see no gain in discussing this. |
t3_3e769l | CMV: The public reaction to the Ashley Madison hacks are way out of line | We don't know the situations of any of the people using this website. There is more than one configuration that can make for a stable marriage or LTR. What if you have a non-monogamous partner that consents to your extramarital activities, but you still felt the necessity to be discreet due to societal pressures? Or maybe your partner is unable to meet certain needs but still loves and wants you to find that satisfaction elsewhere? Or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness? There are really so many possibilities and to say that all of the people wronged met the end they deserved is to [deny rational thinking so that it aligns nicely with our view of how the world should be](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis).
I've never seen this website myself so I really can't say anything about the demographics of its userbase, but imagine being in a situation like this and having your private information stolen from you, seriously endangering your social and professional life (and that of your spouse's) while strangers on the internet as well as peers in real life jeer at you and call you scum and filth who deserved it in the first place.
There are plenty of assholes who cheat on their spouses. There are also plenty of assholes who don't. But to try to make any kind of sweeping moralistic judgment about some group of 37 million strangers is unjustly harmful and heavily biased in nature.
_____
> *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 public reaction to the Ashley Madison hacks are way out of line. We don't know the situations of any of the people using this website. There is more than one configuration that can make for a stable marriage or LTR. What if you have a non-monogamous partner that consents to your extramarital activities, but you still felt the necessity to be discreet due to societal pressures? Or maybe your partner is unable to meet certain needs but still loves and wants you to find that satisfaction elsewhere? Or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness? There are really so many possibilities and to say that all of the people wronged met the end they deserved is to [deny rational thinking so that it aligns nicely with our view of how the world should be](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis).
I've never seen this website myself so I really can't say anything about the demographics of its userbase, but imagine being in a situation like this and having your private information stolen from you, seriously endangering your social and professional life (and that of your spouse's) while strangers on the internet as well as peers in real life jeer at you and call you scum and filth who deserved it in the first place.
There are plenty of assholes who cheat on their spouses. There are also plenty of assholes who don't. But to try to make any kind of sweeping moralistic judgment about some group of 37 million strangers is unjustly harmful and heavily biased in nature.
|
t3_2ff2vm | CMV: Mentally disabled students shouldn't be allowed to attend general classes at public schools | I realize that I will offend people, especially those who have a relationship with the mentally disabled, but this is quite annoying for me.
As much as I try to sympathize with the mentally disabled, it's difficult in class. I am taking a required Gov/Econ class and there is a mentally disabled student there.
I cannot say exactly *how* disabled he is, but his involuntary actions are quite disruptive to the class. **I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to go to the school, I just think he should be placed in a special ed class.**
List of stuff:
* Requires a wheelchair as well as a "parent" to push him, clean him up, etc. We need to move our desks by the door to let him in. (And he comes in 5-10 minutes after lecture starts)
* Does not seem to pay attention in class. This means that he doesn't really focus on the teacher or the presentation and looks awkwardly in a random direction.
* Makes very loud continuous rattling/gasping sounds like he was drowning and just got to be able to breathe. These fits typically last 10-30 seconds and sometimes even drown out the professor. The parent needs to hush him, but sometimes is busy and doesn't seem to do it. This is the main reason I'm annoyed. I want to listen to the lecture, take notes, take tests/quizzes in peace, and not have to feel uncomfortable. It's the feeling where you hear someone being tortured and you just want to walk away/block your ears since the gasping sounds like he's choking x_x
* The parent is taking notes but the student himself does not seem to gain anything from being in the lecture.
---
EDIT: I should add that this is directed towards disabled students who are disruptive in class, not towards ALL mentally disabled students.
When I think of a classroom, I think of a healthy and proper learning environment for all students. Special ed classes may be better suited for mentally disabled students because they are specialized for their needs and the students can receive more independent attention. It makes no sense for a teacher to temporarily stop a class of 35 for 1 student. The teacher can't even reprimand him like one would for a loud student.
---
∆ awarded to /u/sometimeswecry for changing my view to the following conclusion:
Disruptive students should be removed from class or dealt with. This is applicable to all students, including those who are mentally disabled.
_____
> *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: Mentally disabled students shouldn't be allowed to attend general classes at public schools. I realize that I will offend people, especially those who have a relationship with the mentally disabled, but this is quite annoying for me.
As much as I try to sympathize with the mentally disabled, it's difficult in class. I am taking a required Gov/Econ class and there is a mentally disabled student there.
I cannot say exactly *how* disabled he is, but his involuntary actions are quite disruptive to the class. **I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to go to the school, I just think he should be placed in a special ed class.**
List of stuff:
* Requires a wheelchair as well as a "parent" to push him, clean him up, etc. We need to move our desks by the door to let him in. (And he comes in 5-10 minutes after lecture starts)
* Does not seem to pay attention in class. This means that he doesn't really focus on the teacher or the presentation and looks awkwardly in a random direction.
* Makes very loud continuous rattling/gasping sounds like he was drowning and just got to be able to breathe. These fits typically last 10-30 seconds and sometimes even drown out the professor. The parent needs to hush him, but sometimes is busy and doesn't seem to do it. This is the main reason I'm annoyed. I want to listen to the lecture, take notes, take tests/quizzes in peace, and not have to feel uncomfortable. It's the feeling where you hear someone being tortured and you just want to walk away/block your ears since the gasping sounds like he's choking x_x
* The parent is taking notes but the student himself does not seem to gain anything from being in the lecture.
---
EDIT: I should add that this is directed towards disabled students who are disruptive in class, not towards ALL mentally disabled students.
When I think of a classroom, I think of a healthy and proper learning environment for all students. Special ed classes may be better suited for mentally disabled students because they are specialized for their needs and the students can receive more independent attention. It makes no sense for a teacher to temporarily stop a class of 35 for 1 student. The teacher can't even reprimand him like one would for a loud student.
---
∆ awarded to /u/sometimeswecry for changing my view to the following conclusion:
Disruptive students should be removed from class or dealt with. This is applicable to all students, including those who are mentally disabled.
|
t3_1hcwnn | I believe marijuana is habit forming. CMV | From personal experience and being involved in the culture and then going to complete 'non-use', I believe marijuana to be a habit forming drug.
Now I know we can argue that possibly I just have an addictive personality and that could be true, I might. Though another thing I've thought about (personal opinion) is that when I was around people that use marijuana at first it seemed a bit sketchy. But the more I indulged in it I started justifying it to myself with the usual "Im not getting addicted, its just nice, I could stop at any time that I want. And never even think about doing it again." and things like that. But in the end I kept partaking.
But one day I had a big falling out with my dad and I promised myself I wouldn't continue because it was leading me into a worse crowd (gangs, etc) but we don't need to discuss that here. And for a very long time after I stopped I wanted to do it and every time it was offered it was hard to say no. It didn't have a physical toll on me but the mental toll it was taking was definitely noticeable. But sitting here now I really have no urge to, hence leading me to believe I formed a habit but was able to break it.
You can't say it was because my friends were pressuring me after I stopped and thats why I kept having feelings because all ties were quickly cut between us because I didnt smoke anymore, but I still felt the urge.
tl;dr coming from both sides of the fence i think marijuana is habit forming
edit: spelling | I believe marijuana is habit forming. CMV. From personal experience and being involved in the culture and then going to complete 'non-use', I believe marijuana to be a habit forming drug.
Now I know we can argue that possibly I just have an addictive personality and that could be true, I might. Though another thing I've thought about (personal opinion) is that when I was around people that use marijuana at first it seemed a bit sketchy. But the more I indulged in it I started justifying it to myself with the usual "Im not getting addicted, its just nice, I could stop at any time that I want. And never even think about doing it again." and things like that. But in the end I kept partaking.
But one day I had a big falling out with my dad and I promised myself I wouldn't continue because it was leading me into a worse crowd (gangs, etc) but we don't need to discuss that here. And for a very long time after I stopped I wanted to do it and every time it was offered it was hard to say no. It didn't have a physical toll on me but the mental toll it was taking was definitely noticeable. But sitting here now I really have no urge to, hence leading me to believe I formed a habit but was able to break it.
You can't say it was because my friends were pressuring me after I stopped and thats why I kept having feelings because all ties were quickly cut between us because I didnt smoke anymore, but I still felt the urge.
tl;dr coming from both sides of the fence i think marijuana is habit forming
edit: spelling |
t3_1v2mdj | Society has become so desensitized to drunk and buzzed driving that it has become a perfectly acceptable activity. CMV | This is fueled by something that happened to me recently. I was at a party at a friends house who was walking distance from my house, though everyone else there had driven. Many of the people there were in their late 50s. Every person had at least a few drinks, many had more than a few, and every car I saw leave had driven by someone who was at least buzzed and often times drunk. I don't think I need to state the dangers of drunk driving.
My point is that at this party, and many social events, people assume the only risk associated with driving while buzzed or drunk is getting caught and are at the point where they just do it without thinking twice about it.
Even one alcoholic beverage is enough to impair judgement, which is not acceptable when operating something as potential dangerous as a vehicle.
CMV | Society has become so desensitized to drunk and buzzed driving that it has become a perfectly acceptable activity. CMV. This is fueled by something that happened to me recently. I was at a party at a friends house who was walking distance from my house, though everyone else there had driven. Many of the people there were in their late 50s. Every person had at least a few drinks, many had more than a few, and every car I saw leave had driven by someone who was at least buzzed and often times drunk. I don't think I need to state the dangers of drunk driving.
My point is that at this party, and many social events, people assume the only risk associated with driving while buzzed or drunk is getting caught and are at the point where they just do it without thinking twice about it.
Even one alcoholic beverage is enough to impair judgement, which is not acceptable when operating something as potential dangerous as a vehicle.
CMV |
t3_1j1k0l | I believe contracting to paramilitary groups like Blackwater is wrong and should be illegal. CMV. | Now, I will admit at the outset that this is not a topic I know very much about, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what the justification is for having groups like Blackwater working alongside troops in war zones. I cannot figure out what benefit there is in hiring mercenaries when we already have the most powerful military in the world. The only possible reason is to have them do things that we don't want our soldiers to do, but in that case, they probably aren't things anyone should be doing anyway.
Furthermore, when you're paying a group of people to kill, you lose all the oversight that the military has. You're giving private citizens the authority over life and death, with no guarantee of the training, discipline, or accountability that soldiers in the military have. | I believe contracting to paramilitary groups like Blackwater is wrong and should be illegal. CMV. Now, I will admit at the outset that this is not a topic I know very much about, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what the justification is for having groups like Blackwater working alongside troops in war zones. I cannot figure out what benefit there is in hiring mercenaries when we already have the most powerful military in the world. The only possible reason is to have them do things that we don't want our soldiers to do, but in that case, they probably aren't things anyone should be doing anyway.
Furthermore, when you're paying a group of people to kill, you lose all the oversight that the military has. You're giving private citizens the authority over life and death, with no guarantee of the training, discipline, or accountability that soldiers in the military have. |
t3_53gimn | CMV: Major League Baseball should have robotic umpires monitor and call the strike zone | It is documented that there is currently technology that would eliminate human error from calling balls and strikes in the MLB.
[here](http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/mlb-robot-umpires-instant-replay-managers-arguing-balls-strikes-future-082715)
[here](http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/14599589/re-imagining-baseball-robot-umpires-home-plate)
[here](http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-ready-for-baseballs-robot-umpires-1462749974)
Currently, Umpires are wrong so often on calls in the strike zone [there is skill](http://www.fangraphs.com/library/defense/catcher-defense/) attributed to catchers to trick the umpires into calling more strikes. This skill clearly benefits pitchers, as the batters have nobody to frame their pitches as balls. A change would make the game more precise, and prevent pro athletes who train their whole life be disadvantaged by a terrible call, [which](https://twitter.com/CubsUmp/status/777586802181939201) are still made all the time.
As baseball offense has suffered recently as pitchers have gotten [better](http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mlb-declining-offense-20150405-story.html) and [better](http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mlb-declining-offense-20150405-story.html) in recent years at preventing runs, a rule that gives hitters a slight but deserved advantage would swing offensive numbers up, and make the game more exciting.
Fundamentally, changing to robotic umps would make the game more precise, more exciting and more fair. I cannot think of one disadvantage to making this change, yet Major League Baseball has no plans in the intermediate future to switch over | CMV: Major League Baseball should have robotic umpires monitor and call the strike zone. It is documented that there is currently technology that would eliminate human error from calling balls and strikes in the MLB.
[here](http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/mlb-robot-umpires-instant-replay-managers-arguing-balls-strikes-future-082715)
[here](http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/14599589/re-imagining-baseball-robot-umpires-home-plate)
[here](http://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-ready-for-baseballs-robot-umpires-1462749974)
Currently, Umpires are wrong so often on calls in the strike zone [there is skill](http://www.fangraphs.com/library/defense/catcher-defense/) attributed to catchers to trick the umpires into calling more strikes. This skill clearly benefits pitchers, as the batters have nobody to frame their pitches as balls. A change would make the game more precise, and prevent pro athletes who train their whole life be disadvantaged by a terrible call, [which](https://twitter.com/CubsUmp/status/777586802181939201) are still made all the time.
As baseball offense has suffered recently as pitchers have gotten [better](http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mlb-declining-offense-20150405-story.html) and [better](http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mlb-declining-offense-20150405-story.html) in recent years at preventing runs, a rule that gives hitters a slight but deserved advantage would swing offensive numbers up, and make the game more exciting.
Fundamentally, changing to robotic umps would make the game more precise, more exciting and more fair. I cannot think of one disadvantage to making this change, yet Major League Baseball has no plans in the intermediate future to switch over |
t3_1lut34 | I think people who consider spaying/neutering their pets 'cruel' are wrong and ignorant. CMV. | I'm not talking about people who want to breed their pets.
I occasionally meet people who claim to be 'pet lovers', and as such absolutely refuse to spay/neuter their pets. A friend of mine went so far as to call it 'cruel and disgusting' and I laughed in her face because in my opinion she is just so wrong. I've never been able to understand the arguments against it, maybe if I did I'd be able to form another opinion about the situation.
- Neutering/Spaying keeps dogs who's owner don't want puppies from...well...reproducing. It's irresponsible to bring happy, healthy puppies into the world only to abandon them. Thousands of animals in shelters are put down every year, it's immoral to contribute to that.
- The procedure is common, safe and inexpensive, it eliminates many hormone related behavioral problems in pets (instinctual behaviors which they can't help, often followed by the owner scolding them for it) and there's no compelling reason not to do it.
- I believe that many people who are against neutering are assigning human emotions to their pets, when that's simply not appropriate. Dogs do not have the same urge to 'start a family', nor do they have the emotional desire to have children. They aren't going to feel 'left out' because everyone else is having babies and they are not, that's silly.
- Owners who claim they 'keep an eye on their pet enough to make sure they aren't having sex' are naive and are not accounting for the very real possibility that a trip to the dog park and a 10 minute distraction (like a telephone call) can end in pregnancy.
- Keeping a pet intact and not allowing it to mate is a different form of cruel in my opinion. Bitches in heat have only one agenda, unneutered male dogs cannot resist a female in heat. To keep them from mating when every instinct is telling them to is wrong.
CMV | I think people who consider spaying/neutering their pets 'cruel' are wrong and ignorant. CMV. I'm not talking about people who want to breed their pets.
I occasionally meet people who claim to be 'pet lovers', and as such absolutely refuse to spay/neuter their pets. A friend of mine went so far as to call it 'cruel and disgusting' and I laughed in her face because in my opinion she is just so wrong. I've never been able to understand the arguments against it, maybe if I did I'd be able to form another opinion about the situation.
- Neutering/Spaying keeps dogs who's owner don't want puppies from...well...reproducing. It's irresponsible to bring happy, healthy puppies into the world only to abandon them. Thousands of animals in shelters are put down every year, it's immoral to contribute to that.
- The procedure is common, safe and inexpensive, it eliminates many hormone related behavioral problems in pets (instinctual behaviors which they can't help, often followed by the owner scolding them for it) and there's no compelling reason not to do it.
- I believe that many people who are against neutering are assigning human emotions to their pets, when that's simply not appropriate. Dogs do not have the same urge to 'start a family', nor do they have the emotional desire to have children. They aren't going to feel 'left out' because everyone else is having babies and they are not, that's silly.
- Owners who claim they 'keep an eye on their pet enough to make sure they aren't having sex' are naive and are not accounting for the very real possibility that a trip to the dog park and a 10 minute distraction (like a telephone call) can end in pregnancy.
- Keeping a pet intact and not allowing it to mate is a different form of cruel in my opinion. Bitches in heat have only one agenda, unneutered male dogs cannot resist a female in heat. To keep them from mating when every instinct is telling them to is wrong.
CMV |
t3_2m97c8 | CMV: I think SWAT teams should be restricted to their original duties of hostage negotiation and interventions in situations deemed to be of extreme danger. | 1. [SWAT teams and other paramilitary police units, designed to be the last resort in hostage or high-risk situations, have increasingly become the first option for a variety of traditional police duties.](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko)
2. [SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homes an average of 100-150 times each day to enforce laws against predominantly non-violent crimes.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/how-to-roll-back-police-militarization_n_3749272.html)
3. [Police department statistics indicate that as many as 1 in 10 of these “no knock” paramilitary raids may be perpetrated at the wrong address.](http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/26675-cops-do-20000-no-knock-raids-each-year-civilians-pay-the-price-when-they-go-wrong)
4. [Any perceived noncompliance by occupants in these raids is typically met with potentially **lethal** force.](http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs)
* There are many articles throughout the web displaying acts of false SWAT aggression.
I firmly believe that these paramilitary style raids threaten the foundation of the 4th Amendment's search and seizure protections.
I've had far too many people tell me these guys keep us safe. I think they do, too, but they're a waste of money as far as how many times we release them on situations the police can handle. Change my view.
*****
EDIT: Added all of my sources.
[This is also a great article](http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs) | CMV: I think SWAT teams should be restricted to their original duties of hostage negotiation and interventions in situations deemed to be of extreme danger. 1. [SWAT teams and other paramilitary police units, designed to be the last resort in hostage or high-risk situations, have increasingly become the first option for a variety of traditional police duties.](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko)
2. [SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homes an average of 100-150 times each day to enforce laws against predominantly non-violent crimes.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/how-to-roll-back-police-militarization_n_3749272.html)
3. [Police department statistics indicate that as many as 1 in 10 of these “no knock” paramilitary raids may be perpetrated at the wrong address.](http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/26675-cops-do-20000-no-knock-raids-each-year-civilians-pay-the-price-when-they-go-wrong)
4. [Any perceived noncompliance by occupants in these raids is typically met with potentially **lethal** force.](http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs)
* There are many articles throughout the web displaying acts of false SWAT aggression.
I firmly believe that these paramilitary style raids threaten the foundation of the 4th Amendment's search and seizure protections.
I've had far too many people tell me these guys keep us safe. I think they do, too, but they're a waste of money as far as how many times we release them on situations the police can handle. Change my view.
*****
EDIT: Added all of my sources.
[This is also a great article](http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs) |
t3_5mzjl8 | [Mod Post] Introducing /r/DeltaLog and DeltaBot's Stickied Comment. | I'm very pleased to announce two new features in our delta system:
* /r/DeltaLog - a browsable archive of comments that received deltas in CMV.
* A [stickied comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5mur2m/cmv_the_internet_is_more_detrimental_to_society/dc7bi91/), made by /u/DeltaBot if OP awards a delta, which links to the corresponding post in /r/DeltaLog.
A massive thanks to /u/wyantb and /u/MystK for writing the code for this and getting it up and running! We really appreciate the hard work our DeltaBot developers are putting in for us. If any of you know node.js and would like to help out, [please do](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three). We still have some unassigned [issues](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three/issues).
Note: We're aware of a couple of bugs in /r/DeltaLog. We'll hopefully have that sorted before too long.
Thanks for reading! | [Mod Post] Introducing /r/DeltaLog and DeltaBot's Stickied Comment. I'm very pleased to announce two new features in our delta system:
* /r/DeltaLog - a browsable archive of comments that received deltas in CMV.
* A [stickied comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5mur2m/cmv_the_internet_is_more_detrimental_to_society/dc7bi91/), made by /u/DeltaBot if OP awards a delta, which links to the corresponding post in /r/DeltaLog.
A massive thanks to /u/wyantb and /u/MystK for writing the code for this and getting it up and running! We really appreciate the hard work our DeltaBot developers are putting in for us. If any of you know node.js and would like to help out, [please do](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three). We still have some unassigned [issues](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three/issues).
Note: We're aware of a couple of bugs in /r/DeltaLog. We'll hopefully have that sorted before too long.
Thanks for reading! |
t3_3k41j7 | CMV: It's not dangerous to listen to audiobook while bicycling. | I've started listening to audiobooks, which is great - I enjoy it quite bit. I commute to school on a bicycle 12km each way every day, so I got the idea to listen to audioooks while cycling to entertain myself. It's great, I feel like I don't miss anything although I'm late at times and have to push myself. Now naturally it's not ideal as it reduces your ability to hear signals from the surrounding traffic. Most of the way it's not a problem, but there are a few stretches with intersections and stuff like that, where you must be on your guard. I feel like I am able to hear people no problem, and I believe it's quite different from music, as this doesn't block out much noise, However it's obviously not ideal. I am however convinced that I does not pose a significant risk and I quite enjoy listenig to audiobooks, so I'll keep on doing it unless you can convince me otherwise.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: It's not dangerous to listen to audiobook while bicycling. I've started listening to audiobooks, which is great - I enjoy it quite bit. I commute to school on a bicycle 12km each way every day, so I got the idea to listen to audioooks while cycling to entertain myself. It's great, I feel like I don't miss anything although I'm late at times and have to push myself. Now naturally it's not ideal as it reduces your ability to hear signals from the surrounding traffic. Most of the way it's not a problem, but there are a few stretches with intersections and stuff like that, where you must be on your guard. I feel like I am able to hear people no problem, and I believe it's quite different from music, as this doesn't block out much noise, However it's obviously not ideal. I am however convinced that I does not pose a significant risk and I quite enjoy listenig to audiobooks, so I'll keep on doing it unless you can convince me otherwise.
|
t3_1hhjb4 | I believe we need a complete overhaul of a majority of our police departments CMV | police abuse there power everyday with little to no punishment, they violate laws everyday on how to conduct an investigation and unless you have your camera ready with an instant-dropbox they will just delete your video and take you to court where its a "criminals" word against theirs
in my opinion police should face criminal charges if they arrest anyone without enough evidence to convict them (you can still detain just no arrests/charges), and anyone caught breaking any laws while being a police officer should not only be fired and never be allowed to work as a cop again, but should face noticibly more severe charges than if an ordinary citizen broke the same law
Cops should be treated how they currently treat ordinary citizens; guilty until proven innocent e.g. "Prove that you had probable cause to do X" technology has advanced more than enough that cops can easily do most of this via video cops are generally power hungry assholes who abuse with the way the current system is setup
Inb4 "but there are good guy cops too!" the few good ones there are lose all of my respect because they will lie to defend the cops that DO abuse there power which is why i propose that:
whistle blowing on cops who break laws should be encouraged and there should be financial incentive to do so
| I believe we need a complete overhaul of a majority of our police departments CMV. police abuse there power everyday with little to no punishment, they violate laws everyday on how to conduct an investigation and unless you have your camera ready with an instant-dropbox they will just delete your video and take you to court where its a "criminals" word against theirs
in my opinion police should face criminal charges if they arrest anyone without enough evidence to convict them (you can still detain just no arrests/charges), and anyone caught breaking any laws while being a police officer should not only be fired and never be allowed to work as a cop again, but should face noticibly more severe charges than if an ordinary citizen broke the same law
Cops should be treated how they currently treat ordinary citizens; guilty until proven innocent e.g. "Prove that you had probable cause to do X" technology has advanced more than enough that cops can easily do most of this via video cops are generally power hungry assholes who abuse with the way the current system is setup
Inb4 "but there are good guy cops too!" the few good ones there are lose all of my respect because they will lie to defend the cops that DO abuse there power which is why i propose that:
whistle blowing on cops who break laws should be encouraged and there should be financial incentive to do so
|
t3_407dgr | CMV: The offside rule in football/soccer should not apply when the balls is in the box. | The offside rule is essential, there is no doubt. Without it players will cherry pick and there would be mindless lobs into the attacking box, which is not what fans want to see. Unfortunately, a good defense uses the offside rule in a highly technical manner in crucial situations, leading to ridiculous looking plays where attacks are ignored as a line of d-men advance with their arms up looking to the sideline - a miscalculation leading to 4 d-men essentially ignoring a single attacker immediately in front of the net.
Sport benefits from an honest challenge between offense and defense, not from a near bureaucratic leveraging of a well intentioned (and otherwise necessary) rule.
I propose: Once an attacker has penetrated the box, offsides are off. Defense must now play defense to the best of their abilities. I am certain my proposal will never become reality so I want my view to be change here.
_____
> *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 offside rule in football/soccer should not apply when the balls is in the box. The offside rule is essential, there is no doubt. Without it players will cherry pick and there would be mindless lobs into the attacking box, which is not what fans want to see. Unfortunately, a good defense uses the offside rule in a highly technical manner in crucial situations, leading to ridiculous looking plays where attacks are ignored as a line of d-men advance with their arms up looking to the sideline - a miscalculation leading to 4 d-men essentially ignoring a single attacker immediately in front of the net.
Sport benefits from an honest challenge between offense and defense, not from a near bureaucratic leveraging of a well intentioned (and otherwise necessary) rule.
I propose: Once an attacker has penetrated the box, offsides are off. Defense must now play defense to the best of their abilities. I am certain my proposal will never become reality so I want my view to be change here.
|
t3_5twxxp | CMV: Age of consent laws at the current time (16-18 with romeo and juliet laws) are not productive and should be changed. | This is an argument for making the age of consent do to 21 and removing romeo and juliet laws
I think that current age of consent laws (16-18 with romeo and juliet laws) are a bad medium between high and low age of consents and that romeo and juliet laws should be removed. A large amount of this argument comes down to a phenomenon that I believe exists where a small but significant portion of the population due to strong emotions about youth (not just forbiddenness) develop a fetishization of persons below the age of consent and that this is easily preventable through changes in laws either by increasing the age of consent and removing romeo and juliet laws, or by reducing the age of consent. Although there are some points for a lower age of consent I think that the age of consent should be raised to 21 and romeo and juliet laws removed.
Argument for increasing age of consent: fetishization of underaged people will be broader in age (14-20) and thus give less of a risk to those who this fetishization will harm the most (13-15)
Many people have not fully developed until the age of 21 or even later, making the laws this way would help protect them
Laws would also help counter social pressures to engage in sexual activity at young ages (although this benefit is lost if Romeo and Juliet laws are present)
The fetishization that I am proposing exists is something that I only believe exists in a small portion of the population, its existence does not mean that the general population of teenagers will react in a similar manner to being subject to stricter age of consent laws
Argument against Romeo and Juliet laws:
Legitimizes sexual activity at unhealthily young ages, early sexual activity is associated with poor outcomes
Might make such a fetishization that would arise due to legal restrictions become worse due to the moral message not being as clear, many would be violators would see that such sexual activity is permitted and see it as that there is no harm associated with sex at a young age and they are only being arbitrarily prevented from engaging in such sexual activity
Note: previously I made this thread and it was locked due to rule B violation. I came upon several problems that day mostly coming down to not being aware that it was fresh topic friday but also not putting enough effort into the OP and my participation in the thread
EDIT: I removed the argument for younger age of consent to comply with Rule B
_____
> *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: Age of consent laws at the current time (16-18 with romeo and juliet laws) are not productive and should be changed. This is an argument for making the age of consent do to 21 and removing romeo and juliet laws
I think that current age of consent laws (16-18 with romeo and juliet laws) are a bad medium between high and low age of consents and that romeo and juliet laws should be removed. A large amount of this argument comes down to a phenomenon that I believe exists where a small but significant portion of the population due to strong emotions about youth (not just forbiddenness) develop a fetishization of persons below the age of consent and that this is easily preventable through changes in laws either by increasing the age of consent and removing romeo and juliet laws, or by reducing the age of consent. Although there are some points for a lower age of consent I think that the age of consent should be raised to 21 and romeo and juliet laws removed.
Argument for increasing age of consent: fetishization of underaged people will be broader in age (14-20) and thus give less of a risk to those who this fetishization will harm the most (13-15)
Many people have not fully developed until the age of 21 or even later, making the laws this way would help protect them
Laws would also help counter social pressures to engage in sexual activity at young ages (although this benefit is lost if Romeo and Juliet laws are present)
The fetishization that I am proposing exists is something that I only believe exists in a small portion of the population, its existence does not mean that the general population of teenagers will react in a similar manner to being subject to stricter age of consent laws
Argument against Romeo and Juliet laws:
Legitimizes sexual activity at unhealthily young ages, early sexual activity is associated with poor outcomes
Might make such a fetishization that would arise due to legal restrictions become worse due to the moral message not being as clear, many would be violators would see that such sexual activity is permitted and see it as that there is no harm associated with sex at a young age and they are only being arbitrarily prevented from engaging in such sexual activity
Note: previously I made this thread and it was locked due to rule B violation. I came upon several problems that day mostly coming down to not being aware that it was fresh topic friday but also not putting enough effort into the OP and my participation in the thread
EDIT: I removed the argument for younger age of consent to comply with Rule B |
t3_25vncd | CMV:Pizza should be measured in inches, 8", 12" 18" instead of S, M, L. | I'm getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza's for $5.99, but it is really only a 10" pizza which is a medium at best. The size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi*r^2. Since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza's radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie. An 18" pie is 20% larger then a 16" pie. My point is that when places like Dominos and Pizza Hut sell you S, M, L pies, you have no way to know what you are getting. They should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie. What would be so hard about that?
_____
> *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:Pizza should be measured in inches, 8", 12" 18" instead of S, M, L. I'm getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza's for $5.99, but it is really only a 10" pizza which is a medium at best. The size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi*r^2. Since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza's radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie. An 18" pie is 20% larger then a 16" pie. My point is that when places like Dominos and Pizza Hut sell you S, M, L pies, you have no way to know what you are getting. They should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie. What would be so hard about that?
|
t3_6hj0ez | CMV: House of Cards Season 5 is a radical departure from the first 4 seasons and the quality of the show's storyline is now in a steep decline | **Spoiler alert**
I loved the first four seasons of House of Cards. Francis and Claire Underwood were incredible villains. Doug Stamper was the quintessential lackey, for whom Frank was his "precious". Francis killed Zoey. Francis killed Peter Russo. Doug killed Rachel. Claire was complicit in all of this. It all fit together in the House of Cards universe. There was a tight circle of superlative corruption.
But then Season 5 happened.
Why didn't anyone, especially Tom Hammerschmidt, bat an eye when Catherine Durant took a fall in the White House? And what about LeeAnn Harvey? No problem with Aidan Macallan "killing himself". And now LeeAnn has been killed too? Come on.
No longer is there a tight circle of corruption -- now everybody and their brother are in on it. Of course anyone who attempts to crusade against it will be shot down. *Oh, gee, Congressman Romero, who is Rochelle?* Deus ex machina right out of the writers' special place where the sun don't shine. It's as ridiculous as action movies where the hero can dodge bullets.
The only way the writers can possibly resolve this is by season 6 being the last season, where Francis, Claire, and the entire expanded circle of villains are caught and punished. Otherwise, it will be a farce. There was a secret, private villainy that existed when it was confined to the Underwoods and Doug. Now it's just become bad writing that didn't know where to go.
Change my view.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: House of Cards Season 5 is a radical departure from the first 4 seasons and the quality of the show's storyline is now in a steep decline. **Spoiler alert**
I loved the first four seasons of House of Cards. Francis and Claire Underwood were incredible villains. Doug Stamper was the quintessential lackey, for whom Frank was his "precious". Francis killed Zoey. Francis killed Peter Russo. Doug killed Rachel. Claire was complicit in all of this. It all fit together in the House of Cards universe. There was a tight circle of superlative corruption.
But then Season 5 happened.
Why didn't anyone, especially Tom Hammerschmidt, bat an eye when Catherine Durant took a fall in the White House? And what about LeeAnn Harvey? No problem with Aidan Macallan "killing himself". And now LeeAnn has been killed too? Come on.
No longer is there a tight circle of corruption -- now everybody and their brother are in on it. Of course anyone who attempts to crusade against it will be shot down. *Oh, gee, Congressman Romero, who is Rochelle?* Deus ex machina right out of the writers' special place where the sun don't shine. It's as ridiculous as action movies where the hero can dodge bullets.
The only way the writers can possibly resolve this is by season 6 being the last season, where Francis, Claire, and the entire expanded circle of villains are caught and punished. Otherwise, it will be a farce. There was a secret, private villainy that existed when it was confined to the Underwoods and Doug. Now it's just become bad writing that didn't know where to go.
Change my view. |
t3_3z7r3u | CMV: Modern culture, even "intellectual" culture values not offending people rather than truth. This is a bad thing | Modern culture, especially intellectual culture, laughs at the dark ages where the heliocentric model of the universe was dismissed without debate for merely challenging people's preconceived beliefs of what was the center of the universe, but yet we toss out ideas, whether correct or incorrect, true or false without debate today in 2016 just like the intellectuals of the day tossed out the heliocentric model of the universe. Just like they tossed out ideas for being un-Christian without investigating to see if they were true or false, certain descriptors are tossed around to silence debate such as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. rather than actually looking at the merits of whether there is truth behind it.
The goal of any debate or any modern, civilized culture should be to find truth. It should not matter if that truth is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or whatever else society deems as against their preconceived notions. What should matter is whether it is correct and whether it is true. As such, dismissing an argument simply because its "racist" or otherwise challenges your beliefs is unacceptable in a modern, civilized culture. The argument should be weighed on its own merits, it should be accepted if it is true or rejected if it is false. But, in modern culture that's not addressed, either an argument or belief is simply rejected based on pre-conceived notions or they fail to use occam's razor when discussing it and bring in multiple assumptions to try to justify the observation with their own worldview. This failure of debate is especially present on Reddit and most of the media, for example, back when /r/coontown existed, there was very little honest debate on there despite the admins actively encouraging it, most of the comments were combated not with facts and figures but mere emotions.
The fact that something is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. is absolutely irrelevant to the goal of debate in a civilized culture which is to reason and to find truth. Now, it may very well come in through the matter of reason and debate that it shows that those comments and views are untrue, but dismissing them because it makes you uncomfortable does not make those arguments invalid.
It is my belief that dismissing these viewpoints without seeing whether the positions are true or false is the modern day equivalent to dismissing the heliocentric view of the solar system because it was un-christian. This post is not to debate race, homosexuality, national origin, etc. but rather a debate on the modern dismissal of ideas that make people uncomfortable.
_____
> *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: Modern culture, even "intellectual" culture values not offending people rather than truth. This is a bad thing. Modern culture, especially intellectual culture, laughs at the dark ages where the heliocentric model of the universe was dismissed without debate for merely challenging people's preconceived beliefs of what was the center of the universe, but yet we toss out ideas, whether correct or incorrect, true or false without debate today in 2016 just like the intellectuals of the day tossed out the heliocentric model of the universe. Just like they tossed out ideas for being un-Christian without investigating to see if they were true or false, certain descriptors are tossed around to silence debate such as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. rather than actually looking at the merits of whether there is truth behind it.
The goal of any debate or any modern, civilized culture should be to find truth. It should not matter if that truth is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or whatever else society deems as against their preconceived notions. What should matter is whether it is correct and whether it is true. As such, dismissing an argument simply because its "racist" or otherwise challenges your beliefs is unacceptable in a modern, civilized culture. The argument should be weighed on its own merits, it should be accepted if it is true or rejected if it is false. But, in modern culture that's not addressed, either an argument or belief is simply rejected based on pre-conceived notions or they fail to use occam's razor when discussing it and bring in multiple assumptions to try to justify the observation with their own worldview. This failure of debate is especially present on Reddit and most of the media, for example, back when /r/coontown existed, there was very little honest debate on there despite the admins actively encouraging it, most of the comments were combated not with facts and figures but mere emotions.
The fact that something is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. is absolutely irrelevant to the goal of debate in a civilized culture which is to reason and to find truth. Now, it may very well come in through the matter of reason and debate that it shows that those comments and views are untrue, but dismissing them because it makes you uncomfortable does not make those arguments invalid.
It is my belief that dismissing these viewpoints without seeing whether the positions are true or false is the modern day equivalent to dismissing the heliocentric view of the solar system because it was un-christian. This post is not to debate race, homosexuality, national origin, etc. but rather a debate on the modern dismissal of ideas that make people uncomfortable.
|
t3_6shucf | CMV: Monopolies and negative externalities are natural tendencies of global free markets. | Hey econ people out there, CMV!
So here is my basic theory: from an individual and collective level, the forces that push companies to make decisions towards seeking Monopoly of a market and if possible negative externalities.
I believe that the "invisible hand" that should supposably prevent these behavior are not strong enough to offset the potential profit incentive, given no outside regulations.
I want to save the issue of what to do about it for another post. Right now I just want to get some depth and breadth to my understanding of how this stuff works.
_____
> *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: Monopolies and negative externalities are natural tendencies of global free markets. Hey econ people out there, CMV!
So here is my basic theory: from an individual and collective level, the forces that push companies to make decisions towards seeking Monopoly of a market and if possible negative externalities.
I believe that the "invisible hand" that should supposably prevent these behavior are not strong enough to offset the potential profit incentive, given no outside regulations.
I want to save the issue of what to do about it for another post. Right now I just want to get some depth and breadth to my understanding of how this stuff works.
|
t3_3wamx9 | CMV: Private school dress codes are a necessary part of promoting a healthy school environment. | Many private high schools in the United States have dress codes: formalized standards of clothing that give students one specific choice of clothing (you MUST wear THIS shirt and THESE pants) or a few within the same category (you must wear a polo shirt from among a small list of colors from the same company and all the same pants).
This standard of dress is important for the following reasons:
* It puts all students of different socio-economic on the same playing field when it comes to buying clothes.
* Students do not have to be preoccupied with clothes; especially in a world where students are getting less and less sleep and have less and less free time, not having to spend energy or minutes picking out an outfit is very positive.
* Distraction. When students are allowed to dress however they wish, some will invariably end up wearing clothes that are distracting to other students. The mission of a school is first and foremost to foster learning, so anything that distracts from learning is inherently against the mission.
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: Private school dress codes are a necessary part of promoting a healthy school environment. Many private high schools in the United States have dress codes: formalized standards of clothing that give students one specific choice of clothing (you MUST wear THIS shirt and THESE pants) or a few within the same category (you must wear a polo shirt from among a small list of colors from the same company and all the same pants).
This standard of dress is important for the following reasons:
* It puts all students of different socio-economic on the same playing field when it comes to buying clothes.
* Students do not have to be preoccupied with clothes; especially in a world where students are getting less and less sleep and have less and less free time, not having to spend energy or minutes picking out an outfit is very positive.
* Distraction. When students are allowed to dress however they wish, some will invariably end up wearing clothes that are distracting to other students. The mission of a school is first and foremost to foster learning, so anything that distracts from learning is inherently against the mission.
CMV! |
t3_20fut1 | Daisy in 'The Great Gatsby' wasn't as horrible as everyone says she was. CMV | In my experience of the text, Daisy was in fact in love with Gatsby as she phoned Gatsby as he was being murdered, showing that she did in fact love him and was going to stay with him. It was Tom Buchanan, Daisy's husband who was the main antagonist, as he was the one who sent Wilson to murder Gatsby (although unintentionally, he was still spiteful and knew that Wilson was unstable and could do anything) and Gatsby himself was also his own enemy as he alienated Daisy into such a state that she could not explain how she felt to either him or her husband.
TL;DR: Daisy was unlucky, Tom was the antagonist, and Gatsby's insecurities helped bring upon his own downfall. Nick was just a good guy with bad friends.
Edit: Going to bed as its getting quite late where I am, will answer more question etc in the morning. | Daisy in 'The Great Gatsby' wasn't as horrible as everyone says she was. CMV. In my experience of the text, Daisy was in fact in love with Gatsby as she phoned Gatsby as he was being murdered, showing that she did in fact love him and was going to stay with him. It was Tom Buchanan, Daisy's husband who was the main antagonist, as he was the one who sent Wilson to murder Gatsby (although unintentionally, he was still spiteful and knew that Wilson was unstable and could do anything) and Gatsby himself was also his own enemy as he alienated Daisy into such a state that she could not explain how she felt to either him or her husband.
TL;DR: Daisy was unlucky, Tom was the antagonist, and Gatsby's insecurities helped bring upon his own downfall. Nick was just a good guy with bad friends.
Edit: Going to bed as its getting quite late where I am, will answer more question etc in the morning. |
t3_28ihy2 | CMV:I think you should not be allowed to change nationality. | I believe this because of 2 reasons;
First, i think that it ruins culture and heritage. With the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating. People originally from X claiming they are from Y with little Y heritage. It angers me a little when country Y is my country.
The second reason being a little more critical. If people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country. The movement of people *usually* tends to be from LEDC to MEDC. Having seen a lot of said movement to my country, I see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.
This view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could CMV.
(I have intentionally not mentioned specific countries for the sake of the argument)
EDIT: Thank you for your answer, they were all read and taken into consideration. I understand that my opinion may not always be the most popular and should aim to change towards being more open to people being 'citizens of the world' rather than 'citizens of X' | CMV:I think you should not be allowed to change nationality. I believe this because of 2 reasons;
First, i think that it ruins culture and heritage. With the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating. People originally from X claiming they are from Y with little Y heritage. It angers me a little when country Y is my country.
The second reason being a little more critical. If people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country. The movement of people *usually* tends to be from LEDC to MEDC. Having seen a lot of said movement to my country, I see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.
This view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could CMV.
(I have intentionally not mentioned specific countries for the sake of the argument)
EDIT: Thank you for your answer, they were all read and taken into consideration. I understand that my opinion may not always be the most popular and should aim to change towards being more open to people being 'citizens of the world' rather than 'citizens of X' |
t3_20umll | Those unemployed with only undergrads in Humanities have no place to complain about not getting a job. CMV | My assumptions/views:
* They willfully chose that major
* The job market statistics are out there and easily available
* Not using these is simply carelessness
Things to note:
* I mentioned Humanities as a general sentiment. Generally, any major with low employment rates. Some humanities may not apply
* The argument can be extended to salaries as well
* People have other reasons besides employment/salary to choose a major, which is fine. This is irrelevant to my argument. Complaining about employment/salary still stands with my above points
_____
> *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!* | Those unemployed with only undergrads in Humanities have no place to complain about not getting a job. CMV. My assumptions/views:
* They willfully chose that major
* The job market statistics are out there and easily available
* Not using these is simply carelessness
Things to note:
* I mentioned Humanities as a general sentiment. Generally, any major with low employment rates. Some humanities may not apply
* The argument can be extended to salaries as well
* People have other reasons besides employment/salary to choose a major, which is fine. This is irrelevant to my argument. Complaining about employment/salary still stands with my above points
|
t3_1qcy8g | I believe that, 9 times out of 10, violence is the answer and can solve most issues facing humanity, whether it be individual or on a large-scale. CMV | Most of my life, basically middle and high school, i dealt with bullying. And for the longest time i felt all these anti-bullying campaigns were effective means to combat bullying. However, when i came to college, my view on this started to change. I always wondered why we didnt allow our children to learn violence, while a dangerous thing if abused, can be used in a positive way so to speak. If i felt that if i beat up my bullies and would not face consequences because they instigated the bullying, i would have done so years ago. Instead, i felt like i was in a catch-22 situation. If i beat up my bullies, id be in trouble and theyd go almost scott-free. If i didnt tell them, id either have to leave it be and continue to suffer at their hands or let an adult deal with it, removing my sense of control of the situation. I mean, when i looked at things historically, violence has been somewhat of a positive thing. Alexander the Great, while a ruthless warlord, was responsible for bringing Hellenistic culture to the eastern. He was responsible for a cultural genesis only possible through his military conquests. And i know, people ALWAYS use MLK and Gandhi as a counter-point. Bullshit! Gandhi's non-violence was only effective for two reasons. The first was that England was drained after WW2 and did not have the means to effectively suppress/control a country that was basically on the opposite side of the world. I mean, they could barely reinforce their troops in the colonies during America's revolution, a fact that turned out to be a major factor in our victory. And two, they didnt feel it was a viable option to have to waste resources on India, which was colonized mostly for its cotton, when america had a steady supply that was readily available to them. As for MLK, yes he did non-violently fight African-american rights and succeeded. But black people today still suffer from racism and bigotry. Black people compromise a good portion of the prison population, black children in schools are given almost second-hand educations when they deserve so much more. The future MLK fought for all of us, for equality for all people, is still beyond us in this country. To me, it just seems like violence is a necessary evil. We are a naturally violent race. We have impulses of violence in our brains hardwired. No matter how much we grow as a species, there will always be that place in our brains that wants us to be violent, why fight it when it seems so many problems can be solved by its use? | I believe that, 9 times out of 10, violence is the answer and can solve most issues facing humanity, whether it be individual or on a large-scale. CMV. Most of my life, basically middle and high school, i dealt with bullying. And for the longest time i felt all these anti-bullying campaigns were effective means to combat bullying. However, when i came to college, my view on this started to change. I always wondered why we didnt allow our children to learn violence, while a dangerous thing if abused, can be used in a positive way so to speak. If i felt that if i beat up my bullies and would not face consequences because they instigated the bullying, i would have done so years ago. Instead, i felt like i was in a catch-22 situation. If i beat up my bullies, id be in trouble and theyd go almost scott-free. If i didnt tell them, id either have to leave it be and continue to suffer at their hands or let an adult deal with it, removing my sense of control of the situation. I mean, when i looked at things historically, violence has been somewhat of a positive thing. Alexander the Great, while a ruthless warlord, was responsible for bringing Hellenistic culture to the eastern. He was responsible for a cultural genesis only possible through his military conquests. And i know, people ALWAYS use MLK and Gandhi as a counter-point. Bullshit! Gandhi's non-violence was only effective for two reasons. The first was that England was drained after WW2 and did not have the means to effectively suppress/control a country that was basically on the opposite side of the world. I mean, they could barely reinforce their troops in the colonies during America's revolution, a fact that turned out to be a major factor in our victory. And two, they didnt feel it was a viable option to have to waste resources on India, which was colonized mostly for its cotton, when america had a steady supply that was readily available to them. As for MLK, yes he did non-violently fight African-american rights and succeeded. But black people today still suffer from racism and bigotry. Black people compromise a good portion of the prison population, black children in schools are given almost second-hand educations when they deserve so much more. The future MLK fought for all of us, for equality for all people, is still beyond us in this country. To me, it just seems like violence is a necessary evil. We are a naturally violent race. We have impulses of violence in our brains hardwired. No matter how much we grow as a species, there will always be that place in our brains that wants us to be violent, why fight it when it seems so many problems can be solved by its use? |
t3_2wms4j | CMV: Digital media should be subject to some form of compulsory licensing system. | I'm not sure if I totally understand how it works, but from what I've read, it sounds like music is actually subject to a compulsory licensing system in which anyone can technically sell copies of songs if they pay a set royalty fee (specified in law) to the copyright owner for each copy sold. If something similar was required for digital media, it would effectively eliminate reselling problems so long as the seller was willing to pay whatever fee was specified in the law. It would, perhaps more importantly, eliminate the (frankly downright stupid in my opinion) situations in which certain movies / TV shows / games / etc. end up being totally unavailable to purchase at all. I mean, I've even seen TV shows as recent as 2013 that are utterly impossible to buy (and which will probably never be available to buy again) because "agreements with the content provider don't allow this to be sold at this time" or something like that. Why not just require a set amount of royalties to be paid to copyright holders for every copy sold and eliminate other licensing fees altogether? If the required royalty fee was set appropriately, the copyright holders would probably even make more money than they would under the usual system, while the company or person selling the media wouldn't have to worry about paying it unless copies were actually purchased.
Note: This might need to only apply to cases in which copies of digital media are being directly sold. Trying to apply it to something like Netflix seems like it could get more complicated, and I'm not sure if it would work or not.
_____
> *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: Digital media should be subject to some form of compulsory licensing system. I'm not sure if I totally understand how it works, but from what I've read, it sounds like music is actually subject to a compulsory licensing system in which anyone can technically sell copies of songs if they pay a set royalty fee (specified in law) to the copyright owner for each copy sold. If something similar was required for digital media, it would effectively eliminate reselling problems so long as the seller was willing to pay whatever fee was specified in the law. It would, perhaps more importantly, eliminate the (frankly downright stupid in my opinion) situations in which certain movies / TV shows / games / etc. end up being totally unavailable to purchase at all. I mean, I've even seen TV shows as recent as 2013 that are utterly impossible to buy (and which will probably never be available to buy again) because "agreements with the content provider don't allow this to be sold at this time" or something like that. Why not just require a set amount of royalties to be paid to copyright holders for every copy sold and eliminate other licensing fees altogether? If the required royalty fee was set appropriately, the copyright holders would probably even make more money than they would under the usual system, while the company or person selling the media wouldn't have to worry about paying it unless copies were actually purchased.
Note: This might need to only apply to cases in which copies of digital media are being directly sold. Trying to apply it to something like Netflix seems like it could get more complicated, and I'm not sure if it would work or not.
|
t3_1kfpai | I think the US should cease sending aid to Egypt during the current turmiol. CMV | [This article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/15/the-u-s-sends-egypt-more-military-aid-than-it-can-possibly-use/) and [this article](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-us-wont-cut-aid-to-egypt-2013-8) point to helping industry in the states (ignore the fact that Egypt doesn't need the military aid).
With the country in turmoil, the US doesn't know who will gain power and therefore can't predict what happens to any cash or military assets once things calm down.
Is the US just banking on whoever wins power will continue to act in the US's best interests? I don't think that's very wise, unless, of course the US can effectively control who wins power. | I think the US should cease sending aid to Egypt during the current turmiol. CMV. [This article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/15/the-u-s-sends-egypt-more-military-aid-than-it-can-possibly-use/) and [this article](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-us-wont-cut-aid-to-egypt-2013-8) point to helping industry in the states (ignore the fact that Egypt doesn't need the military aid).
With the country in turmoil, the US doesn't know who will gain power and therefore can't predict what happens to any cash or military assets once things calm down.
Is the US just banking on whoever wins power will continue to act in the US's best interests? I don't think that's very wise, unless, of course the US can effectively control who wins power. |
t3_3w9ex6 | CMV: After the current GOP implodes over the next few election cycles, a new conservative party will arise that will be made of people who support mentalities we see often on Reddit such as "freedom of speech" (i.e. freedom of speech to be an asshole without consequences). | I have a theory that after the GOP implodes over the next few election cycles a new conservative party will arise and it will be made of people who generally believe the following types of things:
* They believe we must defend the freedom of speech *to be an asshole* and yet they get upset when there are consequences of that free speech.
For instance these people would be upset if someone posted something hateful on a public facebook account, and the person they harassed showed the speaker's employer the comment and the speaker got fired for it... these people claim that's a violation of the speaker's free speech.
* They're against affirmative action programs or programs that help women in STEM or other programs aimed to help a group of people that is underprivileged or underrepresented in a specific arena.
* They're against parental leave because they claim having a child is a choice.
These people may call themselves liberal now, and I concede that they have some liberal ideas like being pro-choice, but my view is that they're going to be the new conservative party once the existing one implodes.
This new party may or may not be called the GOP/Republican Party, IDK, and that's not really part of my CMV. It might be that the current Libertarian party overtakes the GOP and becomes the new main conservative party. Idk. Any of those scenarios are still party of my view: it would be the new conservative party regardless of its name and it would hold/support the values I listed above.
_____
> *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: After the current GOP implodes over the next few election cycles, a new conservative party will arise that will be made of people who support mentalities we see often on Reddit such as "freedom of speech" (i.e. freedom of speech to be an asshole without consequences). I have a theory that after the GOP implodes over the next few election cycles a new conservative party will arise and it will be made of people who generally believe the following types of things:
* They believe we must defend the freedom of speech *to be an asshole* and yet they get upset when there are consequences of that free speech.
For instance these people would be upset if someone posted something hateful on a public facebook account, and the person they harassed showed the speaker's employer the comment and the speaker got fired for it... these people claim that's a violation of the speaker's free speech.
* They're against affirmative action programs or programs that help women in STEM or other programs aimed to help a group of people that is underprivileged or underrepresented in a specific arena.
* They're against parental leave because they claim having a child is a choice.
These people may call themselves liberal now, and I concede that they have some liberal ideas like being pro-choice, but my view is that they're going to be the new conservative party once the existing one implodes.
This new party may or may not be called the GOP/Republican Party, IDK, and that's not really part of my CMV. It might be that the current Libertarian party overtakes the GOP and becomes the new main conservative party. Idk. Any of those scenarios are still party of my view: it would be the new conservative party regardless of its name and it would hold/support the values I listed above.
|
t3_3cqwqj | CMV: Genres are good and being very specific with genres is a positive thing. | Something I see come up a lot in music discussion threads, whether on Sputnik Music , /r/Music, or even a more niche sub like /r/PostHardcore, is that being very specific with genres is an annoying thing. This is an especially large joke in extreme metal discussions where there are multitudes of different sub-genres.
I think these are great. If you like a band with a specific sound and you want to find more bands like them your best bet is to search for bands in the same genre. Being vague or broad with genres is a great way to not find more bands like the ones you're looking for.
For example, say I like Protest the Hero and want to find more bands like them. They have a lot of influences in their style but could be chalked up into the umbrella genre of "metal." If I search "metal" I will get a *ton* of bands that sound absolutely nothing like Protest the Hero. Even narrowing it down to "Progressive Metal" still gets a lot of bands that aren't very similar, like Opeth. But if I search for "Mathcore" which is a lot more specific I can find bands that sound a lot like them.
There's no reason for the disdain of genres. No one complains about when movies get a million genre tags ([Example](http://i.gyazo.com/03027ec62e9f2efce7990a56ad3c79e2.png)) but when bands do they get annoyed and I can't see why.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Genres are good and being very specific with genres is a positive thing. Something I see come up a lot in music discussion threads, whether on Sputnik Music , /r/Music, or even a more niche sub like /r/PostHardcore, is that being very specific with genres is an annoying thing. This is an especially large joke in extreme metal discussions where there are multitudes of different sub-genres.
I think these are great. If you like a band with a specific sound and you want to find more bands like them your best bet is to search for bands in the same genre. Being vague or broad with genres is a great way to not find more bands like the ones you're looking for.
For example, say I like Protest the Hero and want to find more bands like them. They have a lot of influences in their style but could be chalked up into the umbrella genre of "metal." If I search "metal" I will get a *ton* of bands that sound absolutely nothing like Protest the Hero. Even narrowing it down to "Progressive Metal" still gets a lot of bands that aren't very similar, like Opeth. But if I search for "Mathcore" which is a lot more specific I can find bands that sound a lot like them.
There's no reason for the disdain of genres. No one complains about when movies get a million genre tags ([Example](http://i.gyazo.com/03027ec62e9f2efce7990a56ad3c79e2.png)) but when bands do they get annoyed and I can't see why.
|
t3_1klvsk | I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV | Just to be clear, I believe that no one should be **able** to pay for school (except for extra curricular things like excursions).
I believe that the money which goes into schools and universities should come from our taxes and that schools should receive an amount of money depending on the amount of students attending it.
The problem I have with the current system is that wealthier families send their kids to private schools and many poorer families are forced to send their kids to public schools. Whilst public schools can still be good, I don't see why any child should receive a better education than any other child, no matter how much money they have.
If all schools were free to attend then eventually, I predict all schools would become much more equal, meaning that everyone would receive a much more equal education, which could eventually close the gap between rich and poor rather than widen it the way it does now.
I assume this would be incredibly difficult to implement, but could it still work in theory? | I believe that all schools in all stages of education should be free. CMV. Just to be clear, I believe that no one should be **able** to pay for school (except for extra curricular things like excursions).
I believe that the money which goes into schools and universities should come from our taxes and that schools should receive an amount of money depending on the amount of students attending it.
The problem I have with the current system is that wealthier families send their kids to private schools and many poorer families are forced to send their kids to public schools. Whilst public schools can still be good, I don't see why any child should receive a better education than any other child, no matter how much money they have.
If all schools were free to attend then eventually, I predict all schools would become much more equal, meaning that everyone would receive a much more equal education, which could eventually close the gap between rich and poor rather than widen it the way it does now.
I assume this would be incredibly difficult to implement, but could it still work in theory? |
t3_5enwd2 | CMV:Jodorowsky's Dune would have ruined Dune | Firstly, consider what he said in the documetary about the making of the film: that he was "raping Frank Herbert" and the source material. Jodorowsky might have read and admired the book, but he had no intention of doing it justice; his intention was to use a few nebulous themes and concepts from Dune in an effort to create a film that was "like taking LSD." While this sounds interesting, Dune is not well-suited to this. Although it is about drugs, there is a clear plot, and things happen for a reason. Nothing is non-causal like in Jodorowsky's other movies. His description of his vision and the concept art he provided make it look like his version of Dune would be a bizarre version of The Fifth Element with none of plot. Furthermore, he intended to abandon the central themes of Dune that make it great. Firstly, he removed the Butlerian jihad and had robots a common object in the galaxy. The Butlerian jihad explains the existence of mentats and so many other things in Dune, as well as providing a double-edged cautionary tale about extremism and AI. Second, the fairy tale ending at the movie's conclusion removes the books most poignant messages. In Jodorowsky's version, the saintly Paul has his throat slit and transfers part of his consciousness to everybody on Arrakis and even to the planet itself, making it sentient. The planet then turns into a tropical paradise and flies at warpspeed into deep space. This contrasts heavily with Herbert's version where the deeply flawed Paul becomes the fundamentalist religious leader Muad'dib and wages a holy war against the empire and the Harkonnens, all while slowly turning into a monster. Paul doesn't die at the end but eventually brings all of humanity under his theocratic, oppressive reign. Whereas Jodorowsky's Dune literally ends with butterflies and rainbows, Herbert's Dune ends with a warning against religious extremism and blind faith in charismatic leaders. Anyways, that's my (long) two cents. 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:Jodorowsky's Dune would have ruined Dune. Firstly, consider what he said in the documetary about the making of the film: that he was "raping Frank Herbert" and the source material. Jodorowsky might have read and admired the book, but he had no intention of doing it justice; his intention was to use a few nebulous themes and concepts from Dune in an effort to create a film that was "like taking LSD." While this sounds interesting, Dune is not well-suited to this. Although it is about drugs, there is a clear plot, and things happen for a reason. Nothing is non-causal like in Jodorowsky's other movies. His description of his vision and the concept art he provided make it look like his version of Dune would be a bizarre version of The Fifth Element with none of plot. Furthermore, he intended to abandon the central themes of Dune that make it great. Firstly, he removed the Butlerian jihad and had robots a common object in the galaxy. The Butlerian jihad explains the existence of mentats and so many other things in Dune, as well as providing a double-edged cautionary tale about extremism and AI. Second, the fairy tale ending at the movie's conclusion removes the books most poignant messages. In Jodorowsky's version, the saintly Paul has his throat slit and transfers part of his consciousness to everybody on Arrakis and even to the planet itself, making it sentient. The planet then turns into a tropical paradise and flies at warpspeed into deep space. This contrasts heavily with Herbert's version where the deeply flawed Paul becomes the fundamentalist religious leader Muad'dib and wages a holy war against the empire and the Harkonnens, all while slowly turning into a monster. Paul doesn't die at the end but eventually brings all of humanity under his theocratic, oppressive reign. Whereas Jodorowsky's Dune literally ends with butterflies and rainbows, Herbert's Dune ends with a warning against religious extremism and blind faith in charismatic leaders. Anyways, that's my (long) two cents. CMV!
____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* |
t3_262by2 | CMV: It is entirely unreasonable to be angry or offended by Chipotle's decision to ban weapons from their restaurants. | It's a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable. You can eat elsewhere (although it might be difficult because Chipotle is great). You don't need a gun in Chipotle, and if you're nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car. There's just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force. Even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really isn't a reason for it. There isn't going to be an uprising against the government in the Chipotle, and if there's a shooting or robbery it's not like you'd singlehandedly go Pulp Fiction on them. The more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: It is entirely unreasonable to be angry or offended by Chipotle's decision to ban weapons from their restaurants. It's a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable. You can eat elsewhere (although it might be difficult because Chipotle is great). You don't need a gun in Chipotle, and if you're nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car. There's just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force. Even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really isn't a reason for it. There isn't going to be an uprising against the government in the Chipotle, and if there's a shooting or robbery it's not like you'd singlehandedly go Pulp Fiction on them. The more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be. |
t3_5ky9t2 | CMV: Most Anti-Feminist Men Would Become Feminists If They Actually Spoke To Women | I believe that if they actually spoke to women, most anti-feminists would become feminists.
This belief is based on three observations:
1. most anti-feminists have either no, or a distorted, idea of what feminism actually is
2. most anti-feminists have no idea of the realities of being a woman
3. most anti-feminists simply don’t understand *women*, period
If they were to actually talk to real women, rather than getting angry at the internet fringe (representing maybe 0.00001% of feminists), they would realise feminism isn’t about waging a war on men. Rather, it is addresses the very real issues women still face on a daily basis.
Obviously, this wouldn’t change everyone’s mind, but a lot of anti-feminist sentiments are based on a misunderstanding of feminism, fuelled by a lack of meaningful contact with women, and attention focused on a vocal, media-promoted fringe.
Reddit, CMV.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Most Anti-Feminist Men Would Become Feminists If They Actually Spoke To Women. I believe that if they actually spoke to women, most anti-feminists would become feminists.
This belief is based on three observations:
1. most anti-feminists have either no, or a distorted, idea of what feminism actually is
2. most anti-feminists have no idea of the realities of being a woman
3. most anti-feminists simply don’t understand *women*, period
If they were to actually talk to real women, rather than getting angry at the internet fringe (representing maybe 0.00001% of feminists), they would realise feminism isn’t about waging a war on men. Rather, it is addresses the very real issues women still face on a daily basis.
Obviously, this wouldn’t change everyone’s mind, but a lot of anti-feminist sentiments are based on a misunderstanding of feminism, fuelled by a lack of meaningful contact with women, and attention focused on a vocal, media-promoted fringe.
Reddit, CMV.
|
t3_2dwkh6 | CMV: Communism is a cult and one of the biggest failures in the History of Political and Social Thought. | I believe Communism is a complete abortion which isn't even consistent ("good on paper") under the own dialects it draws.
I believe every single one of its practical applications, whether communists are willing to admit it was "communism" or rename it "State Socialism", are some of the biggest tragedies in Human History.
I believe the only reason it survives is heavy propaganda and easily influenced minds.
I do NOT believe that capitalism or the free market are perfect, but I feel that a market based economy, with a strong welfare state and a thorough code of labour which protects the workers' rights, the enviroment and society from externalities are by far the best system we have developed so far, and taking any steps towards ideological communism would be destroying years of progress.
I believe that communists are only able to discuss things in the abstract guidelines set forth by marxist propaganda ("theory") because they're unable to discuss things in any concrete terms which relate to an improvement in the people's quality of life; increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increased life span, increased IDH, etc. Therefore, they can only discuss Communism by bringing you into their "what if" land and discussing ideology.
I believe that the fact that market based economies with a strong welfare state (i.e; Northern Europe) have built a better public infrastructure and brought better public services and quality of life to its citizens than any attempt at communism is the final proof that communism is an absolute failure in all its goals, which are better achieved (even if not yet completely) through other paths.
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: Communism is a cult and one of the biggest failures in the History of Political and Social Thought. I believe Communism is a complete abortion which isn't even consistent ("good on paper") under the own dialects it draws.
I believe every single one of its practical applications, whether communists are willing to admit it was "communism" or rename it "State Socialism", are some of the biggest tragedies in Human History.
I believe the only reason it survives is heavy propaganda and easily influenced minds.
I do NOT believe that capitalism or the free market are perfect, but I feel that a market based economy, with a strong welfare state and a thorough code of labour which protects the workers' rights, the enviroment and society from externalities are by far the best system we have developed so far, and taking any steps towards ideological communism would be destroying years of progress.
I believe that communists are only able to discuss things in the abstract guidelines set forth by marxist propaganda ("theory") because they're unable to discuss things in any concrete terms which relate to an improvement in the people's quality of life; increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increased life span, increased IDH, etc. Therefore, they can only discuss Communism by bringing you into their "what if" land and discussing ideology.
I believe that the fact that market based economies with a strong welfare state (i.e; Northern Europe) have built a better public infrastructure and brought better public services and quality of life to its citizens than any attempt at communism is the final proof that communism is an absolute failure in all its goals, which are better achieved (even if not yet completely) through other paths.
CMV. |
t3_4escif | CMV: I think Verizon is in the right and Bernie is in the wrong | Firstly, let me start off by stating that i'm voting for Bernie and I agree with a lot of his stances (i'm also very anti big-corporations), but I don't know how I feel about this one. The more I research it, the more I side with Verizon.
These are mostly landline phone workers - a sector that is drastically shrinking. I think Verizon is doing its best to keep their employees jobs. If they get this pay increase, how many jobs will be lost? There is a finite amount of money that goes into the landline portion of Verizon's business. Times are changing and unfortunately that means jobs are becoming obsolete.
_____
> *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 Verizon is in the right and Bernie is in the wrong. Firstly, let me start off by stating that i'm voting for Bernie and I agree with a lot of his stances (i'm also very anti big-corporations), but I don't know how I feel about this one. The more I research it, the more I side with Verizon.
These are mostly landline phone workers - a sector that is drastically shrinking. I think Verizon is doing its best to keep their employees jobs. If they get this pay increase, how many jobs will be lost? There is a finite amount of money that goes into the landline portion of Verizon's business. Times are changing and unfortunately that means jobs are becoming obsolete.
|
t3_2rz3tz | CMV: I feel people should be given the choice to participate in scientific studies that would normally be considered "not ready for human trials" for scientific research. | This CMV was inspired by [a thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2rydxd/if_ethics_were_forgotten_what_scientific_advances/) currently on the front page.
I don't mean donating your dead body to science, I mean giving yourself *alive* for scientific research. Today, human trials are only available once other trials have concluded and have been approved for humans.
The following conditions could apply in such a scenario:
1. The participant must have a terminal issue and only have so long to live, as verified by a doctor
2. The participant must be alert and able to communicate satisfactorily
3. The participant must sign an agreement
4. If available, the immediate relative(s) (one or all of the following: mother, father, brother, sister) of the participant must also sign an agreement
5. The participant will be able to voluntarily cancel testing without question **only after** an in-progress test has concluded **or** there is a lull in an in-progress test and a cessation is possible
6. Those performing the tests cannot cause the participant unnecessary pain **unless** the participant agreed and a second agreement was signed
7. In the event of **accidental death** due to testing, the family will be compensated with a previously agreed on sum of money or other form of reparations
~~8. If a test involves the suspension of life **with an eventual awakening**, the participant and immediate family members involved must agree~~
~~9. If a test involves the suspension of life **with a possibility of death**, the participant and immediate family members involved must agree to waive their compensation~~
I'm sure conditions could be added/changed, but those above are just off the top of my head.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I feel people should be given the choice to participate in scientific studies that would normally be considered "not ready for human trials" for scientific research. This CMV was inspired by [a thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2rydxd/if_ethics_were_forgotten_what_scientific_advances/) currently on the front page.
I don't mean donating your dead body to science, I mean giving yourself *alive* for scientific research. Today, human trials are only available once other trials have concluded and have been approved for humans.
The following conditions could apply in such a scenario:
1. The participant must have a terminal issue and only have so long to live, as verified by a doctor
2. The participant must be alert and able to communicate satisfactorily
3. The participant must sign an agreement
4. If available, the immediate relative(s) (one or all of the following: mother, father, brother, sister) of the participant must also sign an agreement
5. The participant will be able to voluntarily cancel testing without question **only after** an in-progress test has concluded **or** there is a lull in an in-progress test and a cessation is possible
6. Those performing the tests cannot cause the participant unnecessary pain **unless** the participant agreed and a second agreement was signed
7. In the event of **accidental death** due to testing, the family will be compensated with a previously agreed on sum of money or other form of reparations
~~8. If a test involves the suspension of life **with an eventual awakening**, the participant and immediate family members involved must agree~~
~~9. If a test involves the suspension of life **with a possibility of death**, the participant and immediate family members involved must agree to waive their compensation~~
I'm sure conditions could be added/changed, but those above are just off the top of my head. |
t3_5rvonf | CMV: Boxing is barbaric and should be outlawed | My experience with boxing comes from stories on HBO's real sports and a roommate who is obsessed with it. Him and his friends who watch boxing with him celebrate the biggest knockouts and hardest punches. I just find the sport very barbaric as its intention is to hurt your opponent to the point of knocking them out (sometimes unconscious) or so that the judges will agree that you fought better on a round by round basis. The boxers have a high rate of brain damage and take large amounts of pain that the fans only celebrate. It exploits under privileged people by damaging their brain for money.
Arguments that I have found unconvincing: *Boxing has become more regulated by shorting fight lengths.* This does not stop the essence of the sport and the goal in hurting your opponent.
*Other sports have brain injuries and other health risks.* The difference here is that in football and hockey the goal is to score points by putting a puck in a net or the ball through the field goal. Injuries result in the roughness of play rather than the other team intentionally trying to hurt you to gain score.
_____
> *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: Boxing is barbaric and should be outlawed. My experience with boxing comes from stories on HBO's real sports and a roommate who is obsessed with it. Him and his friends who watch boxing with him celebrate the biggest knockouts and hardest punches. I just find the sport very barbaric as its intention is to hurt your opponent to the point of knocking them out (sometimes unconscious) or so that the judges will agree that you fought better on a round by round basis. The boxers have a high rate of brain damage and take large amounts of pain that the fans only celebrate. It exploits under privileged people by damaging their brain for money.
Arguments that I have found unconvincing: *Boxing has become more regulated by shorting fight lengths.* This does not stop the essence of the sport and the goal in hurting your opponent.
*Other sports have brain injuries and other health risks.* The difference here is that in football and hockey the goal is to score points by putting a puck in a net or the ball through the field goal. Injuries result in the roughness of play rather than the other team intentionally trying to hurt you to gain score. |
t3_5v6ha7 | CMV: The Democratic Primaries weren't rigged. | I've yet to see conclusive proof the democratic primaries were rigged. I've seen evidence that people didn't like Bernie, discussions of things that they 'may' do, but never any conclusive proof of action taken against him. I've even seen Bernie say that the process wasn't rigged, just stupid.
Many of the emails seem to be twisted into something they're not, or blown out of proportion. One opinion piece I read recently that was talking about how there was an email that proves the scheduele was anti-bernie. The email could only be found through digging through another article they wrote, and it said what sounds like the opposite to me: "6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate."
Motivation/ill will alone does not prove collusion. 'Thinking' of doing something is not evidence of wrong-doing (the DWS email about 'ask him if hes jewish' without any follow through where anyone asked him).
Bonus: DWS was incompetent, and people wanted to oust her for awhile. She was an idiot first, not out and out malicious. | CMV: The Democratic Primaries weren't rigged. I've yet to see conclusive proof the democratic primaries were rigged. I've seen evidence that people didn't like Bernie, discussions of things that they 'may' do, but never any conclusive proof of action taken against him. I've even seen Bernie say that the process wasn't rigged, just stupid.
Many of the emails seem to be twisted into something they're not, or blown out of proportion. One opinion piece I read recently that was talking about how there was an email that proves the scheduele was anti-bernie. The email could only be found through digging through another article they wrote, and it said what sounds like the opposite to me: "6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate."
Motivation/ill will alone does not prove collusion. 'Thinking' of doing something is not evidence of wrong-doing (the DWS email about 'ask him if hes jewish' without any follow through where anyone asked him).
Bonus: DWS was incompetent, and people wanted to oust her for awhile. She was an idiot first, not out and out malicious. |
t3_1fmiv1 | I think JFK was shot by a lone gunman (Oswald). CMV | To go along side the WTC 9/11 post.
To date:
1) the "magic bullet" theory has been proven possible by multiple independent testers. Its not only possible, but recreatable.
2) Firing that amount of shots with that rifle is not only possible, but easy, especially for a trained marskman like Oswald.
3) To date, there has been 0 evidence for any other shooters. No shell casings. No recovered bullets. No pictures of a gunman. No reliable witnesses of more than one shooter. Nothing.
4) LHO killed a cop later that day. No one seems to ever bring that up. He killed him with a pistol he had ordered through the mail. Ballistics matches the gun. You don't kill a police officer on a whim.
5) "Back and Away" - A head is going to react like that when shot from behind (as in consistent with the lone gunman theory)
There is nothing I love more than a good conspiracy theory, but there is absolutely no evidence suggesting more than one shooter, only a shitload of suspicious/fishy shit that went down. | I think JFK was shot by a lone gunman (Oswald). CMV. To go along side the WTC 9/11 post.
To date:
1) the "magic bullet" theory has been proven possible by multiple independent testers. Its not only possible, but recreatable.
2) Firing that amount of shots with that rifle is not only possible, but easy, especially for a trained marskman like Oswald.
3) To date, there has been 0 evidence for any other shooters. No shell casings. No recovered bullets. No pictures of a gunman. No reliable witnesses of more than one shooter. Nothing.
4) LHO killed a cop later that day. No one seems to ever bring that up. He killed him with a pistol he had ordered through the mail. Ballistics matches the gun. You don't kill a police officer on a whim.
5) "Back and Away" - A head is going to react like that when shot from behind (as in consistent with the lone gunman theory)
There is nothing I love more than a good conspiracy theory, but there is absolutely no evidence suggesting more than one shooter, only a shitload of suspicious/fishy shit that went down. |
t3_1g03od | I believe insecurity and low self-esteem are good because they encourage the person to better themselves as a member of society. CMV | I used to be really insecure about my personality, weight, and overall lifestyle back in high school. So what did I do? I became nicer, I lost weight, joined the swim team, and started dressing better. People like me better now, I have a girlfriend, and I'm no longer depressed. And who do I have to thank? My insecurity. If I wasn't insecure about my self image, I wouldn't have improved myself to the person I am today. This is why I people who are unhappy with their lifestyle more than those who simply accept it, because I know their on the right track to becoming a valuable member of society. | I believe insecurity and low self-esteem are good because they encourage the person to better themselves as a member of society. CMV. I used to be really insecure about my personality, weight, and overall lifestyle back in high school. So what did I do? I became nicer, I lost weight, joined the swim team, and started dressing better. People like me better now, I have a girlfriend, and I'm no longer depressed. And who do I have to thank? My insecurity. If I wasn't insecure about my self image, I wouldn't have improved myself to the person I am today. This is why I people who are unhappy with their lifestyle more than those who simply accept it, because I know their on the right track to becoming a valuable member of society. |
t3_1msb28 | I think the average person is boring and not worth my time CMV | I know this is a very arrogant and dismissive viewpoint which limits my opportunity of developing strong bonds with strangers. This is why I want to change it.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks this. I feel like the majority of people I met are boring because they conform to societal expectations and as such, they do not reach their full potentials. Consequently, they offer no unique insight into life and don't provide anything of value. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger once said "what's the point on being here if your just going to be like others?".
Please CMV | I think the average person is boring and not worth my time CMV. I know this is a very arrogant and dismissive viewpoint which limits my opportunity of developing strong bonds with strangers. This is why I want to change it.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks this. I feel like the majority of people I met are boring because they conform to societal expectations and as such, they do not reach their full potentials. Consequently, they offer no unique insight into life and don't provide anything of value. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger once said "what's the point on being here if your just going to be like others?".
Please CMV |
t3_2iwe8d | CMV: I did get why people love Catcher in the Rye | Okay, so I read the book about a year ago, I thought I missed something because all I hear is praise for this book.
So I listened to the audiotape, nothing! I didn't like it, I thought it was boring, it seemed just like some stubborn asshole named Holden going around making weird decisions and being a dick. I don't see a deeper meaning to it.
Now I'm not on of those people that just don't get the deeper meaning. I can look at paintings and photographs and get what they're trying to say, and can see the beauty in it.
I've read plenty of books, a lot of them I enjoyed, but Catcher in the Rye? Hated it. | CMV: I did get why people love Catcher in the Rye. Okay, so I read the book about a year ago, I thought I missed something because all I hear is praise for this book.
So I listened to the audiotape, nothing! I didn't like it, I thought it was boring, it seemed just like some stubborn asshole named Holden going around making weird decisions and being a dick. I don't see a deeper meaning to it.
Now I'm not on of those people that just don't get the deeper meaning. I can look at paintings and photographs and get what they're trying to say, and can see the beauty in it.
I've read plenty of books, a lot of them I enjoyed, but Catcher in the Rye? Hated it. |
t3_5ph44i | CMV: SOME of the criticism's of Obama's continued wars in the Middle East are unfair given the options that were available. | My second CMV, go easy.
I believe it is unfair of people to criticise Obama for being technically at war within the whole two terms of his presidency. I doubt this was either his desire or intention and where possible it is evident to me that he tried hard to limit American involvement as much as possible.
I will be clear that my knowledge of all of the events that directly led to conflict between the US and sections of the Middle East is fragmented. However what I do know is that Obama inherited an already complex and expensive war in Afghanistan from the Bush administration. Obama was successful in trying to pull back the number of forces going over to Afghanistan and losing their lives, despite it being admitted by military analyst Stephen Biddle that the war: "can only be sustained if the U.S. Congress keeps writing multibillion-dollar-a-year checks to keep the Afghan National Security Forces in the field." In this case it is not difficult to see a complete pull out of US forces here leading to the Afghan security forces collapsing against the Taliban.
Furthermore, in the war against IS Obama's strategy was quite clearly to use tactical air strikes on key IS targets as opposed to 'boots on the ground'. In his own words this has led to IS losing key territory and helped bolster existing Iraqi forces to take charge of their own efforts to combat IS, rather than endanger existing American lives. Perhaps the biggest criticism I can level against Obama here is that there has not been enough American military involvement. The fight has been long, expensive and slow but the reaction of people I have seen on social media has been that the fight should have been harder. Possibly with American troops on the ground.
I am no fortune teller but it is obvious to me that had Obama taken that approach, America would probably have been in an even worse position. More American lives lost, more blood shed, more expense and more outcry.
To change my view I would like someone to explain to me realistically what else Obama could have done to bring the conflict to an end without furthering direct military involvement. Trump said remarkably little about this during the elections other than that he would 'bomb the hell out of IS' so now that the war is his, would a reasonable action for him to send American troops over ASAP and risk getting America in another full scale war? I doubt anyone wants that.
Singular biased source: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/01/18/510447582/after-8-years-of-unbroken-war-obama-hands-over-conflicts-to-trump
| CMV: SOME of the criticism's of Obama's continued wars in the Middle East are unfair given the options that were available. My second CMV, go easy.
I believe it is unfair of people to criticise Obama for being technically at war within the whole two terms of his presidency. I doubt this was either his desire or intention and where possible it is evident to me that he tried hard to limit American involvement as much as possible.
I will be clear that my knowledge of all of the events that directly led to conflict between the US and sections of the Middle East is fragmented. However what I do know is that Obama inherited an already complex and expensive war in Afghanistan from the Bush administration. Obama was successful in trying to pull back the number of forces going over to Afghanistan and losing their lives, despite it being admitted by military analyst Stephen Biddle that the war: "can only be sustained if the U.S. Congress keeps writing multibillion-dollar-a-year checks to keep the Afghan National Security Forces in the field." In this case it is not difficult to see a complete pull out of US forces here leading to the Afghan security forces collapsing against the Taliban.
Furthermore, in the war against IS Obama's strategy was quite clearly to use tactical air strikes on key IS targets as opposed to 'boots on the ground'. In his own words this has led to IS losing key territory and helped bolster existing Iraqi forces to take charge of their own efforts to combat IS, rather than endanger existing American lives. Perhaps the biggest criticism I can level against Obama here is that there has not been enough American military involvement. The fight has been long, expensive and slow but the reaction of people I have seen on social media has been that the fight should have been harder. Possibly with American troops on the ground.
I am no fortune teller but it is obvious to me that had Obama taken that approach, America would probably have been in an even worse position. More American lives lost, more blood shed, more expense and more outcry.
To change my view I would like someone to explain to me realistically what else Obama could have done to bring the conflict to an end without furthering direct military involvement. Trump said remarkably little about this during the elections other than that he would 'bomb the hell out of IS' so now that the war is his, would a reasonable action for him to send American troops over ASAP and risk getting America in another full scale war? I doubt anyone wants that.
Singular biased source: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/01/18/510447582/after-8-years-of-unbroken-war-obama-hands-over-conflicts-to-trump
|
t3_1ja2uv | As a short guy (5'5'') who is not really handsome, my chances on OKCupid are practically nil. CMV. | Basically what the title says. I'm only 5'5''. I'm also not particularly good-looking even when I clean up, and I'm not rich (still a grad student). I'm also a virgin with 0 relationship experience. I'm from Sri Lanka.
These factors combined give me about a 0.001% chance of scoring a date with a woman I like. The only things I'm really looking for are a girl who's about my age, not overweight, decent face, and reasonably intelligent. But all of my physical flaws listed above make me a completely unappealing OKCupid candidate because women judge very harshly on features like shortness - this judging is magnified 10x on dating websites because physical features are the first thing they look for.
I.e: There's no point in me even trying. The chance of scoring a date is so low that it's realistically a waste of time to create and maintain an account.
Change my view. | As a short guy (5'5'') who is not really handsome, my chances on OKCupid are practically nil. CMV. Basically what the title says. I'm only 5'5''. I'm also not particularly good-looking even when I clean up, and I'm not rich (still a grad student). I'm also a virgin with 0 relationship experience. I'm from Sri Lanka.
These factors combined give me about a 0.001% chance of scoring a date with a woman I like. The only things I'm really looking for are a girl who's about my age, not overweight, decent face, and reasonably intelligent. But all of my physical flaws listed above make me a completely unappealing OKCupid candidate because women judge very harshly on features like shortness - this judging is magnified 10x on dating websites because physical features are the first thing they look for.
I.e: There's no point in me even trying. The chance of scoring a date is so low that it's realistically a waste of time to create and maintain an account.
Change my view. |
t3_5rrs1t | CMV: Makeshift roadside memorials for victims of accidents or murder are intrusive and shouldn't be left for more than a month or so. | I'm talking about things like a "ghost bike", a piece of plywood with "RIP Billy, We love you" spray painted on it. A bunch of stuffed animals, flowers, and candles loosely organized. And I'm talking specifically about these that are placed at the scene of the crime or accident, not within a cemetery or other designated memorial place.
I understand that it's a method of grieving. It's not for me, but I can respect that people grieve differently. My issue is that the general public shouldn't have to participate in your grieving, especially not for an extended period of time. These usually aren't well tended to and create litter (cards, ribbons, etc.) and start to look trashy over time (stuffed animals can't stay out in the elements for years, candles and vases tip over, signs hang crooked, etc.). In the case of crimes, it's not a very attractive thing to be advertising murders in your neighborhood. It not only affects real estate, but it's a constant reminder of a crime that happened near you that you may not want to be reminded about every day. It's not a fun thing to explain to new visitors, either.
In general, I think long term grieving should be limited to your own house, your place of worship, the cemetery, or within your own mind. Nobody puts up a memorial if someone has a heart attack jogging in the park, but if they get hit by a car, there's a memorial.
**The primary reason for my feeling on this is that it is intrusive, because it forces strangers to be involved in your grief.**
> *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: Makeshift roadside memorials for victims of accidents or murder are intrusive and shouldn't be left for more than a month or so. I'm talking about things like a "ghost bike", a piece of plywood with "RIP Billy, We love you" spray painted on it. A bunch of stuffed animals, flowers, and candles loosely organized. And I'm talking specifically about these that are placed at the scene of the crime or accident, not within a cemetery or other designated memorial place.
I understand that it's a method of grieving. It's not for me, but I can respect that people grieve differently. My issue is that the general public shouldn't have to participate in your grieving, especially not for an extended period of time. These usually aren't well tended to and create litter (cards, ribbons, etc.) and start to look trashy over time (stuffed animals can't stay out in the elements for years, candles and vases tip over, signs hang crooked, etc.). In the case of crimes, it's not a very attractive thing to be advertising murders in your neighborhood. It not only affects real estate, but it's a constant reminder of a crime that happened near you that you may not want to be reminded about every day. It's not a fun thing to explain to new visitors, either.
In general, I think long term grieving should be limited to your own house, your place of worship, the cemetery, or within your own mind. Nobody puts up a memorial if someone has a heart attack jogging in the park, but if they get hit by a car, there's a memorial.
**The primary reason for my feeling on this is that it is intrusive, because it forces strangers to be involved in your grief.**
> *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!* |
t3_1pvflj | I believe that give poor people access to internet and information is more efficient than try to fight directly against poverty, starvation and diseases, CMV. | Bill Gates is, of course, doing an important job and his contribution to create a better world is clear. He is making a better world in places our sight don’t reach. But I think he’s wrong when says that internet won’t help them.
I think giving people access and a way to handle with technology and information will create a much more powerful environment to develop hygiene concepts, diseases controls, more efficient agriculture, houses and will help the next generation to get better jobs, create better small business and flourish human development at all.
My english is crap, I am sorry about that. If you could build a better argument about my point, I would appreciate too.
| I believe that give poor people access to internet and information is more efficient than try to fight directly against poverty, starvation and diseases, CMV. Bill Gates is, of course, doing an important job and his contribution to create a better world is clear. He is making a better world in places our sight don’t reach. But I think he’s wrong when says that internet won’t help them.
I think giving people access and a way to handle with technology and information will create a much more powerful environment to develop hygiene concepts, diseases controls, more efficient agriculture, houses and will help the next generation to get better jobs, create better small business and flourish human development at all.
My english is crap, I am sorry about that. If you could build a better argument about my point, I would appreciate too.
|
t3_1m5sfw | Women often make poor leaders due to their menstruation influencing their decisions and the affirmative action found in their policies, such as those of Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, that discriminate against males. CMV | I understand that this is an extremely unpopular opinion. Please keep in mind the point of me posting this is to expand my comprehension of gender equality and similar ethical problems. My reasoning is as follows:
-Menstruation, in my experience, often brings with it irritability and impulsive actions. Such behavior is out of the question for a leader. My justifications for this belief are the experiences I have had with my girlfriend, who often regrets her harsh actions during this time of month, as well as similar experiences that my peers have had.
-Similar to the injustices seen in "Regents of the University of California Vs. Bakke (1978)", female leaders such as Michelle Bachelet consciously expelled male political leaders in order to replace them with females. Granted, half of the leaders were kept male, however I believe that females can be empowered without the dis-empowering of males.
As an individual severely saddened by the lower status of women in the world, I would love to be wrong for once. | Women often make poor leaders due to their menstruation influencing their decisions and the affirmative action found in their policies, such as those of Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, that discriminate against males. CMV. I understand that this is an extremely unpopular opinion. Please keep in mind the point of me posting this is to expand my comprehension of gender equality and similar ethical problems. My reasoning is as follows:
-Menstruation, in my experience, often brings with it irritability and impulsive actions. Such behavior is out of the question for a leader. My justifications for this belief are the experiences I have had with my girlfriend, who often regrets her harsh actions during this time of month, as well as similar experiences that my peers have had.
-Similar to the injustices seen in "Regents of the University of California Vs. Bakke (1978)", female leaders such as Michelle Bachelet consciously expelled male political leaders in order to replace them with females. Granted, half of the leaders were kept male, however I believe that females can be empowered without the dis-empowering of males.
As an individual severely saddened by the lower status of women in the world, I would love to be wrong for once. |
t3_20t88l | I believe gender is not a choice, but a very simple question of XX/XY chromosomes. People should have the right to emulate gender, but not legally choose their gender. CMV | With so many people taking to protest over the ability to call themselves what they want to be called, I can't help but realize that they can only be what they are, which is derived by their genetic make up. At the time being, we do not have a method of changing such a deeply encoded message. We have the ability to change our appearance, personality and various other bodily functions through drugs, but all of this is cosmetic.
I believe that giving someone the idea to disassociate from their true gender in a legal sense is no different to identity fraud and is misleading and unnecessary.
A quick bit of information, I fully support the LGBT agenda on nearly all matters excluding this one.
I realize that my view may offend, and that is why I am here to have it changed.
Thanks! | I believe gender is not a choice, but a very simple question of XX/XY chromosomes. People should have the right to emulate gender, but not legally choose their gender. CMV. With so many people taking to protest over the ability to call themselves what they want to be called, I can't help but realize that they can only be what they are, which is derived by their genetic make up. At the time being, we do not have a method of changing such a deeply encoded message. We have the ability to change our appearance, personality and various other bodily functions through drugs, but all of this is cosmetic.
I believe that giving someone the idea to disassociate from their true gender in a legal sense is no different to identity fraud and is misleading and unnecessary.
A quick bit of information, I fully support the LGBT agenda on nearly all matters excluding this one.
I realize that my view may offend, and that is why I am here to have it changed.
Thanks! |
t3_5yxtcu | CMV: Devoting resources to only those who aren't white/heterosexual is prejudice | I'm struggling with the idea of my college having an Office of Multicultural Affairs that specifically appeals to people people who aren't white or heterosexual. I see these intelligent people I know who support this sort of spending, but our conversations seem to trail off. I'm not sure if it is them being uncomfortable discussing their views or me asking my questions the wrong way. I want to know how people justify devoting spending to only non-males or only non-whites or only homosexuals under a term like "Gay Leadership Foundation" or "Black Male Leaders..." This sort of thing strikes me as demeaning to people of other races or sexual beliefs and blatantly against white heterosexuals as well.
It seems to me that these organizations not only exclude a specific subset of humans (usually white heterosexuals), but also demean the achievements of the people in them. Someone who got a prize for "Most Improved African American" or something like that isn't the most improve. Why does an amazing person need to have their achievement only inside of this specific community? It seems like it will just promote the racism or idea that "Oh, he was only the best black one.."
Why are public universities devoting resources to these programs? Why would it be racist if I made a scholarship for "White-skinned males who are heterosexual" but not if I start an "African Minority" one?
EDIT: Hey CMV people! I'm editing to say my view is changed significantly. I was actually completely incorrect; [there are various scholarships for Irish/Polish/etc.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5yxtcu/cmv_devoting_resources_to_only_those_who_arent/deu2d61/) and I was just ignorant to many white people actually identifying with their roots. While I am still unsure about this method to promote diversity fairly, I understand that there isn't a perfect way. As Machiavelli knew, trying to fix corruption/evil with pure kindness and perfect morals doesn't work. Setting up an unbiased system with a populace that has already been affected by bias won't fix it either. I don't have a solution, and I can now see why many people believe the current path is the correct solution.
_____
> *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: Devoting resources to only those who aren't white/heterosexual is prejudice. I'm struggling with the idea of my college having an Office of Multicultural Affairs that specifically appeals to people people who aren't white or heterosexual. I see these intelligent people I know who support this sort of spending, but our conversations seem to trail off. I'm not sure if it is them being uncomfortable discussing their views or me asking my questions the wrong way. I want to know how people justify devoting spending to only non-males or only non-whites or only homosexuals under a term like "Gay Leadership Foundation" or "Black Male Leaders..." This sort of thing strikes me as demeaning to people of other races or sexual beliefs and blatantly against white heterosexuals as well.
It seems to me that these organizations not only exclude a specific subset of humans (usually white heterosexuals), but also demean the achievements of the people in them. Someone who got a prize for "Most Improved African American" or something like that isn't the most improve. Why does an amazing person need to have their achievement only inside of this specific community? It seems like it will just promote the racism or idea that "Oh, he was only the best black one.."
Why are public universities devoting resources to these programs? Why would it be racist if I made a scholarship for "White-skinned males who are heterosexual" but not if I start an "African Minority" one?
EDIT: Hey CMV people! I'm editing to say my view is changed significantly. I was actually completely incorrect; [there are various scholarships for Irish/Polish/etc.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5yxtcu/cmv_devoting_resources_to_only_those_who_arent/deu2d61/) and I was just ignorant to many white people actually identifying with their roots. While I am still unsure about this method to promote diversity fairly, I understand that there isn't a perfect way. As Machiavelli knew, trying to fix corruption/evil with pure kindness and perfect morals doesn't work. Setting up an unbiased system with a populace that has already been affected by bias won't fix it either. I don't have a solution, and I can now see why many people believe the current path is the correct solution.
|
t3_27nsmg | CMV: Cultural approriation is a nonissue. | I do not understand why people are so concerned about "cultural appropriation". A white guy has hair dreads? "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, YOU ASSHOLE. INSENSITIVE PRICK!" I enjoy Japanese food? "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION."
What happened to encouraging and being happy with mixing cultures? What happend to being proud of the "American Melting pot"? Why is it suddenly wrong to partake in an activity that another culture happened to partake in first?
Why are people so angry about this?
Please enlighten me on what it is wrong for someone to appreciate someone elses culture.
_____
> *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: Cultural approriation is a nonissue. I do not understand why people are so concerned about "cultural appropriation". A white guy has hair dreads? "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, YOU ASSHOLE. INSENSITIVE PRICK!" I enjoy Japanese food? "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION."
What happened to encouraging and being happy with mixing cultures? What happend to being proud of the "American Melting pot"? Why is it suddenly wrong to partake in an activity that another culture happened to partake in first?
Why are people so angry about this?
Please enlighten me on what it is wrong for someone to appreciate someone elses culture. |
t3_20vg8t | I believe it is a violation of basic civil rights to deny the right to vote to convicted felons. CMV | After hearing about the woman with the drug charge voting and mucking things up, I came to the realization that it is incredibly hypocritical to deny felons who have been released from prison the right to vote. I don't condone the acts they have committed but one of the founding principles of our country (obvious 'murcan here) that citizens have the right to cast a ballot however they see fit. Whether you believe rehabilitation is the ultimate product of our broken justice system or not, letting people enter back into society is a ridiculous proposition and it's preposterous to think that it's a good idea to bar someone from trying to further their own views because they are a convict if it's okay to let them rejoin society and potentially put more people at risk from recidivism on the part of the convict. I think that this is one of the larger issues leading to people re-offending and returning to prison due to useless separation and alienation from "normal" society. | I believe it is a violation of basic civil rights to deny the right to vote to convicted felons. CMV. After hearing about the woman with the drug charge voting and mucking things up, I came to the realization that it is incredibly hypocritical to deny felons who have been released from prison the right to vote. I don't condone the acts they have committed but one of the founding principles of our country (obvious 'murcan here) that citizens have the right to cast a ballot however they see fit. Whether you believe rehabilitation is the ultimate product of our broken justice system or not, letting people enter back into society is a ridiculous proposition and it's preposterous to think that it's a good idea to bar someone from trying to further their own views because they are a convict if it's okay to let them rejoin society and potentially put more people at risk from recidivism on the part of the convict. I think that this is one of the larger issues leading to people re-offending and returning to prison due to useless separation and alienation from "normal" society. |
t3_5c9vp9 | CMV: The United States has never regressed on social issues at the Federal level and it isn't going to happen now either. | The first part should be easier to CMV than the second part since all you've got to do is show an example where we have regressed on a federal level. And by regressed, I mean a situation where rights were legally granted either by legislation or clarified as a result of a Supreme Court decision, and then at some later date those rights were taken away at the federal level.
A few caveats:
* Don't tell me about the state representative that tried to make interracial marriage illegal in your state - that isn't on the federal level.
* Don't tell me about state laws that limit access to abortion. That's not only at the state level, but isn't removing a right (just making it more difficult to exercise).
* I'm going to carve out prohibition. We were given the right to consume alcohol, that right was taken away, and then that error was corrected. So we *did* temporarily regress on that one.
* I say "never" in my thread title, but let's limit it to the past century or so. I'm not sure if there's something that was "progressive" back at the founding that was taken away in the 1800's.
* And this one is going to be the most subjective and blurry, but let's limit it to shit that most people on reddit would actually consider regressive. So, yeah, we used to have the right to own slaves and beat our wives, and then we "regressed" and can't do that anymore - that ain't what I'm talking about and you know it.
**EDIT**
Since this post is still getting a lot of activity, I guess I should post an update. There have certainly been regressive laws passed, the Patriot Act being the one that most changed my view. I still don't think that there is any genuine risk of abortion becoming illegal or gay marriage getting rolled back. My original view would have been better stated by saying that we currently have no regressive federal laws on the books that are being enforced. That would still be shot down by the Patriot Act, but most other regressive laws that people have mentioned in the comments have been overturned once we saw the error of our ways.
It is also a difficult discussion because, as I anticipated, the same law can be interpreted as either progressive, or regressive, depending upon your point of view. | CMV: The United States has never regressed on social issues at the Federal level and it isn't going to happen now either. The first part should be easier to CMV than the second part since all you've got to do is show an example where we have regressed on a federal level. And by regressed, I mean a situation where rights were legally granted either by legislation or clarified as a result of a Supreme Court decision, and then at some later date those rights were taken away at the federal level.
A few caveats:
* Don't tell me about the state representative that tried to make interracial marriage illegal in your state - that isn't on the federal level.
* Don't tell me about state laws that limit access to abortion. That's not only at the state level, but isn't removing a right (just making it more difficult to exercise).
* I'm going to carve out prohibition. We were given the right to consume alcohol, that right was taken away, and then that error was corrected. So we *did* temporarily regress on that one.
* I say "never" in my thread title, but let's limit it to the past century or so. I'm not sure if there's something that was "progressive" back at the founding that was taken away in the 1800's.
* And this one is going to be the most subjective and blurry, but let's limit it to shit that most people on reddit would actually consider regressive. So, yeah, we used to have the right to own slaves and beat our wives, and then we "regressed" and can't do that anymore - that ain't what I'm talking about and you know it.
**EDIT**
Since this post is still getting a lot of activity, I guess I should post an update. There have certainly been regressive laws passed, the Patriot Act being the one that most changed my view. I still don't think that there is any genuine risk of abortion becoming illegal or gay marriage getting rolled back. My original view would have been better stated by saying that we currently have no regressive federal laws on the books that are being enforced. That would still be shot down by the Patriot Act, but most other regressive laws that people have mentioned in the comments have been overturned once we saw the error of our ways.
It is also a difficult discussion because, as I anticipated, the same law can be interpreted as either progressive, or regressive, depending upon your point of view. |
t3_1fe0ig | I believe that if you support legalizing same sex marriage, you should also support legalizing polygamous unions. CMV. | It's pretty simple from my point of view. If you wish to define legal marriage as being between any 2 consenting adults (which I do by the way) then what reason is there for not supporting 3 or more consenting adults? | I believe that if you support legalizing same sex marriage, you should also support legalizing polygamous unions. CMV. It's pretty simple from my point of view. If you wish to define legal marriage as being between any 2 consenting adults (which I do by the way) then what reason is there for not supporting 3 or more consenting adults? |
t3_2m1bdk | CMV: I think The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. | It's stood up to over 150 years of scientific scrutiny without a single piece of evidence ever contradicting it. We not only have mountains of evidence supporting, but have repeatedly confirmed the process both experimentally, and through things like the fossil record, genetic analysis, and through the many predictions that have been confirmed through its use in the real world. Any attempts to "disprove" it end in failure as the debater ends up being either ignorant on the subject, willfully or otherwise, lacks supporting evidence, or both.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I think The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. It's stood up to over 150 years of scientific scrutiny without a single piece of evidence ever contradicting it. We not only have mountains of evidence supporting, but have repeatedly confirmed the process both experimentally, and through things like the fossil record, genetic analysis, and through the many predictions that have been confirmed through its use in the real world. Any attempts to "disprove" it end in failure as the debater ends up being either ignorant on the subject, willfully or otherwise, lacks supporting evidence, or both.
|
t3_2969n9 | CMV: There is absolutely a need to shoot video in portrait mode sometimes. | I see a lot of backlash against portrait mode in cameras, and I know there are times when landscape is superior. However - it isn't always feasible.
When there is more content to capture in the vertical direction, portrait is superior to landscape.
Of course - one can go farther back, but this loses detail and in many cases one may simply be unable to do so.
The whole thing strikes me as silly, and I think shooting exclusively in landscape is a bad idea.
One can see people railing against it here
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS528US528&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=portrait%20mode%20video
And it is stupid.
A part of the problem is that many sites display it poorly
http://jameswatt.me/2013/02/09/the-suppression-of-vertical-videos/
I can't for the life of me figure out what is wrong with vertical video. Many times the video in question is served better by horizontal video, but sometimes - vertical is better.
CMV on why I should *never* use vertical?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: There is absolutely a need to shoot video in portrait mode sometimes. I see a lot of backlash against portrait mode in cameras, and I know there are times when landscape is superior. However - it isn't always feasible.
When there is more content to capture in the vertical direction, portrait is superior to landscape.
Of course - one can go farther back, but this loses detail and in many cases one may simply be unable to do so.
The whole thing strikes me as silly, and I think shooting exclusively in landscape is a bad idea.
One can see people railing against it here
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS528US528&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=portrait%20mode%20video
And it is stupid.
A part of the problem is that many sites display it poorly
http://jameswatt.me/2013/02/09/the-suppression-of-vertical-videos/
I can't for the life of me figure out what is wrong with vertical video. Many times the video in question is served better by horizontal video, but sometimes - vertical is better.
CMV on why I should *never* use vertical? |
t3_302ya2 | CMV: Women who get upset over simple introduction messages on dating sites, such as a simple hello have an entitled attitude about how they see themselves in the world of dating, and have misguided expectations of the real dating world in our society. | This is not about waxing poetic about non-responses to the messages I send out so please do not take it that way. The basis of starting a conversation with anyone in the history of conversations is a greeting. For the life of me I cannot understand why some women use this as a measurement of assumption on how boring the male is. It really stumps me. Why can't the first message be a simple hello?
And so you'll hear women all over the /r/OkCupid sub saying that they ignore the messages will simple greetings, and read the ones where it is 'apparent the man is trying.' To me this sounds as if this is another hoop someone has to jump through just to even talk to the woman. How is this not an entitled way of thinking? This is par for course on the expectations of a dancing monkey.
Edit: Did my best to argue reasonably. Did my best to read most of the responses in here. Did my best as far expecting /r/changemyview to be different from other subs. Thanks for unreasonably down voting everything I have said in here.
Edit2: I am done responding since you guys cannot quit abusing reddit. I am not going to keep trying to have conversations with you when you're down voting me on everything I'm saying, no matter what I say.
**Edit3: For the record, none of you changed my mind because the majority of you are personally attacking me without reading any of my responses in the thread. It seems like the majority of you think I am whining about not getting responses when that isn't the problem *at all*. I have never had a problem with sending or receiving messages, and my dating life is actually quite nice. This was always only about genial greetings suddenly not being enough, not being enough of a complicated hoop to jump through. It is obvious that /r/changemyview uses down voting to show disagreement, and that is a travesty because I think the general idea of this sub to be absolutely wonderful in so far as I do everything I can to keep myself out of an echo chamber.** | CMV: Women who get upset over simple introduction messages on dating sites, such as a simple hello have an entitled attitude about how they see themselves in the world of dating, and have misguided expectations of the real dating world in our society. This is not about waxing poetic about non-responses to the messages I send out so please do not take it that way. The basis of starting a conversation with anyone in the history of conversations is a greeting. For the life of me I cannot understand why some women use this as a measurement of assumption on how boring the male is. It really stumps me. Why can't the first message be a simple hello?
And so you'll hear women all over the /r/OkCupid sub saying that they ignore the messages will simple greetings, and read the ones where it is 'apparent the man is trying.' To me this sounds as if this is another hoop someone has to jump through just to even talk to the woman. How is this not an entitled way of thinking? This is par for course on the expectations of a dancing monkey.
Edit: Did my best to argue reasonably. Did my best to read most of the responses in here. Did my best as far expecting /r/changemyview to be different from other subs. Thanks for unreasonably down voting everything I have said in here.
Edit2: I am done responding since you guys cannot quit abusing reddit. I am not going to keep trying to have conversations with you when you're down voting me on everything I'm saying, no matter what I say.
**Edit3: For the record, none of you changed my mind because the majority of you are personally attacking me without reading any of my responses in the thread. It seems like the majority of you think I am whining about not getting responses when that isn't the problem *at all*. I have never had a problem with sending or receiving messages, and my dating life is actually quite nice. This was always only about genial greetings suddenly not being enough, not being enough of a complicated hoop to jump through. It is obvious that /r/changemyview uses down voting to show disagreement, and that is a travesty because I think the general idea of this sub to be absolutely wonderful in so far as I do everything I can to keep myself out of an echo chamber.** |
t3_39m2ql | CMV: Telling kids to ignore bullying, or telling them that it's their own fault, is victim blaming and should not be done. | When I was in Middle School kids bullied me all the time, I told the teachers, but they just told me to ignore it. I had to use every ounce of my willpower to prevent myself from fighting back. Whenever I was bullied, I would scream at the bullies. The teachers told me that it was my own fault that I was being bullied because of the way I screamed at them. I tried to tell them that screaming was a reflex which I physically couldn't control, but they just kept telling me that it was my own fault. For years, I had to hold in all of my anger because I knew that if I fought back I would be suspended. It was holding in all that anger which led to a suicide attempt. This was a long time ago, so I'm better now. However, the reason why victims of bullying commit suicide is because no one takes them seriously. No matter how minor the bullying is, a person should never be told to ignore it, and certainly never told that it's their own fault. It is the very definition of victim blaming and should not be done. I'm sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if I didn't scream at them they would have stopped bullying me. However, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is. I would also like to point out that screaming is a natural reaction to fear, and that I was using all of my willpower to prevent myself from fight back. If the school will not allow kids to fight back, than the school should do something about the bullying. If I could have fought back without being suspended, than I would have. My school has a policy that all kids involved in a fight are suspended. In my school, kids given out-of-school suspension are forced to go to an "Alternative Learning Center" for the duration of their suspension. I knew that if I was suspended I would be sent their, and that it was filled with bad kids who would have been far worse than the bullies at the school.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Telling kids to ignore bullying, or telling them that it's their own fault, is victim blaming and should not be done. When I was in Middle School kids bullied me all the time, I told the teachers, but they just told me to ignore it. I had to use every ounce of my willpower to prevent myself from fighting back. Whenever I was bullied, I would scream at the bullies. The teachers told me that it was my own fault that I was being bullied because of the way I screamed at them. I tried to tell them that screaming was a reflex which I physically couldn't control, but they just kept telling me that it was my own fault. For years, I had to hold in all of my anger because I knew that if I fought back I would be suspended. It was holding in all that anger which led to a suicide attempt. This was a long time ago, so I'm better now. However, the reason why victims of bullying commit suicide is because no one takes them seriously. No matter how minor the bullying is, a person should never be told to ignore it, and certainly never told that it's their own fault. It is the very definition of victim blaming and should not be done. I'm sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if I didn't scream at them they would have stopped bullying me. However, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is. I would also like to point out that screaming is a natural reaction to fear, and that I was using all of my willpower to prevent myself from fight back. If the school will not allow kids to fight back, than the school should do something about the bullying. If I could have fought back without being suspended, than I would have. My school has a policy that all kids involved in a fight are suspended. In my school, kids given out-of-school suspension are forced to go to an "Alternative Learning Center" for the duration of their suspension. I knew that if I was suspended I would be sent their, and that it was filled with bad kids who would have been far worse than the bullies at the school.
|
t3_1e9suy | We will be able to simulate the human brain when computers as quick as brains are widespread. CMV. | When I thought about human-level Artificial Intelligence I always thought it was part of sci-fi from the 1960s that will never be real, like jetpacks and flying cars. But the reason why we still haven't got human-level AI ('[Strong AI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI)') now seems obvious to me; we just don't have [access to hardware that approaches the computing power](http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/mar09/images/PCNotes_01.jpg) of the human brain.
Current supercomputers do approach the computing power of the human brain, but researches need time and lots of tests to simulate a human brain. In the coming decades, the price of computing power will drop like it did for [the last 100 years](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/PPTMooresLawai.jpg), and scientists from all over the world will be able to work with hardware that could potentially support strong AI.
Google is working with [neural nets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network) and one of their networks taught itself to [recognize cats](http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4376128/Google-neural-network-identifies-cats). This was a network that was distributed across 16,000 processor cores, and the network had a billion connections. The human brain supports around 100 trillion connections. I think similar research with neural nets will result in simulations of the human brain and strong AI when the hardware needed to support these countless connections will be more widely available. Both the [EU](http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/eu-effort-to-model-the-human-brain/) and [Obama](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22007007) announced projects to map and simulate the human brain.
Those 100 trillion connections in your brain 'are' you; your consciousness, your emotions, your memories, everything. It's amazing, but it's a physical object. A seed and an egg in a womb will result in such a 'biological computer'. All of it can be simulated on a computer and there is no physical or mechanical (but perhaps legal or moral) reason why a strong AI is unable to do something that a human can do.
---
These ideas play an important role in my life but because they are so important, I want to be sure I am not wrong. On the other hand, I also want other people to know about this. That's why I made a couple of posts here to fully explain my ideas and expose every part of the argument to criticism.
Part 1: [Exponential growth in computing](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e9qz0/i_believe_that_exponential_trends_in_computing/).
This is part 2: Simulating the human brain.
Part 3: [Intelligence explosion](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e9ulb/i_believe_strong_ai_will_lead_to_an_intelligence/).
Thanks for reading this!
--- | We will be able to simulate the human brain when computers as quick as brains are widespread. CMV. When I thought about human-level Artificial Intelligence I always thought it was part of sci-fi from the 1960s that will never be real, like jetpacks and flying cars. But the reason why we still haven't got human-level AI ('[Strong AI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI)') now seems obvious to me; we just don't have [access to hardware that approaches the computing power](http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/mar09/images/PCNotes_01.jpg) of the human brain.
Current supercomputers do approach the computing power of the human brain, but researches need time and lots of tests to simulate a human brain. In the coming decades, the price of computing power will drop like it did for [the last 100 years](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/PPTMooresLawai.jpg), and scientists from all over the world will be able to work with hardware that could potentially support strong AI.
Google is working with [neural nets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network) and one of their networks taught itself to [recognize cats](http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4376128/Google-neural-network-identifies-cats). This was a network that was distributed across 16,000 processor cores, and the network had a billion connections. The human brain supports around 100 trillion connections. I think similar research with neural nets will result in simulations of the human brain and strong AI when the hardware needed to support these countless connections will be more widely available. Both the [EU](http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/eu-effort-to-model-the-human-brain/) and [Obama](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22007007) announced projects to map and simulate the human brain.
Those 100 trillion connections in your brain 'are' you; your consciousness, your emotions, your memories, everything. It's amazing, but it's a physical object. A seed and an egg in a womb will result in such a 'biological computer'. All of it can be simulated on a computer and there is no physical or mechanical (but perhaps legal or moral) reason why a strong AI is unable to do something that a human can do.
---
These ideas play an important role in my life but because they are so important, I want to be sure I am not wrong. On the other hand, I also want other people to know about this. That's why I made a couple of posts here to fully explain my ideas and expose every part of the argument to criticism.
Part 1: [Exponential growth in computing](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e9qz0/i_believe_that_exponential_trends_in_computing/).
This is part 2: Simulating the human brain.
Part 3: [Intelligence explosion](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e9ulb/i_believe_strong_ai_will_lead_to_an_intelligence/).
Thanks for reading this!
--- |
t3_3m6dyi | CMV: If you encourage somebody to kill himself, while knowing this person is vulnerable, suicidal or depressed, and this person does attempt suicide, you deserve to go to jail. | I agree that there are many different contexts where encouraging somebody to attempt suicide is not so bad, for example if it is as a joke. But when you know somebody has personal issues and might actually do it, you are responsible for it, period.
There are limits for the joking. People who believe suicide is only on one's consent are wrong on this problem. If you make people drink the kool aid, you are guilty.
I remember periods at school where some people who did not like me had a tendency to talk about suicide with me, and it was very creepy. I'm sure there are people out there arguing that bullying is okay, that it's part of life, that you have to suffer to get tough, but I really disagree with this. Social darwinism is not okay.
_____
> *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 encourage somebody to kill himself, while knowing this person is vulnerable, suicidal or depressed, and this person does attempt suicide, you deserve to go to jail. I agree that there are many different contexts where encouraging somebody to attempt suicide is not so bad, for example if it is as a joke. But when you know somebody has personal issues and might actually do it, you are responsible for it, period.
There are limits for the joking. People who believe suicide is only on one's consent are wrong on this problem. If you make people drink the kool aid, you are guilty.
I remember periods at school where some people who did not like me had a tendency to talk about suicide with me, and it was very creepy. I'm sure there are people out there arguing that bullying is okay, that it's part of life, that you have to suffer to get tough, but I really disagree with this. Social darwinism is not okay. |
t3_36wl1g | CMV: I am not bringing shame to my family by loving fake chinese food | I'm American-born Chinese and I love General Gao's Chicken, Beef with Broccoli, etc. I'd choose fine dining and home coming over the cheap fake stuff, but between a middle-range chinese restaurant and a greasy noodle dish from the food court? Eh, whatever's cheaper and faster.
It seems to me that "real" chinese food tends to be fried anyway and does not seem any more healthy. As long as I choose my 2 main dishes + starch well at the food court, I can get decent nutrition. The fried rice has a decent assortment of vegetables at least. And yes, I have been to China, and I liked some restaurants far less than the local food truck run by not a single chinese person. Furthermore, some regional cuisine is very spicy, and my spice tolerance is such that anything with more peppers than hot and sour soup will make me cry, so that cuts out a good portion of real chinese food for me.
So since I'd only know something is fake chinese food by the race of the person running the restaurant and the names on the menu, seems to me that I might as well save myself some time and money and go for the cheap place! Sometimes they'll even include a spring roll or something! I mean, I've had some very flavorful Orange Chicken so why should it be bad just due to the name?
So can anyone convince me that I should go burn incense on my non-existent family shrine to repent for my family-disgracing lack of taste?
(Please don't take this seriously. I just like a light-hearted CMV for a change.)
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I am not bringing shame to my family by loving fake chinese food. I'm American-born Chinese and I love General Gao's Chicken, Beef with Broccoli, etc. I'd choose fine dining and home coming over the cheap fake stuff, but between a middle-range chinese restaurant and a greasy noodle dish from the food court? Eh, whatever's cheaper and faster.
It seems to me that "real" chinese food tends to be fried anyway and does not seem any more healthy. As long as I choose my 2 main dishes + starch well at the food court, I can get decent nutrition. The fried rice has a decent assortment of vegetables at least. And yes, I have been to China, and I liked some restaurants far less than the local food truck run by not a single chinese person. Furthermore, some regional cuisine is very spicy, and my spice tolerance is such that anything with more peppers than hot and sour soup will make me cry, so that cuts out a good portion of real chinese food for me.
So since I'd only know something is fake chinese food by the race of the person running the restaurant and the names on the menu, seems to me that I might as well save myself some time and money and go for the cheap place! Sometimes they'll even include a spring roll or something! I mean, I've had some very flavorful Orange Chicken so why should it be bad just due to the name?
So can anyone convince me that I should go burn incense on my non-existent family shrine to repent for my family-disgracing lack of taste?
(Please don't take this seriously. I just like a light-hearted CMV for a change.) |
t3_5ozf1e | CMV: There is no such thing as a fate worse than death | I'm doing this CMV because I realized that this view is at the core of two other views of mine on controversial subjects - suicide and eating meat. I'll go over my view first, and then I'll relate it to those two topics because I think that will help make it more clear.
Basically, I believe that life is inherently positive. Life is, in my opinion, the greatest gift that the universe ever gave. First, think about how many things had to happen for you to be alive right now in your current state. Your parents had to meet. Their parents had to meet, and so on. All of your direct ancestors had to reproduce before they died. If you begin to think about it, I think you'll realize that the chances of you being alive in your current state are so tiny it's ridiculous. Even one in a googolplex is probably far too great of odds for the chances of that. So my first point is that on a universal scale, the chances of you (or anyone or anything) being born are insanely low. So by even having the chance to experience life, you basically won the lottery 100 times in a row.
My next point is that life is incredibly short. Current estimates put the universe at 14 billion years old, and the head death of the universe isn't supposed to happen for another googol years. Even if you live to be 100, that's still the tiniest blink of an eye at a universal scale. Even if we don't count the future, a 100 year old person's life only accounts for less than one hundred millionth of the lifespan of the universe. Therefore, my second point is that life is incredibly short.
My third main point is that you only get one chance at life. Personally, I am an atheist and therefore do not believe in any sort of afterlife. Even if you do, bringing that up will not change my view unless you are somehow able to convince me that God exists. I don't want this to be a religious discussion, so I plan to stick to the world of science and evidence. And there is no evidence whatsoever for an afterlife.
Now let me tie this in with my other views.
*Suicide*
So let's review - life is an incredibly rare, incredibly short, one time opportunity. It's the only chance you'll ever get to experience *anything*. And people want to throw that away? Even if you absolutely HATE life, it's going to be over in a few years anyway. Virtually no time at all at a universal scale. If you don't like life, then guess what? You're in luck! You've got trillions and trillions of years to be dead. You've got about 70 to be alive. Throwing that away just seems idiotic to me.
*Meat Industry*
Many people argue that eating meat (or even milk or eggs) is unethical because the animals are treated poorly. I completely agree that the way they are treated is horrible. However, were it not for the meat industry those animals never would have been born in the first place. So to me, while it would definitely be better if animals didn't have to suffer, it's still preferable to non-life.
To sum it all up, I claim that there is no such thing as a fate worse than death (except perhaps the death or multiple deaths of loved ones, but that's still death). CMV!
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: There is no such thing as a fate worse than death. I'm doing this CMV because I realized that this view is at the core of two other views of mine on controversial subjects - suicide and eating meat. I'll go over my view first, and then I'll relate it to those two topics because I think that will help make it more clear.
Basically, I believe that life is inherently positive. Life is, in my opinion, the greatest gift that the universe ever gave. First, think about how many things had to happen for you to be alive right now in your current state. Your parents had to meet. Their parents had to meet, and so on. All of your direct ancestors had to reproduce before they died. If you begin to think about it, I think you'll realize that the chances of you being alive in your current state are so tiny it's ridiculous. Even one in a googolplex is probably far too great of odds for the chances of that. So my first point is that on a universal scale, the chances of you (or anyone or anything) being born are insanely low. So by even having the chance to experience life, you basically won the lottery 100 times in a row.
My next point is that life is incredibly short. Current estimates put the universe at 14 billion years old, and the head death of the universe isn't supposed to happen for another googol years. Even if you live to be 100, that's still the tiniest blink of an eye at a universal scale. Even if we don't count the future, a 100 year old person's life only accounts for less than one hundred millionth of the lifespan of the universe. Therefore, my second point is that life is incredibly short.
My third main point is that you only get one chance at life. Personally, I am an atheist and therefore do not believe in any sort of afterlife. Even if you do, bringing that up will not change my view unless you are somehow able to convince me that God exists. I don't want this to be a religious discussion, so I plan to stick to the world of science and evidence. And there is no evidence whatsoever for an afterlife.
Now let me tie this in with my other views.
*Suicide*
So let's review - life is an incredibly rare, incredibly short, one time opportunity. It's the only chance you'll ever get to experience *anything*. And people want to throw that away? Even if you absolutely HATE life, it's going to be over in a few years anyway. Virtually no time at all at a universal scale. If you don't like life, then guess what? You're in luck! You've got trillions and trillions of years to be dead. You've got about 70 to be alive. Throwing that away just seems idiotic to me.
*Meat Industry*
Many people argue that eating meat (or even milk or eggs) is unethical because the animals are treated poorly. I completely agree that the way they are treated is horrible. However, were it not for the meat industry those animals never would have been born in the first place. So to me, while it would definitely be better if animals didn't have to suffer, it's still preferable to non-life.
To sum it all up, I claim that there is no such thing as a fate worse than death (except perhaps the death or multiple deaths of loved ones, but that's still death). CMV! |
t3_3az0mo | CMV: Suicide is a personal choice people have the right to make | Hi all,
I've been a long time subscriber to CMV, but this is the first post I've made on this subreddit so let me know if I'm explaining myself poorly or doing something wrong. Essentially, I believe that suicide is a personal decision that people should be allowed to make about their own lives and bodies as long as they are not physically hurting anyone else. I think that there is nothing morally wrong with choosing to die because I don't think choosing to live is morally right; neither is right or wrong, existence is just existence.
I do not discount the negative repercussions that suicide can have on others, however I do not think that any individual can judge another individual's pain or coping mechanisms and if a person has genuinely sought help for their problem (whether a terminal health issue, permanent life change, lifelong battle with mental illness) and has come to the conclusion that they are in much more pain existing than they would be not existing, they have the right to do what they need to do to relieve their own pain.
I am not suggesting that anyone with depression should have the right to end their lives immediately. I'm not even arguing that suicide should be a legal right. I'm arguing that morally and philosophically, I have not heard a good argument as to why someone who has contemplated and determined that not living has become a superior option to struggling should not be allowed to do so.
The rules state to also explain where this viewpoint comes from. I've battled with a pretty serious health condition since college, and although I'm much better now, at the time I was worried that I might die and I researched physician's assisted suicide. After reading a bunch of literature, I came to the conclusion that no doctor could judge a patient's physical pain and that if the patient would rather die with dignity it is their body and their right to do so. I've also struggled with depression and anxiety my entire life. If I have a right to end my physical pain, shouldn't I, someone who has taken measures to alleviate my mental pain (medications, working out 5x a week, meditation, positive affirmations, asmr, thinking exercises, journalling) and found no permanent solution, also have the right to end my mental pain? I would argue that my mental pain is actually much worse to deal with than my physical conditions. Vomiting and pain are manageable, I have pain pills if I really need them. But the mental torture of believing the people you care about would genuinely be happier without you, that your existence is an anchor on everyone elses life, that you are too emotionally unstable to be around other healthy adjusted people, is not something that even Prozac has been able to fix. The argument that "but it could get better" is nothing because it could also get worse, it could also stay the same. The argument that you will hurt people around you is valid, however I do not think avoiding hurting others is enough of a reason to endure a lifetime of misery. Suicide is a selfish choice, but I don't think just because it's selfish, it's wrong.
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: Suicide is a personal choice people have the right to make. Hi all,
I've been a long time subscriber to CMV, but this is the first post I've made on this subreddit so let me know if I'm explaining myself poorly or doing something wrong. Essentially, I believe that suicide is a personal decision that people should be allowed to make about their own lives and bodies as long as they are not physically hurting anyone else. I think that there is nothing morally wrong with choosing to die because I don't think choosing to live is morally right; neither is right or wrong, existence is just existence.
I do not discount the negative repercussions that suicide can have on others, however I do not think that any individual can judge another individual's pain or coping mechanisms and if a person has genuinely sought help for their problem (whether a terminal health issue, permanent life change, lifelong battle with mental illness) and has come to the conclusion that they are in much more pain existing than they would be not existing, they have the right to do what they need to do to relieve their own pain.
I am not suggesting that anyone with depression should have the right to end their lives immediately. I'm not even arguing that suicide should be a legal right. I'm arguing that morally and philosophically, I have not heard a good argument as to why someone who has contemplated and determined that not living has become a superior option to struggling should not be allowed to do so.
The rules state to also explain where this viewpoint comes from. I've battled with a pretty serious health condition since college, and although I'm much better now, at the time I was worried that I might die and I researched physician's assisted suicide. After reading a bunch of literature, I came to the conclusion that no doctor could judge a patient's physical pain and that if the patient would rather die with dignity it is their body and their right to do so. I've also struggled with depression and anxiety my entire life. If I have a right to end my physical pain, shouldn't I, someone who has taken measures to alleviate my mental pain (medications, working out 5x a week, meditation, positive affirmations, asmr, thinking exercises, journalling) and found no permanent solution, also have the right to end my mental pain? I would argue that my mental pain is actually much worse to deal with than my physical conditions. Vomiting and pain are manageable, I have pain pills if I really need them. But the mental torture of believing the people you care about would genuinely be happier without you, that your existence is an anchor on everyone elses life, that you are too emotionally unstable to be around other healthy adjusted people, is not something that even Prozac has been able to fix. The argument that "but it could get better" is nothing because it could also get worse, it could also stay the same. The argument that you will hurt people around you is valid, however I do not think avoiding hurting others is enough of a reason to endure a lifetime of misery. Suicide is a selfish choice, but I don't think just because it's selfish, it's wrong.
CMV. |