Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_2hxtnj

CMV: Fashion is superficial and youre a superficial person if you care about it.

Fashion and style are not the same thing. Style is self-defined, its an aspect of your personality. You will naturally see something whether or not its clothes and say hey thats cool I like that style. Fashion is a style which is defined by 'fashion designers' which are basically people who got lucky and ended up having influence in the industry for no objective reason. Just happened. People who define their own style by what they think is fashionable are superficial people with no substance who are too scared to be themselves and tailor every aspect of their personality to what they think is cool. edit: if you have something to say, say it, im getting a very weird comment to downvote ratio. _____ > *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: Fashion is superficial and youre a superficial person if you care about it. Fashion and style are not the same thing. Style is self-defined, its an aspect of your personality. You will naturally see something whether or not its clothes and say hey thats cool I like that style. Fashion is a style which is defined by 'fashion designers' which are basically people who got lucky and ended up having influence in the industry for no objective reason. Just happened. People who define their own style by what they think is fashionable are superficial people with no substance who are too scared to be themselves and tailor every aspect of their personality to what they think is cool. edit: if you have something to say, say it, im getting a very weird comment to downvote ratio.

t3_1eqztn

I believe that online dating for males only works if you're white and tall especially for hookups CMV

I have messaged hundreds of women on OKCupid before giving up after realizing that it was a huge waste of time. I think that unless you're 6'0+ and white then you cannot have lots of success on online dating. It could be age or my quality of photos but it seems like race matters immensely for online dating. I know it matters to a lesser degree in real life but for online dating it seems like a huge requirement.

I believe that online dating for males only works if you're white and tall especially for hookups CMV. I have messaged hundreds of women on OKCupid before giving up after realizing that it was a huge waste of time. I think that unless you're 6'0+ and white then you cannot have lots of success on online dating. It could be age or my quality of photos but it seems like race matters immensely for online dating. I know it matters to a lesser degree in real life but for online dating it seems like a huge requirement.

t3_6r0u3h

CMV: This video is a load of garbage that tries to capitalize on the "video essay" genre that NerdWriter1 and others use to successfully talk about culture, and fails at it.

This is a 15 minute video about why Kmart declined as a company. Editing and production is fine, but the content is atrocious. It just kind of generally talks circles around the idea that they declined, for almost a full 10 minutes. You don't actually get to any sort of worthwhile analysis of what factors caused it beyond "people stopped going to shop at Kmart". And even then, his reasoning is "why would they go to Kmart when they could go to Walmart?" which isn't actually a reason. I don't think this video actually answers the question, it just shares fun facts about Kmart's origins and touches on the mergers and debt and what not. That doesn't constitute a 14 minute video that "explains what happened to Kmart". https://youtu.be/1__Qg1toSSs

CMV: This video is a load of garbage that tries to capitalize on the "video essay" genre that NerdWriter1 and others use to successfully talk about culture, and fails at it. This is a 15 minute video about why Kmart declined as a company. Editing and production is fine, but the content is atrocious. It just kind of generally talks circles around the idea that they declined, for almost a full 10 minutes. You don't actually get to any sort of worthwhile analysis of what factors caused it beyond "people stopped going to shop at Kmart". And even then, his reasoning is "why would they go to Kmart when they could go to Walmart?" which isn't actually a reason. I don't think this video actually answers the question, it just shares fun facts about Kmart's origins and touches on the mergers and debt and what not. That doesn't constitute a 14 minute video that "explains what happened to Kmart". https://youtu.be/1__Qg1toSSs

t3_2e3t22

CMV:One dollar, one vote, is better than our current voting system

We currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person's choice. We see this system used in many things like in tv shows. (The Voice, for example) I think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates. In The Voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer. People are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show. This system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement. Take for example, a boxing match. Many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience. If the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring. Most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches. Let's take another example, Net Neutrality. Most people probably spent 10 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 10 minutes googling the subject before writing. And now they think they know everything there is to know. The Net Neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze. Industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision. See the danger of letting the average person cast a vote? Finally, let's address the voting of political candidates. Each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis. Understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies. The only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently. I believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year (or some variation, like average of past 3 years). This would be the effects: 1) Any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power. This is key and many people don't get this. The system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time. 2) You would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society. It seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more. 3) There is a high correlation between intelligence and income. Weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions. 4) We'll finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office. From what I've seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular. Any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off. Most of America wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests. EDIT - There were some really good points raised which I had not though about before. My view is definitely at least partially changed. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:One dollar, one vote, is better than our current voting system. We currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person's choice. We see this system used in many things like in tv shows. (The Voice, for example) I think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates. In The Voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer. People are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show. This system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement. Take for example, a boxing match. Many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience. If the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring. Most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches. Let's take another example, Net Neutrality. Most people probably spent 10 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 10 minutes googling the subject before writing. And now they think they know everything there is to know. The Net Neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze. Industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision. See the danger of letting the average person cast a vote? Finally, let's address the voting of political candidates. Each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis. Understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies. The only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently. I believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year (or some variation, like average of past 3 years). This would be the effects: 1) Any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power. This is key and many people don't get this. The system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time. 2) You would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society. It seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more. 3) There is a high correlation between intelligence and income. Weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions. 4) We'll finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office. From what I've seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular. Any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off. Most of America wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests. EDIT - There were some really good points raised which I had not though about before. My view is definitely at least partially changed.

t3_1w6rdz

CMV: I don't believe that the basic income could work

I've seen a lot of articles in favour of the basic income, but none that really go into all of the issues that it'd create. Firstly, is there enough money to do this - I don't mean just hand wavey arguments - but has anyone actually done a proper mathematical and economic analysis? What about all of the other economic effects? Some jobs are undesireable and so no-one would want to do them without a huge salary boost. Will we really be able to fill all necessary positions by simply boosting the salary? What about all of the inflation that this causes? How will this impact the financial feasibility of basic income? Lastly, if this is such a great thing, why does no-one anywhere implement a basic income without external funding (like aid) or oil money?

CMV: I don't believe that the basic income could work. I've seen a lot of articles in favour of the basic income, but none that really go into all of the issues that it'd create. Firstly, is there enough money to do this - I don't mean just hand wavey arguments - but has anyone actually done a proper mathematical and economic analysis? What about all of the other economic effects? Some jobs are undesireable and so no-one would want to do them without a huge salary boost. Will we really be able to fill all necessary positions by simply boosting the salary? What about all of the inflation that this causes? How will this impact the financial feasibility of basic income? Lastly, if this is such a great thing, why does no-one anywhere implement a basic income without external funding (like aid) or oil money?

t3_5d3ijo

CMV: I don't think Philip Glass is very creative.

So I went to see a Philip Glass opera this weekend (Akhnaten), and while I did enjoy it and I thought the music was pretty, I was really disappointed with what I perceived to be a really technically weak score. Pretty much the entire opera is just arpeggios and variations on broken triads. My favorite piece was probably Akhnaten's aria entitled "[Hymn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdIzA1SuC0)" but the melody is just so plain and boring and I feel that it detracts from what is otherwise a really beautiful piece. I will add that I understand that his music is minimalist, but it's also just very repetitive and a lot of it is stuff I could write myself - just repeat the same broken triad over and over for ten minutes and add in some extra notes occasionally. Ultimately it was a three hour long opera but I would say 2/3 of it was repetition and not original music, which I thought was really weak compared to something like Agrippina which is straight up amazing composition for three hours straight. So ultimately, like I said, I did enjoy the opera and I thought the music was pretty so I listened to some more Philip Glass and I found that most of what I listened to was just more of the same. He has his moments where the music is really pretty, but ultimately most of his extremely long pieces could be condensed to one or two minute long recordings if all of the repetition was removed. I also notice he has an affinity for minor keys, which I have found in my own experience as a musician is much easier to compose in than major keys. I will end with saying that I realize that Philip Glass is one of the most celebrated composers of the 20th century, so I am really open to the idea that I am wrong here and I am missing something. A successful response will convince me that Philip Glass has technical chops equal to other great composers from different eras and that something more interesting is going on in his pieces where he literally repeats the same broken triad for ten minutes.

CMV: I don't think Philip Glass is very creative. So I went to see a Philip Glass opera this weekend (Akhnaten), and while I did enjoy it and I thought the music was pretty, I was really disappointed with what I perceived to be a really technically weak score. Pretty much the entire opera is just arpeggios and variations on broken triads. My favorite piece was probably Akhnaten's aria entitled "[Hymn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWdIzA1SuC0)" but the melody is just so plain and boring and I feel that it detracts from what is otherwise a really beautiful piece. I will add that I understand that his music is minimalist, but it's also just very repetitive and a lot of it is stuff I could write myself - just repeat the same broken triad over and over for ten minutes and add in some extra notes occasionally. Ultimately it was a three hour long opera but I would say 2/3 of it was repetition and not original music, which I thought was really weak compared to something like Agrippina which is straight up amazing composition for three hours straight. So ultimately, like I said, I did enjoy the opera and I thought the music was pretty so I listened to some more Philip Glass and I found that most of what I listened to was just more of the same. He has his moments where the music is really pretty, but ultimately most of his extremely long pieces could be condensed to one or two minute long recordings if all of the repetition was removed. I also notice he has an affinity for minor keys, which I have found in my own experience as a musician is much easier to compose in than major keys. I will end with saying that I realize that Philip Glass is one of the most celebrated composers of the 20th century, so I am really open to the idea that I am wrong here and I am missing something. A successful response will convince me that Philip Glass has technical chops equal to other great composers from different eras and that something more interesting is going on in his pieces where he literally repeats the same broken triad for ten minutes.

t3_3me6lr

CMV: Otherkin Special Snowflakes are "faking it".

I'm transgender myself but, it just feels like people who identify as Otherkin or gigantic titles such as, "Demisexual, Spectrasexual, who uses the pronouns Ze/Hir." I see the double standard in me stating myself as transgender as well but to me it just doesn't make sense. I can understand being Asexual, Agender, (to a degree) or non conformity such as feeling sometimes Male, Female, or Neutral. But to identify either as a different race, or different species to me is a little ridiculous. I treat them as they want to be treated and use what they want to be called, but I can't help but feel like its some form of dramatic act. So help me Reddit, change my view.

CMV: Otherkin Special Snowflakes are "faking it". I'm transgender myself but, it just feels like people who identify as Otherkin or gigantic titles such as, "Demisexual, Spectrasexual, who uses the pronouns Ze/Hir." I see the double standard in me stating myself as transgender as well but to me it just doesn't make sense. I can understand being Asexual, Agender, (to a degree) or non conformity such as feeling sometimes Male, Female, or Neutral. But to identify either as a different race, or different species to me is a little ridiculous. I treat them as they want to be treated and use what they want to be called, but I can't help but feel like its some form of dramatic act. So help me Reddit, change my view.

t3_25p60x

CMV: I believe researching for a medical "cure" for being gay/dysphoric should be encouraged

First of all, if somebody's gay and likes being gay, no problem with that. His/her bedroom, his/her business. With that out of the way, some gay (and dysphoric) people don't want to be gay. My best friend is one of those people. There are many reasons why they wouldn't want to be gay. A desire to fit in, a want for a traditional family (my friend's reason in this case), a want to fix your dysphoria without going through a potentially disastrous and expensive series of surgeries etc. I talked about it a bit and most people have been adverse to this idea, to say the least. Now, obviously I am not suggesting trying to pray the gay away 2.0 but actual, medical solutions which, I assume, are theoretically possible. _____ > *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 researching for a medical "cure" for being gay/dysphoric should be encouraged. First of all, if somebody's gay and likes being gay, no problem with that. His/her bedroom, his/her business. With that out of the way, some gay (and dysphoric) people don't want to be gay. My best friend is one of those people. There are many reasons why they wouldn't want to be gay. A desire to fit in, a want for a traditional family (my friend's reason in this case), a want to fix your dysphoria without going through a potentially disastrous and expensive series of surgeries etc. I talked about it a bit and most people have been adverse to this idea, to say the least. Now, obviously I am not suggesting trying to pray the gay away 2.0 but actual, medical solutions which, I assume, are theoretically possible.

t3_6caz2n

CMV: Leftist word censorship is a blight upon politics and society

The radical left/SJW's are killing their own movement and many others with their policy of censoring anything *they* determine to be offensive. Not only that, but their extreme policies show a distaste for, an attempt to disregard, reality. Take for example this convenient guide to abelism (skip all the junk for a glossary of "abelist" words). http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html?m=1 According to them, calling someone​ an "idiot", "disabled", "differently abled" or "dumb" are all bigoted examples of hate speech and abelism, and remember: "words *are* violence". So any time someone uses the word "idiot" you are justified to physically attack them...... Yeah.... How can *anyone* support such arbitrary and harmful censorship and, ironically, bigotry? I just do not understand how people take this seriously, it's insane to me! (Oops, abelist slur alert) Please justify your censorship of abelism, as well as how your determine what should be censored. Also where is the line, what *should* we call people with medical mental illnesses or (*gasp*) disabilities? Because yes, they actually exist and actually are different. Edit: So much discussion and debate! I've realized I can get a bit... heated, when discussing this, and that's my real fault, not my stance against censorship itself; you can see this in my original post above. A little fire, a little vitriol, is necessary to fight for what you believe in, but don't let it cloud and warp your judgement.

CMV: Leftist word censorship is a blight upon politics and society. The radical left/SJW's are killing their own movement and many others with their policy of censoring anything *they* determine to be offensive. Not only that, but their extreme policies show a distaste for, an attempt to disregard, reality. Take for example this convenient guide to abelism (skip all the junk for a glossary of "abelist" words). http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html?m=1 According to them, calling someone​ an "idiot", "disabled", "differently abled" or "dumb" are all bigoted examples of hate speech and abelism, and remember: "words *are* violence". So any time someone uses the word "idiot" you are justified to physically attack them...... Yeah.... How can *anyone* support such arbitrary and harmful censorship and, ironically, bigotry? I just do not understand how people take this seriously, it's insane to me! (Oops, abelist slur alert) Please justify your censorship of abelism, as well as how your determine what should be censored. Also where is the line, what *should* we call people with medical mental illnesses or (*gasp*) disabilities? Because yes, they actually exist and actually are different. Edit: So much discussion and debate! I've realized I can get a bit... heated, when discussing this, and that's my real fault, not my stance against censorship itself; you can see this in my original post above. A little fire, a little vitriol, is necessary to fight for what you believe in, but don't let it cloud and warp your judgement.

t3_24qjvi

CMV: America's "Nuclear Renaissance" should be realized in Northern Canada.

North America could greatly reduce its dependence on fossil fuels by installing more nuclear capacity. To sidestep the NIMBYers, and legitimately protect them from danger, that capacity should be installed far from population centers in Northern Canada. This would reduce cooling costs, and in the event of an accident, much of the contamination would simply freeze near its source (my uneducated assumption). My first objection was about transmission losses, so I looked on wiki and came across this: >As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 km (4,300 mi). For alternating current it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi), though all transmission lines in use today are substantially shorter than this. Obviously I'm not an engineer or involved in energy policy so I'm expecting a quick answer as to why this is a dumb and ineffective idea. Thanks for your time and courtesy. EDIT My question was mainly about the logistics and economics of such a plan. It assumes that nuclear will be a part of the energy mix for good reasons, which of course is open for debate, but the pro/anti-nuclear debate wasn't the main thrust of my question. _____ > *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: America's "Nuclear Renaissance" should be realized in Northern Canada. North America could greatly reduce its dependence on fossil fuels by installing more nuclear capacity. To sidestep the NIMBYers, and legitimately protect them from danger, that capacity should be installed far from population centers in Northern Canada. This would reduce cooling costs, and in the event of an accident, much of the contamination would simply freeze near its source (my uneducated assumption). My first objection was about transmission losses, so I looked on wiki and came across this: >As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 km (4,300 mi). For alternating current it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi), though all transmission lines in use today are substantially shorter than this. Obviously I'm not an engineer or involved in energy policy so I'm expecting a quick answer as to why this is a dumb and ineffective idea. Thanks for your time and courtesy. EDIT My question was mainly about the logistics and economics of such a plan. It assumes that nuclear will be a part of the energy mix for good reasons, which of course is open for debate, but the pro/anti-nuclear debate wasn't the main thrust of my question.

t3_27wnzz

CMV: The average Redditor is happier than the average Orangutan

Here are the reasons why I think the average redditor is happier than the average orangutan: - Orangutans' major worry is losing their habitat due to deforestation. Reddit's major worry is that Netflix will take too long to buffer. - Orangutans live under the constant threat of being eaten by tigers. Redditors constantly post pictures and gifs of cats, who they either mock or dismiss as aesthetic objects. - Orangutans live a largely solitary life, which gets lonely. Redditors have access to a myriad of social networking options. Furthermore, even if orangutans could use social networks, they have burnt orange fur which doesn't really look good with most Instagram filters. - Female orangutans display a strong mating preference for males with puffy cheeks ([flanges](http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/revelatory-ape-maturity-sumatra-borneo_22313.jpg)) and there is little unflanged males can do about this. In contrast, male redditors who have enjoyed limited success with women are able to convince themselves they still have a shot, either by learning to "just be themselves" or by "completely changing their personality," depending on who you ask. Whatever you feel about Red Pillers, I think we can agree that they would become very frustrated if every debate about "being alpha" was really just about cheek puffiness. - Newborn orangutans are so dependent on their mothers that they never break physical contact for the first four months of their lives. On the other hand, women have access to day cares and nannies, which allows them to temporarily get away from their babies to relax or share think-pieces about "having it all." *Sources:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan and www.reddit.com _____ > *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 average Redditor is happier than the average Orangutan. Here are the reasons why I think the average redditor is happier than the average orangutan: - Orangutans' major worry is losing their habitat due to deforestation. Reddit's major worry is that Netflix will take too long to buffer. - Orangutans live under the constant threat of being eaten by tigers. Redditors constantly post pictures and gifs of cats, who they either mock or dismiss as aesthetic objects. - Orangutans live a largely solitary life, which gets lonely. Redditors have access to a myriad of social networking options. Furthermore, even if orangutans could use social networks, they have burnt orange fur which doesn't really look good with most Instagram filters. - Female orangutans display a strong mating preference for males with puffy cheeks ([flanges](http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/revelatory-ape-maturity-sumatra-borneo_22313.jpg)) and there is little unflanged males can do about this. In contrast, male redditors who have enjoyed limited success with women are able to convince themselves they still have a shot, either by learning to "just be themselves" or by "completely changing their personality," depending on who you ask. Whatever you feel about Red Pillers, I think we can agree that they would become very frustrated if every debate about "being alpha" was really just about cheek puffiness. - Newborn orangutans are so dependent on their mothers that they never break physical contact for the first four months of their lives. On the other hand, women have access to day cares and nannies, which allows them to temporarily get away from their babies to relax or share think-pieces about "having it all." *Sources:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan and www.reddit.com

t3_1ebzjp

I don't believe that education is improving society overall. CMV.

Education seems like the key to a successful life. But really the key to a successful life is being economically sound and having some measure of equality in your country. Unionizing might help, but only if union leaders knew how to run unions. Raising the federal minimum wage might help, but that might just cause the prices of everything else to rise too. Getting a degree doesn't change anything for you anymore. Those with degrees still experience inequality, poverty, and a life that they were promised they wouldn't have to endure if they went into debt to get a degree. We're asking too much from education; it cannot bear the burdens that we are placing upon it. We need other tools if we want people experiencing systemic poverty to have a chance at happiness.

I don't believe that education is improving society overall. CMV. Education seems like the key to a successful life. But really the key to a successful life is being economically sound and having some measure of equality in your country. Unionizing might help, but only if union leaders knew how to run unions. Raising the federal minimum wage might help, but that might just cause the prices of everything else to rise too. Getting a degree doesn't change anything for you anymore. Those with degrees still experience inequality, poverty, and a life that they were promised they wouldn't have to endure if they went into debt to get a degree. We're asking too much from education; it cannot bear the burdens that we are placing upon it. We need other tools if we want people experiencing systemic poverty to have a chance at happiness.

t3_5wmsqz

CMV: Islam is a repugnant religion which has no place in civilized society. As a person who subscribes to a very left-wing/liberal ideology, my hatred of Islam is consistent with the rest of my beliefs. Those who support Islam are not truly left-wing and are hypocrites.

All my life I have tried to be proactive in the fight against injustice. I've always believed that every person, regardless of the color of their skin or their gender or their sexual orientation or the station into which they were born should be treated as equal, entitled to the same protections under the law and the same opportunities for social and economic advancement as anyone else. This belief is central to who I am and it is this fundamental principle which informs my entire world view. I therefore find it abhorrent that any person would consider bringing people into our country who practice Islam. Islam is repugnant, and goes against every principle of common decency in which I believe. 99% of all Muslims in Afghanistan believe that Sharia Law supersedes state law. 87% of all Muslims in Syria believe the same. In countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebennon, and Egypt Pew Research has found similar statistics - that between 80 and 100% of the Muslim population of those nations believe in Sharia Law. At a fundamental level Sharia Law is incompatible with our way of life here in the west. I believe in a woman's right to vote, right to drive, and right to self determination. All this is completely at odds with Sharia Law. Under sharia law a woman who has sex outside of marriage is condemned to die by stoning in the streets. Women are denied the right to vote, the right to drive, and the right to a free and fair life. As a person who considers themselves a liberal feminist, how is it practicable that I would support bringing people into my country who hold views so perverse that they would support the subjugation of women? Under Sharia Law homosexuals are condemned to die by virtue of their sexuality. Under Sharia law people who do not believe in Islam are not considered Human Beings entitled to respect, but as enemy combatants unworthy of life. Sharia Law goes against every principle in which I believe, and violates every principle of common decency upon which our society and country was built. In so many ways it is incompatible with our way of life in the west. You can see what is happening, already in Europe - 80% of the prisoners in French jails are Muslim despite the fact that they are less than 5% of the overall population. The incidence of Rape in Germany has increased by multiple orders of magnitude since the influx of economic migrants of Islamic heritage into their country. My point is this: Sharia law and Islam are perverse and repugnant. No rational person of sane or reasonable mind who truly believes in equality, in freedom, in justice and love for all could support Islam or Islamic immigration into the country that we love. Further, any attempt to raise questions about Islam or Islamic economic migrants is met with charges of "racism" and "bigotry" which immediately shut down any debate and put the person raising questions on a lower moral plain. This cannot be allowed to continue. I believe Islam is repugnant and supporting Islamic migration is not consistent with a left-wing ideology. Why am I wrong? _____ > *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: Islam is a repugnant religion which has no place in civilized society. As a person who subscribes to a very left-wing/liberal ideology, my hatred of Islam is consistent with the rest of my beliefs. Those who support Islam are not truly left-wing and are hypocrites. All my life I have tried to be proactive in the fight against injustice. I've always believed that every person, regardless of the color of their skin or their gender or their sexual orientation or the station into which they were born should be treated as equal, entitled to the same protections under the law and the same opportunities for social and economic advancement as anyone else. This belief is central to who I am and it is this fundamental principle which informs my entire world view. I therefore find it abhorrent that any person would consider bringing people into our country who practice Islam. Islam is repugnant, and goes against every principle of common decency in which I believe. 99% of all Muslims in Afghanistan believe that Sharia Law supersedes state law. 87% of all Muslims in Syria believe the same. In countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebennon, and Egypt Pew Research has found similar statistics - that between 80 and 100% of the Muslim population of those nations believe in Sharia Law. At a fundamental level Sharia Law is incompatible with our way of life here in the west. I believe in a woman's right to vote, right to drive, and right to self determination. All this is completely at odds with Sharia Law. Under sharia law a woman who has sex outside of marriage is condemned to die by stoning in the streets. Women are denied the right to vote, the right to drive, and the right to a free and fair life. As a person who considers themselves a liberal feminist, how is it practicable that I would support bringing people into my country who hold views so perverse that they would support the subjugation of women? Under Sharia Law homosexuals are condemned to die by virtue of their sexuality. Under Sharia law people who do not believe in Islam are not considered Human Beings entitled to respect, but as enemy combatants unworthy of life. Sharia Law goes against every principle in which I believe, and violates every principle of common decency upon which our society and country was built. In so many ways it is incompatible with our way of life in the west. You can see what is happening, already in Europe - 80% of the prisoners in French jails are Muslim despite the fact that they are less than 5% of the overall population. The incidence of Rape in Germany has increased by multiple orders of magnitude since the influx of economic migrants of Islamic heritage into their country. My point is this: Sharia law and Islam are perverse and repugnant. No rational person of sane or reasonable mind who truly believes in equality, in freedom, in justice and love for all could support Islam or Islamic immigration into the country that we love. Further, any attempt to raise questions about Islam or Islamic economic migrants is met with charges of "racism" and "bigotry" which immediately shut down any debate and put the person raising questions on a lower moral plain. This cannot be allowed to continue. I believe Islam is repugnant and supporting Islamic migration is not consistent with a left-wing ideology. Why am I wrong?

t3_1jrjt3

I think it is wrong to arrest someone for being racist in the UK, whether online or in public. CMV

The racist lady on the tram that was arrested a while ago in London, I think it is wrong to arrest someone for their views, no matter how stupid they might be. Also with the guy on twitter who was racist against the football player and got arrested, I too think that was wrong. It might just be because I am American, and I think freedom of speech is extremely great to have (I'm not saying that Britain doesn't have freedom of speech, but it does seem limited in some aspects), even if it produces nuts like Westboro. So, CMV!

I think it is wrong to arrest someone for being racist in the UK, whether online or in public. CMV. The racist lady on the tram that was arrested a while ago in London, I think it is wrong to arrest someone for their views, no matter how stupid they might be. Also with the guy on twitter who was racist against the football player and got arrested, I too think that was wrong. It might just be because I am American, and I think freedom of speech is extremely great to have (I'm not saying that Britain doesn't have freedom of speech, but it does seem limited in some aspects), even if it produces nuts like Westboro. So, CMV!

t3_1vd2ex

I've never used a search engine that isn't Google (like Yahoo or Bing) and see no reason to. CMV

This one is pretty simple. I use Google as my default search engine, and always have. I've never even tried using anything else, because I've never seen any good reason to. Basically, I'm just really curious to see what people have to say about the other search engines that exist, and if anyone can convince me that there is one that is better than Google. Have I been using the wrong search engine this entire time? What are the benefits of using others? But, I mean come on. I don't hear people saying, "Oh, you don't know this random information? Why not just Bing/Yahoo it?" Come on, Reddit. Change my view. Edit: Whoa. I posted this earlier today, and replied to comments for like ten minutes, and I just got on to check it again. Nearly 300 comments? Dang. Don't even know where to start. I'm going to read as many comments as I can. Surely, one of them has to convince me that there are other search engines worth using, right? Thanks to everyone who has tried to CMV. Let's award some deltas. Edit: Okay, I've read through a lot of your comments. I came here curious. I wanted to hear pros and cons to both Google and other search engines, as well as reasons why I should use different search engines. The thing probably mentioned most here is privacy: according to dozens of the comments here, Google doesn't protect your privacy at all. But the engine most mentioned that *does* protect your privacy is Duck Duck Go. Definitely going to be checking that out. Thank you to everyone for giving your opinions, and for changing my view. I'll probably never change Google from being my go-to search engine, but Duck Duck Go will definitely be used in the future. Thanks again for your comments. :)

I've never used a search engine that isn't Google (like Yahoo or Bing) and see no reason to. CMV. This one is pretty simple. I use Google as my default search engine, and always have. I've never even tried using anything else, because I've never seen any good reason to. Basically, I'm just really curious to see what people have to say about the other search engines that exist, and if anyone can convince me that there is one that is better than Google. Have I been using the wrong search engine this entire time? What are the benefits of using others? But, I mean come on. I don't hear people saying, "Oh, you don't know this random information? Why not just Bing/Yahoo it?" Come on, Reddit. Change my view. Edit: Whoa. I posted this earlier today, and replied to comments for like ten minutes, and I just got on to check it again. Nearly 300 comments? Dang. Don't even know where to start. I'm going to read as many comments as I can. Surely, one of them has to convince me that there are other search engines worth using, right? Thanks to everyone who has tried to CMV. Let's award some deltas. Edit: Okay, I've read through a lot of your comments. I came here curious. I wanted to hear pros and cons to both Google and other search engines, as well as reasons why I should use different search engines. The thing probably mentioned most here is privacy: according to dozens of the comments here, Google doesn't protect your privacy at all. But the engine most mentioned that *does* protect your privacy is Duck Duck Go. Definitely going to be checking that out. Thank you to everyone for giving your opinions, and for changing my view. I'll probably never change Google from being my go-to search engine, but Duck Duck Go will definitely be used in the future. Thanks again for your comments. :)

t3_3e9svv

CMV: Driving a car with earbuds in, only listening to music, is no more dangerous than driving without.

Almost everyone I speak to in person reacts negatively when I mention I do this. I've never understood why. People even admit that loud music from your cars speakers (effectively the same thing) is ok. Maybe this isn't a popular view and I'm just surrounded by negative Nancys, however I figured I would bring this up for discussion. 1. In a car, your driving experience is almost* complete visual and tactile. Any audible "warning" is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways. Horn blowing, screeching tires, yelling, etc are all used in situations that could have been prevented by staying aware visually (cutting someone off, sudden braking, unyielding drivers, near collisions, etc). *Note: I say almost because I don't deny that while you can get early warnings about your cars own status from audible cues (grinding, screeching, etc) I will point out anything capable of making your car unsafe can be felt. 2. As mentioned above, it's no different than listening to music very loudly from your cars speakers, which I suppose the safety of could be grouped into this view. I only bring this up because no one seems to have a problem with loud music playing, only the ear buds being the delivery method. 3. Hearing impaired people are allowed to drive with little to no problem. If my almost-deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then I can do the same just as well.... Only I'm being entertained. In my opinion, if you argue that hearing impaired people are able to drive safely, then you have no argument against my ear buds. 4. It's not distracting. I'm not speaking of interacting with your phone/music player, but simply loading music and listening. At most, I'll concede basic interaction with the player, akin to change a song on a CD player, but that has little to do with your hearing being contained and, again, mow to do with being visually distracted. I'm open to my mind being changed, but simply haven't heard a convincing enough argument to change it. Edit: curious this was down voted, keep discussion classy internet. Edit: Partial Delta awarded for a user pointing out that my view is based on human error not occurring and anything aiding sensory and reactions is an aid to the unexpected in driving. While my view isn't changed, I do see the flaw in how I've presented my view.

CMV: Driving a car with earbuds in, only listening to music, is no more dangerous than driving without. Almost everyone I speak to in person reacts negatively when I mention I do this. I've never understood why. People even admit that loud music from your cars speakers (effectively the same thing) is ok. Maybe this isn't a popular view and I'm just surrounded by negative Nancys, however I figured I would bring this up for discussion. 1. In a car, your driving experience is almost* complete visual and tactile. Any audible "warning" is rendered ineffective by safe driving anyways. Horn blowing, screeching tires, yelling, etc are all used in situations that could have been prevented by staying aware visually (cutting someone off, sudden braking, unyielding drivers, near collisions, etc). *Note: I say almost because I don't deny that while you can get early warnings about your cars own status from audible cues (grinding, screeching, etc) I will point out anything capable of making your car unsafe can be felt. 2. As mentioned above, it's no different than listening to music very loudly from your cars speakers, which I suppose the safety of could be grouped into this view. I only bring this up because no one seems to have a problem with loud music playing, only the ear buds being the delivery method. 3. Hearing impaired people are allowed to drive with little to no problem. If my almost-deaf dad is legally allowed to drive, then I can do the same just as well.... Only I'm being entertained. In my opinion, if you argue that hearing impaired people are able to drive safely, then you have no argument against my ear buds. 4. It's not distracting. I'm not speaking of interacting with your phone/music player, but simply loading music and listening. At most, I'll concede basic interaction with the player, akin to change a song on a CD player, but that has little to do with your hearing being contained and, again, mow to do with being visually distracted. I'm open to my mind being changed, but simply haven't heard a convincing enough argument to change it. Edit: curious this was down voted, keep discussion classy internet. Edit: Partial Delta awarded for a user pointing out that my view is based on human error not occurring and anything aiding sensory and reactions is an aid to the unexpected in driving. While my view isn't changed, I do see the flaw in how I've presented my view.

t3_28ck3p

CMV: Why is it a bad thing if America loses its superpower status?

I am an American, but I don't see why Americans in general seem to be so against other countries growing in size and power. What is the problem if we are one of a dozen powerful countries in the world, but no longer *the* most powerful one? There are many smaller countries on Earth that enjoy a much higher quality of life than the US, like Switzerland, Australia, and some Scandinavian countries, among others. If we were no longer a superpower, we would not have to spend billions of dollars being be the policeman for other countries and trying (and often failing) to spread democracy elsewhere. We could then keep more focus on our own internal affairs, and spend that money on our own citizens where it's needed. Such as on education, healthcare, innovation, etc. Please let me know if I'm missing out on some important aspect of the situation that I hadn't previously thought of. _____ > *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: Why is it a bad thing if America loses its superpower status?. I am an American, but I don't see why Americans in general seem to be so against other countries growing in size and power. What is the problem if we are one of a dozen powerful countries in the world, but no longer *the* most powerful one? There are many smaller countries on Earth that enjoy a much higher quality of life than the US, like Switzerland, Australia, and some Scandinavian countries, among others. If we were no longer a superpower, we would not have to spend billions of dollars being be the policeman for other countries and trying (and often failing) to spread democracy elsewhere. We could then keep more focus on our own internal affairs, and spend that money on our own citizens where it's needed. Such as on education, healthcare, innovation, etc. Please let me know if I'm missing out on some important aspect of the situation that I hadn't previously thought of.

t3_3dg6ov

CMV: Car alarms are useless

They are essentially just annoying. When people hear them they don't even assume it is a car getting broken into. Almost every time they go off it is because of an accident. If a window get's smashed I think a silent alarm would be better actually. I don't understand why they are still getting put into cars. They are just a noisy nuance that doesn't do what it is intended to do. Any time my car alarm has gone off it was because I accidentally hit the panic button on the back of my remote (why that is there, I have not the slightest clue but I wish it wasn't). That is my argument, Change my view

CMV: Car alarms are useless. They are essentially just annoying. When people hear them they don't even assume it is a car getting broken into. Almost every time they go off it is because of an accident. If a window get's smashed I think a silent alarm would be better actually. I don't understand why they are still getting put into cars. They are just a noisy nuance that doesn't do what it is intended to do. Any time my car alarm has gone off it was because I accidentally hit the panic button on the back of my remote (why that is there, I have not the slightest clue but I wish it wasn't). That is my argument, Change my view

t3_1adzy8

I don't believe that completely privatized defense is a sustainable solution. CMV.

I'm an American who holds the belief that every man has a right not to have his life taken from him. Should protecting my right to life (defense) be left to the government or could it ever be completely privatized? The prevailing argument against privatized defense is obvious: Either everything would be the bad kind of anarchy (everybody murdering each other without the government to stop it), or the people with the most money would be able to murder those with less money to pay for defense. CMV.

I don't believe that completely privatized defense is a sustainable solution. CMV. I'm an American who holds the belief that every man has a right not to have his life taken from him. Should protecting my right to life (defense) be left to the government or could it ever be completely privatized? The prevailing argument against privatized defense is obvious: Either everything would be the bad kind of anarchy (everybody murdering each other without the government to stop it), or the people with the most money would be able to murder those with less money to pay for defense. CMV.

t3_1hnmg0

I think spoiled children are less likely to succeed later in life. CMV

I don't think spoiled kids learn values that should be learned during childhood, such as hard work. When parents give their kids whatever they want for no good reason, they are reinforcing the idea that life will give them things for free. So, these kids will have grown up without experiencing hard work. Then, as adults, they won't respond well when it's time to work hard, compared to an unspoiled person. The lack of discipline and toughness acquired through hard work would be lost. This would put them at a disadvantage, thus lowering their chances of success. CMV

I think spoiled children are less likely to succeed later in life. CMV. I don't think spoiled kids learn values that should be learned during childhood, such as hard work. When parents give their kids whatever they want for no good reason, they are reinforcing the idea that life will give them things for free. So, these kids will have grown up without experiencing hard work. Then, as adults, they won't respond well when it's time to work hard, compared to an unspoiled person. The lack of discipline and toughness acquired through hard work would be lost. This would put them at a disadvantage, thus lowering their chances of success. CMV

t3_1rvnty

I don't think that certain jokes necessarily trivialize rape and I don't think rape culture exists. CMV.

To elaborate, I think the best way to pose this question is by looking at how it applies to video game culture. If someone says, "Yeah, you totally got raped," or "Suck it, noobs," or even "Get fucked, noobs," there certainly is the underlying literal meaning that someone is being defeated or humiliated via sexual assault of some kind. However, this is the literal meaning and not ever what actually happens in games. Nonetheless, these comments elicit a lot of anger and indignation from social justice advocates, in general, for contributing to rape culture or for trivializing rape. What I want to know is, if saying things like "Suck my dick," to someone is considered violent, can we say the same for phrases that supposedly trivialize other kinds of violence and even death? For example, someone might say after doing badly on an exam, "Ugh, I'm gonna blow my brains out if I fail again," but they're not necessarily serious. There are quite a few people who do actually blow their brains out and commit suicide, leaving their friends and families devastated. I don't think that even people contemplating suicide, though, would necessarily find this phrase offensive or trivializing. We don't talk about "suicide culture" nearly as much as we lament rape culture. Therefore, I don't think we need to censor ourselves to such an extent. IF there is such a thing as rape culture, sexual trash talk is a symptom and ONLY a symptom of a bigger problem and cannot realistically be the cause of the perpetuation of rape culture (if it exists). I wish I could be more specific or cogent. I don't know if I would consider myself a feminist since the definition has become more and more ambiguous, lately. I truly am open to being proven wrong. I apologize if I've been insensitive but I figured ChangeMyView was one place I could ask these questions without feeling like a jerk. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! edit: When I mentioned suicide, I wasn't insinuating that suicide or murder jokes could affect someone who is already dead but that they could have an impact on the family and friends of the person who committed suicide. edit: Please, don't be offended if I didn't thank you. All the responses so far have been on target and some of them, fairly convincing.

I don't think that certain jokes necessarily trivialize rape and I don't think rape culture exists. CMV. To elaborate, I think the best way to pose this question is by looking at how it applies to video game culture. If someone says, "Yeah, you totally got raped," or "Suck it, noobs," or even "Get fucked, noobs," there certainly is the underlying literal meaning that someone is being defeated or humiliated via sexual assault of some kind. However, this is the literal meaning and not ever what actually happens in games. Nonetheless, these comments elicit a lot of anger and indignation from social justice advocates, in general, for contributing to rape culture or for trivializing rape. What I want to know is, if saying things like "Suck my dick," to someone is considered violent, can we say the same for phrases that supposedly trivialize other kinds of violence and even death? For example, someone might say after doing badly on an exam, "Ugh, I'm gonna blow my brains out if I fail again," but they're not necessarily serious. There are quite a few people who do actually blow their brains out and commit suicide, leaving their friends and families devastated. I don't think that even people contemplating suicide, though, would necessarily find this phrase offensive or trivializing. We don't talk about "suicide culture" nearly as much as we lament rape culture. Therefore, I don't think we need to censor ourselves to such an extent. IF there is such a thing as rape culture, sexual trash talk is a symptom and ONLY a symptom of a bigger problem and cannot realistically be the cause of the perpetuation of rape culture (if it exists). I wish I could be more specific or cogent. I don't know if I would consider myself a feminist since the definition has become more and more ambiguous, lately. I truly am open to being proven wrong. I apologize if I've been insensitive but I figured ChangeMyView was one place I could ask these questions without feeling like a jerk. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! edit: When I mentioned suicide, I wasn't insinuating that suicide or murder jokes could affect someone who is already dead but that they could have an impact on the family and friends of the person who committed suicide. edit: Please, don't be offended if I didn't thank you. All the responses so far have been on target and some of them, fairly convincing.

t3_336d1i

CMV: The Pro and Anti Vax debate is overly passionate and divisive. The dismissiveness of Pro-Vaxxers is encouraging the Anti-Vaxxers' conspiratorial beliefs, and they would be better addressed with point-by-point arguments rather than being called idiots and murderers...even if they are

**THIS IS A POST MADE IN THE SPIRIT OF CMV, I AM NOT ANTI-VACCINE, NO NEED TO GET ANGRY WITH ME I'M NOT A MORON** I HOWEVER HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS OF ANTI-VAXXERS, AND WOULD LIKE AN ELEGANT COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE ANTI-VAX MOVEMENT AS I AM NOT A DOCTOR. Here's a summary of anti-vaccine arguments I heard from a teacher at my school many years ago: 1) Vaccination is a 100 year old technology based off of outdated ideas and modern medicine focuses too much on the symptoms of disease and not the underlying cause 2) Most vaccines work by injecting dead or mutated versions of a disease to train the body to fight them, and sometimes contain mercury or preservatives. This cocktail can either spread the disease, fail to prepare the subject for the newly evolved version of the disease, or the mercury and preservatives cause retardation. Here's what I've heard from the Pro-Vax faction in recent times: 1) The Hurr Durr facts, countries with lots of Polio vaccinations don't have Polio, countries that refuse to use the Polio vaccine have a ton of Polio. Smallpox is extinct, Rubella and the other one I forgot are also gone. Even though I have no medical degree to me it would seem vaccines are a good idea 2) the Anti-Vax arguments are based off the study by precisely one guy who has had his medical license revoked or something like this. This may be an ugly comparison but Galileo was told not to publish anything anymore and put under house arrest for suggesting the veracity of a heliocentric universe and he himself faced a ton of disagreement by 'official scientists.' Of course Europe's governments had theocratic leanings at the time and it was 500 years ago. **My view** Seems like vaccines work, but the idea that they contain mercury and preservatives seems like it is a concern. Obviously that herbalistic nuveau hippy or fundie shit is a death sentence rather than an alternative _____ > *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 Pro and Anti Vax debate is overly passionate and divisive. The dismissiveness of Pro-Vaxxers is encouraging the Anti-Vaxxers' conspiratorial beliefs, and they would be better addressed with point-by-point arguments rather than being called idiots and murderers...even if they are. **THIS IS A POST MADE IN THE SPIRIT OF CMV, I AM NOT ANTI-VACCINE, NO NEED TO GET ANGRY WITH ME I'M NOT A MORON** I HOWEVER HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS OF ANTI-VAXXERS, AND WOULD LIKE AN ELEGANT COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE ANTI-VAX MOVEMENT AS I AM NOT A DOCTOR. Here's a summary of anti-vaccine arguments I heard from a teacher at my school many years ago: 1) Vaccination is a 100 year old technology based off of outdated ideas and modern medicine focuses too much on the symptoms of disease and not the underlying cause 2) Most vaccines work by injecting dead or mutated versions of a disease to train the body to fight them, and sometimes contain mercury or preservatives. This cocktail can either spread the disease, fail to prepare the subject for the newly evolved version of the disease, or the mercury and preservatives cause retardation. Here's what I've heard from the Pro-Vax faction in recent times: 1) The Hurr Durr facts, countries with lots of Polio vaccinations don't have Polio, countries that refuse to use the Polio vaccine have a ton of Polio. Smallpox is extinct, Rubella and the other one I forgot are also gone. Even though I have no medical degree to me it would seem vaccines are a good idea 2) the Anti-Vax arguments are based off the study by precisely one guy who has had his medical license revoked or something like this. This may be an ugly comparison but Galileo was told not to publish anything anymore and put under house arrest for suggesting the veracity of a heliocentric universe and he himself faced a ton of disagreement by 'official scientists.' Of course Europe's governments had theocratic leanings at the time and it was 500 years ago. **My view** Seems like vaccines work, but the idea that they contain mercury and preservatives seems like it is a concern. Obviously that herbalistic nuveau hippy or fundie shit is a death sentence rather than an alternative

t3_1cu94v

I feel as if a world similar, or close to, the one described in 1984 (almost no privacy or freedom) will undoubtedly happen to the first world way of life. CMV.

Cell phones, computers, credit cards, cameras, the *cloud*, everything being online, CISPA, it all makes me cringe and think of the book *1984*.

I feel as if a world similar, or close to, the one described in 1984 (almost no privacy or freedom) will undoubtedly happen to the first world way of life. CMV. Cell phones, computers, credit cards, cameras, the *cloud*, everything being online, CISPA, it all makes me cringe and think of the book *1984*.

t3_2vaj67

CMV: religion has no place in a modern society as it was created to police ignorant people and serves no greater purpose.

I believe the basis of a large proportion of religions is fear mongering to control a group of people. Catholicism, Christianity and Islam being the top three I can think of off the top of my head. Do bad things and you go to hell, Jesus is always watching you ect etc. I believe that religion is an unnecessity in the modern world, it has caused wars, it has caused scientific setbacks it has caused political unrest within somewhat stable nations. I believe the world would be better without religion. 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: religion has no place in a modern society as it was created to police ignorant people and serves no greater purpose. I believe the basis of a large proportion of religions is fear mongering to control a group of people. Catholicism, Christianity and Islam being the top three I can think of off the top of my head. Do bad things and you go to hell, Jesus is always watching you ect etc. I believe that religion is an unnecessity in the modern world, it has caused wars, it has caused scientific setbacks it has caused political unrest within somewhat stable nations. I believe the world would be better without religion. Change my view.

t3_2ghmac

CMV: I don't feel sorry for Czech soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Some months ago four Czech soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Since then there have been lots of events to remind our nation of their bravery and so… People have been repeatedly goind mad about it all. I guess you know what I mean. But personally I don't really care about them. They fought for other nation's interests, on another country's land and they have entered the battlefield voluntarily. I feel sorry for their families’ loss but I don't understand why they were immediately called heroes. Could you please CMV about that please. Thanks. :) _____ > *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 feel sorry for Czech soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Some months ago four Czech soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Since then there have been lots of events to remind our nation of their bravery and so… People have been repeatedly goind mad about it all. I guess you know what I mean. But personally I don't really care about them. They fought for other nation's interests, on another country's land and they have entered the battlefield voluntarily. I feel sorry for their families’ loss but I don't understand why they were immediately called heroes. Could you please CMV about that please. Thanks. :)

t3_1fy4mr

I don't believe that counter protesting the WBC does anything. CMV.

WBC=Westboro Baptist Church, just in case anyone wasn't sure/too lazy to look it up. I am a gay trans* woman that lives in a very LGBTQ(etc) friendly city, and I am constantly annoyed whenever I see them or hear any of their rhetoric. The reason I think of this is because they're coming to my city in a few days, and a few of my friends (mainly queer) were going to have a party to celebrate and heckle them. As much as I love queer themed parties, I don't think that launching a counter protest would do anything, because these people are too focused on their self righteous pious circle jerk to change their mind, and pretty much everyone else regards them as crazy, [even the Klan] (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/30/arlington.cemetery.protesters/index.html) so what's the point?

I don't believe that counter protesting the WBC does anything. CMV. WBC=Westboro Baptist Church, just in case anyone wasn't sure/too lazy to look it up. I am a gay trans* woman that lives in a very LGBTQ(etc) friendly city, and I am constantly annoyed whenever I see them or hear any of their rhetoric. The reason I think of this is because they're coming to my city in a few days, and a few of my friends (mainly queer) were going to have a party to celebrate and heckle them. As much as I love queer themed parties, I don't think that launching a counter protest would do anything, because these people are too focused on their self righteous pious circle jerk to change their mind, and pretty much everyone else regards them as crazy, [even the Klan] (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/30/arlington.cemetery.protesters/index.html) so what's the point?

t3_5xvwx4

CMV: Python is a terrible programming language for anything more complex than scripting.

I'm a C++ programmer that desperately wants to love Python. Especially now that I have a job that involves building a GUI with gtk+. I haven't been programming in Python for very long, so I acknowledge some things I hate about it might be completely wrong. However, try as I may, and struggling through the documentation of the language, I hate Python. Here are a couple of reasons: **Class design:** Terrible. Absolutely awful. It seems as though they gave Python the features of classes, but didn't exactly realize what those useful features are, so made them more difficult to use in the process. Example, visibility. Who would think that the best way to make a member of a class private to be a two underscore preface "__"? Why not a keyword like private? If Python's really about being readable, they kind of dropped the ball there, don't you think? Plus, someone who isn't familiar with this format for visibility, or the concept of visibility at all, is going to make everything in their class public. This is the opposite of what a class should be. Calling things from a base class is harder than it should be (although from what I know, this gets easier in Python 3, but the whole 2 vs. 3 thing is another thing I have an issue in. **Dynamic Typing:** Ewww... Gross... I guess I can see advantages of allowing the runtime to decide the types of things, but you can get a lot of that functionality while using templates. Plus, a compiler will still be able to catch a lot of problems that might occur (like someone changing a variable to another type, and now it suddenly doesn't have the functionality you need for another function). It's also a lot easier for documentation to be bad when you don't know what the type of everything is, and so code becomes more difficult to document and coders don't keep up. The type system of Python makes me feel like I'm trying to hold an actual python in my hand, always slithering around and... just ewww... I will admit I have a strong aversion to dynamic typing. I even detest the *auto* keyword in C++. **Python 2 vs. Python 3:** Enough said.. **No switch keyword:** I've heard of using a dictionary to resolve this, but, why not just have one? Switches are essentially just a bunch of branch/jump if statements in assembly, so it's really simple when you get to the individual CPU instructions. **Scopes are determined by indentation:** Just... what? Why? Is this supposed to make code more readable somehow? I want to love Python but there's a lot of things (mostly having to do with class designing), that just really feel like deal breakers to me. Please, someone help me love this weird language. _____ > *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: Python is a terrible programming language for anything more complex than scripting. I'm a C++ programmer that desperately wants to love Python. Especially now that I have a job that involves building a GUI with gtk+. I haven't been programming in Python for very long, so I acknowledge some things I hate about it might be completely wrong. However, try as I may, and struggling through the documentation of the language, I hate Python. Here are a couple of reasons: **Class design:** Terrible. Absolutely awful. It seems as though they gave Python the features of classes, but didn't exactly realize what those useful features are, so made them more difficult to use in the process. Example, visibility. Who would think that the best way to make a member of a class private to be a two underscore preface "__"? Why not a keyword like private? If Python's really about being readable, they kind of dropped the ball there, don't you think? Plus, someone who isn't familiar with this format for visibility, or the concept of visibility at all, is going to make everything in their class public. This is the opposite of what a class should be. Calling things from a base class is harder than it should be (although from what I know, this gets easier in Python 3, but the whole 2 vs. 3 thing is another thing I have an issue in. **Dynamic Typing:** Ewww... Gross... I guess I can see advantages of allowing the runtime to decide the types of things, but you can get a lot of that functionality while using templates. Plus, a compiler will still be able to catch a lot of problems that might occur (like someone changing a variable to another type, and now it suddenly doesn't have the functionality you need for another function). It's also a lot easier for documentation to be bad when you don't know what the type of everything is, and so code becomes more difficult to document and coders don't keep up. The type system of Python makes me feel like I'm trying to hold an actual python in my hand, always slithering around and... just ewww... I will admit I have a strong aversion to dynamic typing. I even detest the *auto* keyword in C++. **Python 2 vs. Python 3:** Enough said.. **No switch keyword:** I've heard of using a dictionary to resolve this, but, why not just have one? Switches are essentially just a bunch of branch/jump if statements in assembly, so it's really simple when you get to the individual CPU instructions. **Scopes are determined by indentation:** Just... what? Why? Is this supposed to make code more readable somehow? I want to love Python but there's a lot of things (mostly having to do with class designing), that just really feel like deal breakers to me. Please, someone help me love this weird language.

t3_1hwjhz

I think people shouldn't be a gym teacher, sports coach or personal trainer if they themselves are fat.CMV.

I played sports all through my four years of high school and two years in middle school and all the coaches and gym teachers I ever had are over weight middle aged men. I think if you're going to promote physical education to students you shouldn't be fat. I can't look up to my coaches because they don't set the example and it's very hard for me to listen and take advice from hypocrites. My coach yells at us trying to "motivate" us but no one is being motivated by a fat middle aged man who sits on his lazy ass all day and smoke cigarettes and possibly drink beer all the time (I'm not saying he's drinking during school hours but his breath always smelled like beer). Fat people shouldn't promote health if they are not healthy it's like having a surgeon that has Hemophobia or a pilot who is Acrophobic. It's just doesn't work it's a major contradiction.

I think people shouldn't be a gym teacher, sports coach or personal trainer if they themselves are fat.CMV. I played sports all through my four years of high school and two years in middle school and all the coaches and gym teachers I ever had are over weight middle aged men. I think if you're going to promote physical education to students you shouldn't be fat. I can't look up to my coaches because they don't set the example and it's very hard for me to listen and take advice from hypocrites. My coach yells at us trying to "motivate" us but no one is being motivated by a fat middle aged man who sits on his lazy ass all day and smoke cigarettes and possibly drink beer all the time (I'm not saying he's drinking during school hours but his breath always smelled like beer). Fat people shouldn't promote health if they are not healthy it's like having a surgeon that has Hemophobia or a pilot who is Acrophobic. It's just doesn't work it's a major contradiction.

t3_6f4sf3

CMV: The United States Government Shouldn't Introduce a Travel Ban

I understand this is a controversial issue, especially what has happened in the past two weeks (especially few hours) but I want to hear perspectives on this matter. I've been reluctant to support Trump's travel ban (I am an US citizen) because I am afraid it would ruin diplomatic relations with Middle Eastern, North African, Central Asian countries and Indonesia. I understand the serious risks that come with allowing travel from other seemingly "high-risk" countries and I would prefer alternatives such as having more comprehensive and invasive TSA procedures and investing more money on law enforcement. I'm so nervous, sad, and angry that this travel ban consideration by the US Supreme Court is occurring briefly after the London Bridge terrorist attack. So what I am saying is that despite all of the recent spike in terrorist attacks, the political polarization in the USA, and the tension behind the executive order, people should not allow their feelings to override their logic. So please, 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: The United States Government Shouldn't Introduce a Travel Ban. I understand this is a controversial issue, especially what has happened in the past two weeks (especially few hours) but I want to hear perspectives on this matter. I've been reluctant to support Trump's travel ban (I am an US citizen) because I am afraid it would ruin diplomatic relations with Middle Eastern, North African, Central Asian countries and Indonesia. I understand the serious risks that come with allowing travel from other seemingly "high-risk" countries and I would prefer alternatives such as having more comprehensive and invasive TSA procedures and investing more money on law enforcement. I'm so nervous, sad, and angry that this travel ban consideration by the US Supreme Court is occurring briefly after the London Bridge terrorist attack. So what I am saying is that despite all of the recent spike in terrorist attacks, the political polarization in the USA, and the tension behind the executive order, people should not allow their feelings to override their logic. So please, 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!*

t3_1e2o63

I assume people who respond to discussions of feminism in this subject by juxtaposing it with men's rights are sexist (whether they know it or not) and are detrimental to the furthering of intelligent exchange of ideas. CMV

I believe the pressing of "men's rights" in response to discussions of feminism as if they are a dichotomy is completely counterproductive. The forwarding of women's rights, men's rights, and human rights in general should not be separated and should be push forward together for the betterment of mankind. I see so many examples of this kind of behaviour in this subreddit and it's beginning to frustrate me. Can anyone give me a good reason not to be annoyed by it? edit: wrote subject instead of subreddit in title, apologies

I assume people who respond to discussions of feminism in this subject by juxtaposing it with men's rights are sexist (whether they know it or not) and are detrimental to the furthering of intelligent exchange of ideas. CMV. I believe the pressing of "men's rights" in response to discussions of feminism as if they are a dichotomy is completely counterproductive. The forwarding of women's rights, men's rights, and human rights in general should not be separated and should be push forward together for the betterment of mankind. I see so many examples of this kind of behaviour in this subreddit and it's beginning to frustrate me. Can anyone give me a good reason not to be annoyed by it? edit: wrote subject instead of subreddit in title, apologies

t3_1zp4f6

Christ's teachings were profound and wise, but are so rarely put into practice by those who call themselves Christians that the religion has proven itself to be mostly useless as a moral code. CMV.

I was raised to be deeply suspicious of Christianity, but Christ's ideas as they are written in the Bible have always seemed to me very profound and worthy of attention. However, specific teachings - turning the other cheek, being respectful of the poor, not judging unless you are prepared to be judged yourself - are so rarely actually put into practice by Christians (or most other people for that matter) that it may be time to just admit they go against some unchangeable characteristics of human nature. And furthermore maybe it's time to admit that Christianity has more or less failed to prove itself as a useful code of morality. Now, I'm not a Biblical scholar exactly, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what Christ actually taught? Or maybe my perception of Christianity is too narrow-minded? Help me out.

Christ's teachings were profound and wise, but are so rarely put into practice by those who call themselves Christians that the religion has proven itself to be mostly useless as a moral code. CMV. I was raised to be deeply suspicious of Christianity, but Christ's ideas as they are written in the Bible have always seemed to me very profound and worthy of attention. However, specific teachings - turning the other cheek, being respectful of the poor, not judging unless you are prepared to be judged yourself - are so rarely actually put into practice by Christians (or most other people for that matter) that it may be time to just admit they go against some unchangeable characteristics of human nature. And furthermore maybe it's time to admit that Christianity has more or less failed to prove itself as a useful code of morality. Now, I'm not a Biblical scholar exactly, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what Christ actually taught? Or maybe my perception of Christianity is too narrow-minded? Help me out.

t3_56yrcy

CMV:Mr. Trump's comments in the video released last week disqualify him on the basis of character to hold the office of the President of the United States

I believe Mr. Trump's comments, seen around the country and world this last weekend, disqualify him - or should - from holding the office of the President. I am a father of two daughters, so not without an emotional bias here. However, the reasons I think this are: 1. The President is a leader. How effective or inclusive a leader can he be having made these comments at 59 years old? 2. The President is a role model. How can we hold this office up as a role model to our children when we have to qualify his comments? I'd appreciate keeping the red herring, Argumento ad hominem out of the responses. I am not in this post espousing a vote for his opponent. Nor do responses of 'other Presidents have done...' qualify as a defense of Trump's comments, though I am probably open to that view being challenged. I'm sincerely interested in a non-partisan, rational discussion. Thank you. Edit: had to run to a doctors appointment and have a couple of job related tasks but will be back as soon as possible. Video source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/08/media/donald-trump-video-8-questions/ _____ > *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:Mr. Trump's comments in the video released last week disqualify him on the basis of character to hold the office of the President of the United States. I believe Mr. Trump's comments, seen around the country and world this last weekend, disqualify him - or should - from holding the office of the President. I am a father of two daughters, so not without an emotional bias here. However, the reasons I think this are: 1. The President is a leader. How effective or inclusive a leader can he be having made these comments at 59 years old? 2. The President is a role model. How can we hold this office up as a role model to our children when we have to qualify his comments? I'd appreciate keeping the red herring, Argumento ad hominem out of the responses. I am not in this post espousing a vote for his opponent. Nor do responses of 'other Presidents have done...' qualify as a defense of Trump's comments, though I am probably open to that view being challenged. I'm sincerely interested in a non-partisan, rational discussion. Thank you. Edit: had to run to a doctors appointment and have a couple of job related tasks but will be back as soon as possible. Video source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/08/media/donald-trump-video-8-questions/

t3_1v6lph

Psychiatric help just eradicates personal accountability for ones self and their problems, and has no real benefits. CMV

Psychology and the act of seeking psychiatric help is essentially just the practice eradicating personal accountability for ones self and their problems. It holds no benefit other than shifting blame for all the fucked up shit about you and your life to external factors. I've seen this happen with both my brother and sister. It's just made them lazy. There seems to be less emphasis on personal improvement and more on just blaming parental influences for every personality defect and personal shortcomings their shrink has pointed out to them.

Psychiatric help just eradicates personal accountability for ones self and their problems, and has no real benefits. CMV. Psychology and the act of seeking psychiatric help is essentially just the practice eradicating personal accountability for ones self and their problems. It holds no benefit other than shifting blame for all the fucked up shit about you and your life to external factors. I've seen this happen with both my brother and sister. It's just made them lazy. There seems to be less emphasis on personal improvement and more on just blaming parental influences for every personality defect and personal shortcomings their shrink has pointed out to them.

t3_24v65e

CMV: I believe that what the Japanese Army did to innocent Chinese civilians during the 1937 Nanking Massacre justifies the nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, despite the two not being directly connected.

A common refrain surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that those killed in the bombings were innocents, residents of a port city that didn't have enough military importance to justify the strikes, and so forth. It's a good point, ultimately, and the nuclear bombings of both cities were horrifying and unspeakable. *However,* just as horrifying and unspeakable was what Japanese troops did to 300,000 Chinese civilians during the Sino-Japanese War. Entire blocks were razed to the ground; looting was rampant; 20,000 women, including small children the elderly, were raped and tortured in the most disgusting manner imaginable. Worse, it happened *after* the withdrawal and effective surrender—more like the panicked retreat, I guess—of Chinese troops from the city. At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened during wartime. Despite the burns, radiation sickness, horror, and unimaginable devastation suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's hard for me to believe that the people of Nanking, at Japanese hands, didn't have it worse. **I'm a firm opponent of the use of nuclear weapons, but in this case, I also think that the Japanese during World War II got what was coming to them.** Change my view. **EDIT: Heh, okay you've convinced me. This was a poorly thought-out argument, I admit.** _____ > *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 what the Japanese Army did to innocent Chinese civilians during the 1937 Nanking Massacre justifies the nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, despite the two not being directly connected. A common refrain surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that those killed in the bombings were innocents, residents of a port city that didn't have enough military importance to justify the strikes, and so forth. It's a good point, ultimately, and the nuclear bombings of both cities were horrifying and unspeakable. *However,* just as horrifying and unspeakable was what Japanese troops did to 300,000 Chinese civilians during the Sino-Japanese War. Entire blocks were razed to the ground; looting was rampant; 20,000 women, including small children the elderly, were raped and tortured in the most disgusting manner imaginable. Worse, it happened *after* the withdrawal and effective surrender—more like the panicked retreat, I guess—of Chinese troops from the city. At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened during wartime. Despite the burns, radiation sickness, horror, and unimaginable devastation suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's hard for me to believe that the people of Nanking, at Japanese hands, didn't have it worse. **I'm a firm opponent of the use of nuclear weapons, but in this case, I also think that the Japanese during World War II got what was coming to them.** Change my view. **EDIT: Heh, okay you've convinced me. This was a poorly thought-out argument, I admit.**

t3_347q1e

CMV: I am Marcus Porcius Cato, and I think Gaius Julius Caesar's proconsulship should NOT be prorogued.

Most esteemed fathers of the Senate, for how long must we allow Caesar to make a nuisance of himself in Gallia? For Caesar hath started this war not for the good of Roma or her People: nay! He hath made war to sate his desire for personal glory, not the glory of Roma. He hath seized riches: argentum, aurum, cuprum, and other wealth to feed his debtors' desires for full coffers if their own, not the coffers of Roma! For Caesar hath declared to us all the "dangers" the Gallics supposedly present us, yet our proconsul still provideth us evidence of this not. Too long hath the cupidity of riches come before the good of Lady Roma. Too long hath the blood of the fine young men of Roma been used as fuel for Caesar's unchecked ambition. And aye it is Caesar who gaineth glory, dignity, authority before the eyes of the legions out with him. It is not unknown to us Romans for a man to attempt to supercede the authority of the Republica! Surely, O Conscripts & Fathers, ye remember the perfidy of Gaius Marius? Had not Sulla intervened, we might perhaps be living under his heel today. Let us not place ourselves in that position! Recall Caesar now, before it is too late!

CMV: I am Marcus Porcius Cato, and I think Gaius Julius Caesar's proconsulship should NOT be prorogued. Most esteemed fathers of the Senate, for how long must we allow Caesar to make a nuisance of himself in Gallia? For Caesar hath started this war not for the good of Roma or her People: nay! He hath made war to sate his desire for personal glory, not the glory of Roma. He hath seized riches: argentum, aurum, cuprum, and other wealth to feed his debtors' desires for full coffers if their own, not the coffers of Roma! For Caesar hath declared to us all the "dangers" the Gallics supposedly present us, yet our proconsul still provideth us evidence of this not. Too long hath the cupidity of riches come before the good of Lady Roma. Too long hath the blood of the fine young men of Roma been used as fuel for Caesar's unchecked ambition. And aye it is Caesar who gaineth glory, dignity, authority before the eyes of the legions out with him. It is not unknown to us Romans for a man to attempt to supercede the authority of the Republica! Surely, O Conscripts & Fathers, ye remember the perfidy of Gaius Marius? Had not Sulla intervened, we might perhaps be living under his heel today. Let us not place ourselves in that position! Recall Caesar now, before it is too late!

t3_4awrva

CMV: The Indonesian forest fires are a crime against humanity and warrant international intervention.

The annual forest fires in Indonesia (deliberately set for the purpose of clearing land for palm oil production) have worsened to the point that by some measures they uselessly release more carbon than does the entire US manufacturing sector. Notably this is carbon from peat coal accumulated over staggering stretches of time. Peat fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish with conventional means, and in some senses never fully stop burning. In addition to the direct threat that the smoke from these fires poses to countless persons’ health in the region, the ecological disaster that the Indonesian fires pose (at a time when control of greenhouse gas emissions is crucial) is in my view tantamount to a criminal act of global proportions. As such it is my view that these fires warrant as much (if not more) international concern and action as does ongoing genocide or nuclear programs run by unstable regimes. Indonesia appears helpless to stop these fires and those that cause them. I hold that this is a global concern, and so global powers should intervene. Some images for consideration: http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iGZOXiH7HTo8/v2/-1x-1.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/TOMS_indonesia_smog_lrg.jpg

CMV: The Indonesian forest fires are a crime against humanity and warrant international intervention. The annual forest fires in Indonesia (deliberately set for the purpose of clearing land for palm oil production) have worsened to the point that by some measures they uselessly release more carbon than does the entire US manufacturing sector. Notably this is carbon from peat coal accumulated over staggering stretches of time. Peat fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish with conventional means, and in some senses never fully stop burning. In addition to the direct threat that the smoke from these fires poses to countless persons’ health in the region, the ecological disaster that the Indonesian fires pose (at a time when control of greenhouse gas emissions is crucial) is in my view tantamount to a criminal act of global proportions. As such it is my view that these fires warrant as much (if not more) international concern and action as does ongoing genocide or nuclear programs run by unstable regimes. Indonesia appears helpless to stop these fires and those that cause them. I hold that this is a global concern, and so global powers should intervene. Some images for consideration: http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iGZOXiH7HTo8/v2/-1x-1.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/TOMS_indonesia_smog_lrg.jpg

t3_3wuuou

CMV: Ontario should totally privatize alcohol sales and abolish the LCBO.

Ontario currently only allows packaged alcohol sales at its provincial owned liquor stores (the LCBO), at a chain of beer stores owned by a consortium of large brewers, at breweries and wineries selling their own product in person, and wine sales at a few grocery stores in segregated wine sections. I think this whole scheme is essentially a monopoly designed to extract money for the government and favored special interests, with little public benefit. It also means that only a limited selection of products are available to consumers, since if the LCBO and Beer Store won't stock it, it's not able to be bought. This sucks if you want specialty products. I would abolish the whole scheme, and just allow private retailers to obtain licenses to sell alcohol similarly to how they are allowed to sell cigarettes. I think the Ontario government should sell the LCBO stores to the highest bidder, either piecemeal or as a single lot (whichever will bring more revenue). The beer store should lose its monopoly but otherwise be allowed to continue. If Ontario wants to discourage drinking or raise revenue, they can tax alcohol, but then it will be transparent how much of the money is going to the government, as opposed to the present scheme which seems corrupt and opaque to me. _____ > *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: Ontario should totally privatize alcohol sales and abolish the LCBO. Ontario currently only allows packaged alcohol sales at its provincial owned liquor stores (the LCBO), at a chain of beer stores owned by a consortium of large brewers, at breweries and wineries selling their own product in person, and wine sales at a few grocery stores in segregated wine sections. I think this whole scheme is essentially a monopoly designed to extract money for the government and favored special interests, with little public benefit. It also means that only a limited selection of products are available to consumers, since if the LCBO and Beer Store won't stock it, it's not able to be bought. This sucks if you want specialty products. I would abolish the whole scheme, and just allow private retailers to obtain licenses to sell alcohol similarly to how they are allowed to sell cigarettes. I think the Ontario government should sell the LCBO stores to the highest bidder, either piecemeal or as a single lot (whichever will bring more revenue). The beer store should lose its monopoly but otherwise be allowed to continue. If Ontario wants to discourage drinking or raise revenue, they can tax alcohol, but then it will be transparent how much of the money is going to the government, as opposed to the present scheme which seems corrupt and opaque to me.

t3_3pv37e

CMV: Evolution is proven, and anyone that denies the simple fact that we are related to primates is a moron.

We are animals. The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time. Evolution, and even science as a whole, doesn't explain the origin of animals or of the planet, although it may one day. If you do not believe that evolution is scientifically proven to be true, and that it should be taught in science classes, then please base your CMVing on this. Also, it is my belief that theological agendas have hindered this specific theory's wide-scale acceptance, which is shameful. Finally, the predominate agenda for science is truth, which renders it humanity's best way to objectively examine and understand our universe. 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: Evolution is proven, and anyone that denies the simple fact that we are related to primates is a moron. We are animals. The only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time. Evolution, and even science as a whole, doesn't explain the origin of animals or of the planet, although it may one day. If you do not believe that evolution is scientifically proven to be true, and that it should be taught in science classes, then please base your CMVing on this. Also, it is my belief that theological agendas have hindered this specific theory's wide-scale acceptance, which is shameful. Finally, the predominate agenda for science is truth, which renders it humanity's best way to objectively examine and understand our universe. CMV

t3_735so6

CMV: All donor-conceived people should be given information about their donors regardless of when a donor donated or when the donor-conceived person was born.

I personally believe donors should have the right to completely distance themselves from any potential children that might be conceived from their donations, however I heard this alternative viewpoint during a lecture from another student whom unfortunately don't know and didn't get a chance to discuss with and would love for someone to explain why this might be? Before I continue I might add that I'm going to be using donor to describe any medical donation of material that may lead to conception, whether sperm, eggs, etc. I do not mean any offence by this. I believe that donation of this material is simply a service in aid of someone else. Providing couples (or singular persons) the right to conceive. Beyond any necessary medical history or potential genetic conditions, I do not feel as though it is necessary for the donor conceived child to need to access any information regarding their donor. I feel as though their is no necessity for the donor to become involved in the family group (unless specifically desired by all parties) as the donor conceived child is actively parented by the child's parents and are also typically involved with the birth. I do not feel as their is any need to know their "genetic" parents, especially if they did not want any involvement in the lives of potential offspring. _____ > *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: All donor-conceived people should be given information about their donors regardless of when a donor donated or when the donor-conceived person was born. I personally believe donors should have the right to completely distance themselves from any potential children that might be conceived from their donations, however I heard this alternative viewpoint during a lecture from another student whom unfortunately don't know and didn't get a chance to discuss with and would love for someone to explain why this might be? Before I continue I might add that I'm going to be using donor to describe any medical donation of material that may lead to conception, whether sperm, eggs, etc. I do not mean any offence by this. I believe that donation of this material is simply a service in aid of someone else. Providing couples (or singular persons) the right to conceive. Beyond any necessary medical history or potential genetic conditions, I do not feel as though it is necessary for the donor conceived child to need to access any information regarding their donor. I feel as though their is no necessity for the donor to become involved in the family group (unless specifically desired by all parties) as the donor conceived child is actively parented by the child's parents and are also typically involved with the birth. I do not feel as their is any need to know their "genetic" parents, especially if they did not want any involvement in the lives of potential offspring.

t3_1t1d3c

I believe creating and using counterfeit money is a victimless crime. CMV.

I admit I'm not an economist so feel free to correct me but the U.S. treasury estimates only about 1 in every 10,000 notes are counterfeit. Check out the conclusion on page 81: http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/offices/Domestic-Finance/Documents/the%20use%20and%20counterfeiting%20of%20u.s.%20currency%20abroad%20%20part%203%20september2006.pdf The San Francisco Federal Reserve also cites this as being less than .01 percent of the 600 billion U.S. dollars in circulation. http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2004/april/money-supply-currency-counterfeit In a world of inflation, movers and shakers, and a countless host of other economic variables surely the percent of a percent of counterfeit money is just a drop in the bucket compared to what really affects the value of our dollar. Edit: Removed URL shortened links. Edit 2: Thanks for all the great responses. You are right, victimless is incorrect as counterfeiting is not truly victimless in regards to whoever ends up with the money last and when it comes to trust in the dollar. However, I do believe the punishment for the crime should be less severe but that was not the focus of my post. Excellent discussion everyone.

I believe creating and using counterfeit money is a victimless crime. CMV. I admit I'm not an economist so feel free to correct me but the U.S. treasury estimates only about 1 in every 10,000 notes are counterfeit. Check out the conclusion on page 81: http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/offices/Domestic-Finance/Documents/the%20use%20and%20counterfeiting%20of%20u.s.%20currency%20abroad%20%20part%203%20september2006.pdf The San Francisco Federal Reserve also cites this as being less than .01 percent of the 600 billion U.S. dollars in circulation. http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2004/april/money-supply-currency-counterfeit In a world of inflation, movers and shakers, and a countless host of other economic variables surely the percent of a percent of counterfeit money is just a drop in the bucket compared to what really affects the value of our dollar. Edit: Removed URL shortened links. Edit 2: Thanks for all the great responses. You are right, victimless is incorrect as counterfeiting is not truly victimless in regards to whoever ends up with the money last and when it comes to trust in the dollar. However, I do believe the punishment for the crime should be less severe but that was not the focus of my post. Excellent discussion everyone.

t3_1ps1gy

CMV - I believe that Biking will never be a viable, large scale mode of transport in the United State's and investing in infrastructure for bikes is a waste of resources that could be better spent on other things.

CMV - Biking sound's good at first glance, but when all of the factors are considered, it has some serious flaws when used as a large scale transportation system. The biggest flaws that I can think of are listed as follows. 1. A large segment of the population are not physically able enough to ride bicycle for long periods of time because of legitimate reasons other than being "Fat Americans" such as being disabled or being a member of our increasing elderly population. 2. Winter weather make's biking almost impossible in the northern parts of the country that are also some of the most densely populated regions that would otherwise be the most viable places for biking. 3. The distances that many people need to travel are just too long for people that don't live in the most urban city's. 4. People that have kids would have it very hard using a bike as transport in a safe and practical way. Also transporting the food for a family on a bike is not very practical. 5. Most of the target poor people that are supposed to benefit from this infrastructure are already excluded for reasons posted above. Making the biking infrastructure largely a playground for young white "Yuppie Types" that are using it for fun, not as transportation. 8. One of the biggest reasons not to invest in bicycle infrastructure is that it is inevitable that the majority of passenger vehicles will be Electric powered in the near future, with City's having fleets of self driving Electric buses.

CMV - I believe that Biking will never be a viable, large scale mode of transport in the United State's and investing in infrastructure for bikes is a waste of resources that could be better spent on other things. CMV - Biking sound's good at first glance, but when all of the factors are considered, it has some serious flaws when used as a large scale transportation system. The biggest flaws that I can think of are listed as follows. 1. A large segment of the population are not physically able enough to ride bicycle for long periods of time because of legitimate reasons other than being "Fat Americans" such as being disabled or being a member of our increasing elderly population. 2. Winter weather make's biking almost impossible in the northern parts of the country that are also some of the most densely populated regions that would otherwise be the most viable places for biking. 3. The distances that many people need to travel are just too long for people that don't live in the most urban city's. 4. People that have kids would have it very hard using a bike as transport in a safe and practical way. Also transporting the food for a family on a bike is not very practical. 5. Most of the target poor people that are supposed to benefit from this infrastructure are already excluded for reasons posted above. Making the biking infrastructure largely a playground for young white "Yuppie Types" that are using it for fun, not as transportation. 8. One of the biggest reasons not to invest in bicycle infrastructure is that it is inevitable that the majority of passenger vehicles will be Electric powered in the near future, with City's having fleets of self driving Electric buses.

t3_3qkuos

CMV: I don't think the term "game" has a concrete definition.

I strongly agree with Ludwig Wittgenstein that the term "game" has no concrete definition. Instead it refers to things that are "connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance I want my view changed because the world would be a simpler place if words were to have concrete defections. Otherwise other more complex terms would also fall prey to being "family resemblance" terms. For example: "sport," "free will," "god," etc... But let's stick with the term "game" for the purposes of this thread. How to change my view: 1) Present a definition of the word "game" that I would not be able to provide counterexamples to. 2) Some other philosophical/linguistic argument that discredits the idea of "family resemblance" terms. _____ > *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 the term "game" has a concrete definition. I strongly agree with Ludwig Wittgenstein that the term "game" has no concrete definition. Instead it refers to things that are "connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance I want my view changed because the world would be a simpler place if words were to have concrete defections. Otherwise other more complex terms would also fall prey to being "family resemblance" terms. For example: "sport," "free will," "god," etc... But let's stick with the term "game" for the purposes of this thread. How to change my view: 1) Present a definition of the word "game" that I would not be able to provide counterexamples to. 2) Some other philosophical/linguistic argument that discredits the idea of "family resemblance" terms.

t3_6gddwt

CMV: Security is more important than privacy when it comes to regulating the internet

People have gotten angry about Theresa May's recent statements about the dangers of an internet that continues to go unregulated. I'm no fan of hers, but I don't understand why innocent people are so vehement about protecting their privacy. Maybe terrorist activity won't be hindered so much by internet surveillance. But you could also stop so many other dangers like child porn, drug sales, the spread of ISIS support, etc. Yeah, having nothing to hide doesn't mean you have to share it all. But shouldn't we all think of the greater good that would come from this? Why exactly is it a bad thing if you're not doing anything wrong - what dangers could come from it? I'm speaking as someone who's ignorant of just HOW governments intend on regulating the internet. If someone could explain that to me too, that would be great.

CMV: Security is more important than privacy when it comes to regulating the internet. People have gotten angry about Theresa May's recent statements about the dangers of an internet that continues to go unregulated. I'm no fan of hers, but I don't understand why innocent people are so vehement about protecting their privacy. Maybe terrorist activity won't be hindered so much by internet surveillance. But you could also stop so many other dangers like child porn, drug sales, the spread of ISIS support, etc. Yeah, having nothing to hide doesn't mean you have to share it all. But shouldn't we all think of the greater good that would come from this? Why exactly is it a bad thing if you're not doing anything wrong - what dangers could come from it? I'm speaking as someone who's ignorant of just HOW governments intend on regulating the internet. If someone could explain that to me too, that would be great.

t3_1rosj2

I think Wikipedia is a very reliable source. CMV

When I go on Wikipedia, most of the stuff is cited and I feel as if every fact stated is backed up by a source. People say that anyone can change it, but usually, it is either blatantly obvious or quickly reverted. When I read something on Wikipedia, I automatically assume it is the truth. I understand that most of the stuff written is by mundane people, but the fact that an overwhelming amount of people have confronted me that the site has little value to knowledge absolutely astounds me. Sure, it's written by everyday people, but it has a sophisticated enough moderation to make it as truthful as possible in which I find a highly reliable source of knowledge.

I think Wikipedia is a very reliable source. CMV. When I go on Wikipedia, most of the stuff is cited and I feel as if every fact stated is backed up by a source. People say that anyone can change it, but usually, it is either blatantly obvious or quickly reverted. When I read something on Wikipedia, I automatically assume it is the truth. I understand that most of the stuff written is by mundane people, but the fact that an overwhelming amount of people have confronted me that the site has little value to knowledge absolutely astounds me. Sure, it's written by everyday people, but it has a sophisticated enough moderation to make it as truthful as possible in which I find a highly reliable source of knowledge.

t3_1yhd8w

Pirating isn't immoral if you would not have bought the product anyway. CMV

I'm aware that there's quite a bit of controversy over pirating, and I'm not going to get into a very broad discussion of it. I simply believe that if I would not have bought the product anyway (I'm way too broke to buy most software/games/music) then it's not stealing, because while I'm hypothetically making use of a product I'm also not decreasing their possible profits from said product. In fact, in this entirely hypothetical situation, it would inspire me to support my favorite producers - on the rare occasion that I am willing to shell out some money to support something, having access to something in order to know that it's an excellent product makes a big difference. If I were to decide that I liked it so much that the producer deserves some increased revenue, I might be willing to support them. This usually occurs through me buying merchandise from a musician, buying the sequel to a game, etc. It also ensures that I visit websites related to the product and advertise the product online. Change my view. UPDATE: As per /u/themcos 's argument here http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1yhd8w/pirating_isnt_immoral_if_you_would_not_have/cfkunw0, my view has been changed by the issue of disrespecting the creator. I'd like to reiterate from my comments below that this was never an argument trying to validate pirates, this was a hypothetical argument for the morality of piracy. I was here, after all, looking for new insight. I wasn't looking for someone to tell me whether or not I would buy something. UPDATE 2: After further reflection, I'm not really sure how this form of respect gets incorporated into my current moral system. It feels right to apply morality to it, I'm just reflecting on the implications of that. So in light of that (and all the other wonderful arguments going on in this thread) I would like to say thank you all for participating and helping me come to new conclusions on morality in general!

Pirating isn't immoral if you would not have bought the product anyway. CMV. I'm aware that there's quite a bit of controversy over pirating, and I'm not going to get into a very broad discussion of it. I simply believe that if I would not have bought the product anyway (I'm way too broke to buy most software/games/music) then it's not stealing, because while I'm hypothetically making use of a product I'm also not decreasing their possible profits from said product. In fact, in this entirely hypothetical situation, it would inspire me to support my favorite producers - on the rare occasion that I am willing to shell out some money to support something, having access to something in order to know that it's an excellent product makes a big difference. If I were to decide that I liked it so much that the producer deserves some increased revenue, I might be willing to support them. This usually occurs through me buying merchandise from a musician, buying the sequel to a game, etc. It also ensures that I visit websites related to the product and advertise the product online. Change my view. UPDATE: As per /u/themcos 's argument here http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1yhd8w/pirating_isnt_immoral_if_you_would_not_have/cfkunw0, my view has been changed by the issue of disrespecting the creator. I'd like to reiterate from my comments below that this was never an argument trying to validate pirates, this was a hypothetical argument for the morality of piracy. I was here, after all, looking for new insight. I wasn't looking for someone to tell me whether or not I would buy something. UPDATE 2: After further reflection, I'm not really sure how this form of respect gets incorporated into my current moral system. It feels right to apply morality to it, I'm just reflecting on the implications of that. So in light of that (and all the other wonderful arguments going on in this thread) I would like to say thank you all for participating and helping me come to new conclusions on morality in general!

t3_23ev1v

CMV: People that ride bikes for exercise or pleasure on dangerous roads are morally, not legally, wrong.

I think that people that ride their bikes for pleasure or exercise on dangerous roads are, and excuse my language but, assholes. Yes, they are well within their _legal_ rights to do so in many cases, but I don't think those laws are in place for their benefit and they only cling to that when people get upset about them riding on dangerous roads. If you are riding a bike for transportation, as in you're trying to get from point a to point b, not just for the pleasure of the trip, that is absolutely fine. You should be free to travel on any road you need to and cars should slow and take caution while passing you. I think the laws for bikers are put in place so that a bike is always an alternative method of transportation. It would be wrong to force people to only use expensive cars to get around, hence, we must give full legal rights to bikers using the road. Perfectly acceptable and the way it should be. However, when those that choose to make their weekend entertainment, be it because they like the fresh air or the exercise, they are morally wrong and they should stop. I don't think any laws should be passed to stop them and it is impossible for the law to determine motivation for being there, only they can. It is dangerous for bikers to ride on small country roads with no shoulders or busy urban roads with no bike lanes or shoulders. Again, if they're going somewhere, even if the place they're going is entertainment, that is fine. If they are creating that dangerous situation as their entertainment, that is not ok. Edit: post two hours, mind not changed. Still welcome views. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People that ride bikes for exercise or pleasure on dangerous roads are morally, not legally, wrong. I think that people that ride their bikes for pleasure or exercise on dangerous roads are, and excuse my language but, assholes. Yes, they are well within their _legal_ rights to do so in many cases, but I don't think those laws are in place for their benefit and they only cling to that when people get upset about them riding on dangerous roads. If you are riding a bike for transportation, as in you're trying to get from point a to point b, not just for the pleasure of the trip, that is absolutely fine. You should be free to travel on any road you need to and cars should slow and take caution while passing you. I think the laws for bikers are put in place so that a bike is always an alternative method of transportation. It would be wrong to force people to only use expensive cars to get around, hence, we must give full legal rights to bikers using the road. Perfectly acceptable and the way it should be. However, when those that choose to make their weekend entertainment, be it because they like the fresh air or the exercise, they are morally wrong and they should stop. I don't think any laws should be passed to stop them and it is impossible for the law to determine motivation for being there, only they can. It is dangerous for bikers to ride on small country roads with no shoulders or busy urban roads with no bike lanes or shoulders. Again, if they're going somewhere, even if the place they're going is entertainment, that is fine. If they are creating that dangerous situation as their entertainment, that is not ok. Edit: post two hours, mind not changed. Still welcome views.

t3_1ds648

I believe that CMV's that are identical or nearly identical to recent CMVs should be disallowed. CMV

Certain topics in CMV come up very often. Incest seems to come up all the time for example. [There](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bc62f/cmv_i_dont_think_incest_is_immoral_though_it/) [have](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a2rqo/i_believe_that_incest_is_okay_cmv/) [been](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1afidh/i_think_incest_should_be_legal_cmv/) [about](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b5bf3/i_think_that_if_homosexuals_are_allowed_to_marry/) [ten](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bc62f/cmv_i_dont_think_incest_is_immoral_though_it/) [threads](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bebnu/i_think_if_homosexual_people_can_be_recognized_by/) [on](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ddlvy/i_believe_that_there_is_nothing_morally_wrong/) [it in](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1djjwf/i_dont_think_there_is_anything_wrong_with_incest/) [the past](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dprp5/i_have_no_objection_to_incest_cmv/) [month](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dqacl/i_believe_there_is_nothing_morally_wrong_with/). This gets tiresome and results in many of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. There are other topics as well that get brought up a lot. There are a [ton of CMV's on whether or not Feminism is valid](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=feminist&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all), and on [pedophilia](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=pedophile+&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all), and on [abortion](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on), and so on. Many of these re-tread ground that has already been covered. I believe there should be some minimum time limit before a specific view can be posted again. Perhaps a week or two. I don't mean to say anything within a certain subject would be banned, this would just apply to threads that are extremely similar in the view being stated. For example, it would be fine to have one thread on whether socialism is moral and another on whether socialism is feasible because they are covering different aspects of a topic. But we don't need two threads about whether socialism is moral one day after another when the second poster could just read and contribute to the original thread. CMV

I believe that CMV's that are identical or nearly identical to recent CMVs should be disallowed. CMV. Certain topics in CMV come up very often. Incest seems to come up all the time for example. [There](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bc62f/cmv_i_dont_think_incest_is_immoral_though_it/) [have](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a2rqo/i_believe_that_incest_is_okay_cmv/) [been](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1afidh/i_think_incest_should_be_legal_cmv/) [about](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1b5bf3/i_think_that_if_homosexuals_are_allowed_to_marry/) [ten](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bc62f/cmv_i_dont_think_incest_is_immoral_though_it/) [threads](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bebnu/i_think_if_homosexual_people_can_be_recognized_by/) [on](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ddlvy/i_believe_that_there_is_nothing_morally_wrong/) [it in](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1djjwf/i_dont_think_there_is_anything_wrong_with_incest/) [the past](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dprp5/i_have_no_objection_to_incest_cmv/) [month](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dqacl/i_believe_there_is_nothing_morally_wrong_with/). This gets tiresome and results in many of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. There are other topics as well that get brought up a lot. There are a [ton of CMV's on whether or not Feminism is valid](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=feminist&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all), and on [pedophilia](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=pedophile+&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all), and on [abortion](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on), and so on. Many of these re-tread ground that has already been covered. I believe there should be some minimum time limit before a specific view can be posted again. Perhaps a week or two. I don't mean to say anything within a certain subject would be banned, this would just apply to threads that are extremely similar in the view being stated. For example, it would be fine to have one thread on whether socialism is moral and another on whether socialism is feasible because they are covering different aspects of a topic. But we don't need two threads about whether socialism is moral one day after another when the second poster could just read and contribute to the original thread. CMV

t3_58npoe

CMV: France's current situation should create pause in the United States, for anyone advocating for their political and economic policies.

For many people France is considered the America in Europe. Like the United States France has embraced immigration for centuries and has a uniquely diverse population (compared to the rest of Europe). France has been a reliable American ally since WWII and we share many political and ideological similarities. From the embrace of secularism, to fighting on the same side in Iraq & Libya to moving towards a more socialist society, France and the U.S. have had a lot in common. Unlike the U.S. however, France elected a socialist leader in 2012; Francois Hollande. Since 2012, France's reality has been a really dark one. They've had terrorist attacks against their free institutions ([Charlie Hebdo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting)), followed by coordinated assaults against their free society ([BataClan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks)) & other disastrous attacks on humanity ([Nice Truck attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack)) ; These are just the major ones. There's been other horrid events like the [killing of priests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Normandy_church_attack), and the live streaming of [police chief assassinations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Magnanville_stabbing).France has seen [thousands of their immigrants leave to fight for ISIS in Syria.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-terror-recruiting-europe-belgium-france-denmark-sweden-germany/) Other than the dark reality ISIS has placed on their society, France is struggling in other ways as well. Hollande's socialist policies have caused France to suffer economically. [France's unemployment rate is 10%](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/unemployment-rate), their [youth unemployment rate is 25%](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/), their [immigrant unemployment rate is 17%](https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-unemployment.htm) & their [GDP growth is -0.1%](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp-growth) before Hollande they were above 1%. Hollande has objectively set France back in ways that might be irrevocable. [His approval rating in France is 17%.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-08/hollande-s-approval-rating-returns-to-all-time-low-elabe-poll) His policies and leadership have given the rise to [ultra right wing party's like Le Pens National Front](http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/676751/marine-le-pen-nicolas-sarkozy-francois-hollande-presidential-election-2017-norbert-hofer) and France is in such distress that they are willing to go to the counter extreme. France is also plagued, much like the rest of Europe with the refugee crisis. Unable to provide a quality of life for the citizens of France already, [Hollande has still pledged to take in 30,000 refugees in the next two years.](http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/france-still-planning-to-accept-30000-refugees-hollande-says/) Like the U.S. France also has an illegal immigration problem. Unlike the U.S. however most immigrants are trying to flee France illegally into the UK via port cities like Calais. [It's been dubbed the "Calais Jungle" for the pourous living conditions and the migrant problem happening there.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle) These realities are some of Frances more pressing problems, but other underlining issues also plague France. Realities such as their inability to integrate their immigrant populations.Realities such as first generation European citizens of immigrant parents committing terrorist attacks against their society, (see [Kuachi brothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Assailants) & [Salah Abdesalam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Abdeslam)). Realities such as a [violent immigrant population that has destroyed cities with rituals such as burning cars on New Years eve.](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30653784) Realities that see cities like Marsielle that were once beacons of beauty and European culture, filled with graffitied walls, gangs & a [crime rate of 67.57](https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Marseille) where walking alone during the night is not advised. [Things have gotten so bad that today police in France are marching in the streets protesting that they cannot protect their communities.](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-police-idUSKCN12K0RO) This is the reality of France in 2016. This the reality that 4 years under a socialist president has brought to France. Anyone who believes similar economic & political policies should be tried here, should have pause seeing the outcome in France. If you believe we should emulate France's policies- CMV. TL;DR France's economic, political & cultural reality today should make anyone advocating for policies that have created it, to pause and think about what it is they are supporting.

CMV: France's current situation should create pause in the United States, for anyone advocating for their political and economic policies. For many people France is considered the America in Europe. Like the United States France has embraced immigration for centuries and has a uniquely diverse population (compared to the rest of Europe). France has been a reliable American ally since WWII and we share many political and ideological similarities. From the embrace of secularism, to fighting on the same side in Iraq & Libya to moving towards a more socialist society, France and the U.S. have had a lot in common. Unlike the U.S. however, France elected a socialist leader in 2012; Francois Hollande. Since 2012, France's reality has been a really dark one. They've had terrorist attacks against their free institutions ([Charlie Hebdo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting)), followed by coordinated assaults against their free society ([BataClan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks)) & other disastrous attacks on humanity ([Nice Truck attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack)) ; These are just the major ones. There's been other horrid events like the [killing of priests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Normandy_church_attack), and the live streaming of [police chief assassinations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Magnanville_stabbing).France has seen [thousands of their immigrants leave to fight for ISIS in Syria.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-terror-recruiting-europe-belgium-france-denmark-sweden-germany/) Other than the dark reality ISIS has placed on their society, France is struggling in other ways as well. Hollande's socialist policies have caused France to suffer economically. [France's unemployment rate is 10%](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/unemployment-rate), their [youth unemployment rate is 25%](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/), their [immigrant unemployment rate is 17%](https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-unemployment.htm) & their [GDP growth is -0.1%](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp-growth) before Hollande they were above 1%. Hollande has objectively set France back in ways that might be irrevocable. [His approval rating in France is 17%.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-08/hollande-s-approval-rating-returns-to-all-time-low-elabe-poll) His policies and leadership have given the rise to [ultra right wing party's like Le Pens National Front](http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/676751/marine-le-pen-nicolas-sarkozy-francois-hollande-presidential-election-2017-norbert-hofer) and France is in such distress that they are willing to go to the counter extreme. France is also plagued, much like the rest of Europe with the refugee crisis. Unable to provide a quality of life for the citizens of France already, [Hollande has still pledged to take in 30,000 refugees in the next two years.](http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/france-still-planning-to-accept-30000-refugees-hollande-says/) Like the U.S. France also has an illegal immigration problem. Unlike the U.S. however most immigrants are trying to flee France illegally into the UK via port cities like Calais. [It's been dubbed the "Calais Jungle" for the pourous living conditions and the migrant problem happening there.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle) These realities are some of Frances more pressing problems, but other underlining issues also plague France. Realities such as their inability to integrate their immigrant populations.Realities such as first generation European citizens of immigrant parents committing terrorist attacks against their society, (see [Kuachi brothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Assailants) & [Salah Abdesalam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Abdeslam)). Realities such as a [violent immigrant population that has destroyed cities with rituals such as burning cars on New Years eve.](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30653784) Realities that see cities like Marsielle that were once beacons of beauty and European culture, filled with graffitied walls, gangs & a [crime rate of 67.57](https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Marseille) where walking alone during the night is not advised. [Things have gotten so bad that today police in France are marching in the streets protesting that they cannot protect their communities.](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-police-idUSKCN12K0RO) This is the reality of France in 2016. This the reality that 4 years under a socialist president has brought to France. Anyone who believes similar economic & political policies should be tried here, should have pause seeing the outcome in France. If you believe we should emulate France's policies- CMV. TL;DR France's economic, political & cultural reality today should make anyone advocating for policies that have created it, to pause and think about what it is they are supporting.

t3_1m1s85

The arguments conservatives give for not attacking Syria, were even stronger when applied to invading Iraq. They are hypocrites, CMV.

I'm not advocating for an attack on Syria. Just wanted to say this: For every reason I hear a conservative give for not attacking Syria, there was an even more compelling corresponding reason not to attack Iraq. Any conservatives who argue against attacking Syria, but still support the invasion of Iraq, you are full of shit. You do not base your opinions on principles or evidence, but by which party is in power. For example: Getting involved in a sectarian war: Iraq had had several recent civil wars, but was at peace at the time. Critics rightly claimed that invasion would kick off another one, with our troops in the middle. Emboldening our enemies: In Iraq, Islamists were persecuted by Saddam. Critics rightly claimed that Iraq would attract extremists like flies to honey, and that the invasion would serve as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Critics also, rightly, claimed that this would divert resources from fighting our enemies in Afghanistan. Risk to Americans for getting involved: This one is obvious. EDIT: Rewording

The arguments conservatives give for not attacking Syria, were even stronger when applied to invading Iraq. They are hypocrites, CMV. I'm not advocating for an attack on Syria. Just wanted to say this: For every reason I hear a conservative give for not attacking Syria, there was an even more compelling corresponding reason not to attack Iraq. Any conservatives who argue against attacking Syria, but still support the invasion of Iraq, you are full of shit. You do not base your opinions on principles or evidence, but by which party is in power. For example: Getting involved in a sectarian war: Iraq had had several recent civil wars, but was at peace at the time. Critics rightly claimed that invasion would kick off another one, with our troops in the middle. Emboldening our enemies: In Iraq, Islamists were persecuted by Saddam. Critics rightly claimed that Iraq would attract extremists like flies to honey, and that the invasion would serve as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Critics also, rightly, claimed that this would divert resources from fighting our enemies in Afghanistan. Risk to Americans for getting involved: This one is obvious. EDIT: Rewording

t3_54sfgz

[Mod Post] Deltaboards are here!

Hello CMVers, If any of you have been a subscriber of /r/changemyview since 2013 then you might remember we had a top ten delta-earner list in our sidebar for a while. However, something went wrong in /u/DeltaBot's code, its developer at the time disappeared, and for a number of reasons it's taken till now to get it back. None of that matters now though, as I'm excited to announce its return! In the sidebar, below "The Delta System" section, you will see the Monthly Deltaboard. There you'll also find a link to [more deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) in our wiki, that includes Daily and Weekly ones, soon to be joined by Yearly and All-Time. Some of you may be thinking it isn't a great idea to be making the delta system seem competitive in this way. But we've discussed this before and believe that since you can only gain a delta through positive means (friendliness, good information etc), there should be no downside to this. Thanks to /u/MystK (DeltaBot developer) for making this happen. As discussed in our [last mod post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/53wq5c/mod_post_can_anybody_help_write_deltabots_code/), he could do with some help taking DeltaBot forward quicker. If any of you are interested, please [check it out on GitHub](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three). Thanks for reading!

[Mod Post] Deltaboards are here!. Hello CMVers, If any of you have been a subscriber of /r/changemyview since 2013 then you might remember we had a top ten delta-earner list in our sidebar for a while. However, something went wrong in /u/DeltaBot's code, its developer at the time disappeared, and for a number of reasons it's taken till now to get it back. None of that matters now though, as I'm excited to announce its return! In the sidebar, below "The Delta System" section, you will see the Monthly Deltaboard. There you'll also find a link to [more deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) in our wiki, that includes Daily and Weekly ones, soon to be joined by Yearly and All-Time. Some of you may be thinking it isn't a great idea to be making the delta system seem competitive in this way. But we've discussed this before and believe that since you can only gain a delta through positive means (friendliness, good information etc), there should be no downside to this. Thanks to /u/MystK (DeltaBot developer) for making this happen. As discussed in our [last mod post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/53wq5c/mod_post_can_anybody_help_write_deltabots_code/), he could do with some help taking DeltaBot forward quicker. If any of you are interested, please [check it out on GitHub](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three). Thanks for reading!

t3_1n8zee

I think anyone who doesn't respect Kanye West is ignorant and should not be taken seriously. CMV

As successful and influencial as he is controversial and disliked, Kanye West's perspective in life is nothing but positive. It's not about liking his music, or liking the way he dresses, or being a fan of every venture he puts his hands on-- it's about respecting a man who wants to push the envelope of art and not just settle for what makes money. Here is his mission statement: * always excel in everything you do * break through the glass ceiling * expand your knowledge to other areas * do not conform to the norm * fear nothing * believe that you can do everything * do not settle For a better understanding of Kanye West, watch his [four-part 1-hour](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2T0fMkZoMo&feature=youtu.be) interview with Zane Lowe. Before you post, I recommend listening to the whole interview, since he clarifies a lot of his points in the subsequent parts. For example, do not post and complain about the meaning of New Slaves when he explains it in the interview. I'm not saying you have to be his biggest fan to respect him, but to dismiss Kanye West for his controversial antics is simple-minded and an act of blind ignorance. His worldview is inspiring, and everyone can learn from him. CMV ~~~ Conclusion update, 28 Sep 13: So, to no surprise, my view wasn't changed. People like to keep egging on about Kanye West's outbursts and antics, and then cover their ears and remain ignorant when given the reason why he did those things. If anything, it only reinforces my view even more-- people would rather paint someone as a crazy person than think about why they act that way. **TL;DR**: This is pretty much how the discussion went: *CMV*: "We don't respect Kanye West because he hit someone, took T-Swizzle's mic away from her, and rants on Twitter." *KF*: "Okay, that's cool. But here is an explanation as to why he did those things. He's trying to break through the boundaries of art. He wants to be taken seriously as an artist, not just a rapper. He also hates paparazzis." *CMV*: "Nah, he was just doing it for the publicity. Also, we're going to ignore all of that and still think he's a piece of crap because he said George Bush didn't care about black people. Nevermind *why* he did them-- he did them, and he's a meany meany mean man."

I think anyone who doesn't respect Kanye West is ignorant and should not be taken seriously. CMV. As successful and influencial as he is controversial and disliked, Kanye West's perspective in life is nothing but positive. It's not about liking his music, or liking the way he dresses, or being a fan of every venture he puts his hands on-- it's about respecting a man who wants to push the envelope of art and not just settle for what makes money. Here is his mission statement: * always excel in everything you do * break through the glass ceiling * expand your knowledge to other areas * do not conform to the norm * fear nothing * believe that you can do everything * do not settle For a better understanding of Kanye West, watch his [four-part 1-hour](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2T0fMkZoMo&feature=youtu.be) interview with Zane Lowe. Before you post, I recommend listening to the whole interview, since he clarifies a lot of his points in the subsequent parts. For example, do not post and complain about the meaning of New Slaves when he explains it in the interview. I'm not saying you have to be his biggest fan to respect him, but to dismiss Kanye West for his controversial antics is simple-minded and an act of blind ignorance. His worldview is inspiring, and everyone can learn from him. CMV ~~~ Conclusion update, 28 Sep 13: So, to no surprise, my view wasn't changed. People like to keep egging on about Kanye West's outbursts and antics, and then cover their ears and remain ignorant when given the reason why he did those things. If anything, it only reinforces my view even more-- people would rather paint someone as a crazy person than think about why they act that way. **TL;DR**: This is pretty much how the discussion went: *CMV*: "We don't respect Kanye West because he hit someone, took T-Swizzle's mic away from her, and rants on Twitter." *KF*: "Okay, that's cool. But here is an explanation as to why he did those things. He's trying to break through the boundaries of art. He wants to be taken seriously as an artist, not just a rapper. He also hates paparazzis." *CMV*: "Nah, he was just doing it for the publicity. Also, we're going to ignore all of that and still think he's a piece of crap because he said George Bush didn't care about black people. Nevermind *why* he did them-- he did them, and he's a meany meany mean man."

t3_1dg8kd

I believe that GMO labelling laws are wrong. CMV.

My premises might be controversial but discussing them at length would be a bit of a tangent. So in brief, this is where I'm coming from: I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with GMOs as a technology, and that the science is pretty clear that GMOs are no more more harmful than normal crops. To quickly quote Wikipedia: > [There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[4][8][9]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies) Conversely, just for the sake of perspective, note that crops developed using perfectly natural, conventional breeding methods *can* be very harmful to human health, such as the [Lenape potato.](http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html) So even if any GMOs have been found to be harmful, this would be by no means something unique to GMOs. So, what about labelling? Doesn't everyone have a right to know what's in their food anyway? Well, I hold that labelling a product simply with "contains GMOs" doesn't actually tell you anything about what's in your food or where it comes from. "GMO" is not a category that describes any property of any specific plant. Ten different GMOs can be ten completely unrelated species modified with ten completely unrelated sets of genes, so any judgement on safety or nutritional value can only be done on a case-by-case basis, much like "natural" strains of crops. Therefore, I think that GMO labelling only encourages people intending to make purchasing decisions based on irrational and unscientific reasons. As such, it is not something that should be enforced by law. If you really want to make detailed purchasing decisions, then I suggest perhaps campaigning to label products with specific strains used, whether they are GMOs or not. And of course nothing is stopping you from only buying from companies that voluntarily advertise that their products containing no GMOs.

I believe that GMO labelling laws are wrong. CMV. My premises might be controversial but discussing them at length would be a bit of a tangent. So in brief, this is where I'm coming from: I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with GMOs as a technology, and that the science is pretty clear that GMOs are no more more harmful than normal crops. To quickly quote Wikipedia: > [There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[4][8][9]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies) Conversely, just for the sake of perspective, note that crops developed using perfectly natural, conventional breeding methods *can* be very harmful to human health, such as the [Lenape potato.](http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html) So even if any GMOs have been found to be harmful, this would be by no means something unique to GMOs. So, what about labelling? Doesn't everyone have a right to know what's in their food anyway? Well, I hold that labelling a product simply with "contains GMOs" doesn't actually tell you anything about what's in your food or where it comes from. "GMO" is not a category that describes any property of any specific plant. Ten different GMOs can be ten completely unrelated species modified with ten completely unrelated sets of genes, so any judgement on safety or nutritional value can only be done on a case-by-case basis, much like "natural" strains of crops. Therefore, I think that GMO labelling only encourages people intending to make purchasing decisions based on irrational and unscientific reasons. As such, it is not something that should be enforced by law. If you really want to make detailed purchasing decisions, then I suggest perhaps campaigning to label products with specific strains used, whether they are GMOs or not. And of course nothing is stopping you from only buying from companies that voluntarily advertise that their products containing no GMOs.

t3_1rtbr6

Peopke who refer to the ACA/Affordable Care Act as Obamacare sound inherently less intelligent and less informed simply by calling it that. CMV

There are many different arguments to be made for and against the ACA itself. This is not any opinion on the bill. This is simply a matter of the name itself. I believe if i engage in any sort of intelligent conversation that could be had regarding the ACA, and the person I'm speaking with refers to it as "Obamacare", that person displays an immediate lack of knowledge on the subject matter. The term itself is made up by an albeit genius political mind, but that it is almost a form of Orwellian newspeak for its origins and its implications. But I digress. Bottom line, if we're having a discussion about the ACA and you call it "Obamacare", I immediately consider your statements to be based on facts that you are spewing out from the same place you heard the term - without any research of your own. CMV as to why we should keep calling it Obamacare without sounding like idiots.

Peopke who refer to the ACA/Affordable Care Act as Obamacare sound inherently less intelligent and less informed simply by calling it that. CMV. There are many different arguments to be made for and against the ACA itself. This is not any opinion on the bill. This is simply a matter of the name itself. I believe if i engage in any sort of intelligent conversation that could be had regarding the ACA, and the person I'm speaking with refers to it as "Obamacare", that person displays an immediate lack of knowledge on the subject matter. The term itself is made up by an albeit genius political mind, but that it is almost a form of Orwellian newspeak for its origins and its implications. But I digress. Bottom line, if we're having a discussion about the ACA and you call it "Obamacare", I immediately consider your statements to be based on facts that you are spewing out from the same place you heard the term - without any research of your own. CMV as to why we should keep calling it Obamacare without sounding like idiots.

t3_4siyzb

CMV: Race, on average, is not a significant factor in a police officer's decision to use deadly force.

If you look at the data from the Washington Post on police killings and the FBI's data on arrests and crimes committed, it strongly suggests that race is not a significant factor in a police officer's decision to use deadly force. Roughly 26% of police killings in 2015 were perpetrated against African Americans. Blacks make up roughly 28% of all people arrested in general, and about half of all people arrested for homicide. From this data, we can see that black people get killed by police in roughly the same proportion at which they encounter police. One could reasonably argue that black people have more encounters with police because of racial profiling, poverty, and current and past discrimination. However, that doesn't change the fact that in a given encounter with a police officer, they are not any more likely to be killed. _____ > *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: Race, on average, is not a significant factor in a police officer's decision to use deadly force. If you look at the data from the Washington Post on police killings and the FBI's data on arrests and crimes committed, it strongly suggests that race is not a significant factor in a police officer's decision to use deadly force. Roughly 26% of police killings in 2015 were perpetrated against African Americans. Blacks make up roughly 28% of all people arrested in general, and about half of all people arrested for homicide. From this data, we can see that black people get killed by police in roughly the same proportion at which they encounter police. One could reasonably argue that black people have more encounters with police because of racial profiling, poverty, and current and past discrimination. However, that doesn't change the fact that in a given encounter with a police officer, they are not any more likely to be killed.

t3_1huq0b

I think it's morally ok to kill people. No tricks, no trolling. Not a psychopath. CMV.

I'm talking about the intrinsic morality of it, not, killing a provider + leaving his/her dependents without support. But the morality of the act of killing / murdering, itself. Because, once you've killed someone, who is there that you have wronged? It's a self-erasing 'sin'. The memory of any pain, or fear, or disappointment at unfulfilled hopes, is gone; they don't care anymore. The victim goes back (internally) to whatever it was 'like' before they were born. The only argument I can come up with against it is the Catholics' one, of destroying a good thing, the killed person's unlived life (which argument they use against abortion). So I guess here's the weasel, that the morality of killing is equivalent to that of abortion. But really, talk me out of the argument. I'm surprised this hasn't come up in culture - not from movie villains, philosophy class - I've never seen this thought.

I think it's morally ok to kill people. No tricks, no trolling. Not a psychopath. CMV. I'm talking about the intrinsic morality of it, not, killing a provider + leaving his/her dependents without support. But the morality of the act of killing / murdering, itself. Because, once you've killed someone, who is there that you have wronged? It's a self-erasing 'sin'. The memory of any pain, or fear, or disappointment at unfulfilled hopes, is gone; they don't care anymore. The victim goes back (internally) to whatever it was 'like' before they were born. The only argument I can come up with against it is the Catholics' one, of destroying a good thing, the killed person's unlived life (which argument they use against abortion). So I guess here's the weasel, that the morality of killing is equivalent to that of abortion. But really, talk me out of the argument. I'm surprised this hasn't come up in culture - not from movie villains, philosophy class - I've never seen this thought.

t3_1ujwao

I believe short loan sites like Wonga are completely ok and do not do anything wrong. I think the critics are unfair, and just haven't thought about it. CMV

We'll stick with Wonga on this. People get angry about APR because it's so high, but no one ends up paying that much. Wonga actually show you exactly how much you'll pay back right from the start. Wonga say they don't let things get out of hand, and freeze the balance and work out a suitable repayment plan if things go wrong. Even if people ignore them, they freeze the balance after 60 days. It's a personal decision to take out a loan, and wonga isn't forcing you to do so. Loan shark seems to be a misused term to defend those who make bad decisions. Having said all this; people I tend to agree with on most stuff tend to hate these sites, so please have a go at changing my view!

I believe short loan sites like Wonga are completely ok and do not do anything wrong. I think the critics are unfair, and just haven't thought about it. CMV. We'll stick with Wonga on this. People get angry about APR because it's so high, but no one ends up paying that much. Wonga actually show you exactly how much you'll pay back right from the start. Wonga say they don't let things get out of hand, and freeze the balance and work out a suitable repayment plan if things go wrong. Even if people ignore them, they freeze the balance after 60 days. It's a personal decision to take out a loan, and wonga isn't forcing you to do so. Loan shark seems to be a misused term to defend those who make bad decisions. Having said all this; people I tend to agree with on most stuff tend to hate these sites, so please have a go at changing my view!

t3_2jaiv1

CMV: I detest marijuana and tend to lose respect for people who smoke it.

I know it doesn’t make sense. I’m intelligent, progressive, and open-minded on any other subject I can think of. It looks like my state is about to legalize recreational marijuana; I actually voted in favor of it two years ago, and I probably will again. However, I personally detest it. I hate the smell. I hate that it dulls people over long periods of time, and I hate when people make it a lifestyle. But I don’t want it to be a big deal to me. CMV, please! As a side note, I do totally favor marijuana for legitimate medical conditions over things like opiates and other pain medications which are far more harmful than marijuana. _____ > *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 detest marijuana and tend to lose respect for people who smoke it. I know it doesn’t make sense. I’m intelligent, progressive, and open-minded on any other subject I can think of. It looks like my state is about to legalize recreational marijuana; I actually voted in favor of it two years ago, and I probably will again. However, I personally detest it. I hate the smell. I hate that it dulls people over long periods of time, and I hate when people make it a lifestyle. But I don’t want it to be a big deal to me. CMV, please! As a side note, I do totally favor marijuana for legitimate medical conditions over things like opiates and other pain medications which are far more harmful than marijuana.

t3_2lmu6z

CMV: Hey Arnold is one of the greatest cartoons of all time.

When a lot of people think of great cartoons, they think of Looney Toons or even Spongebob. The problem is that while these cartoons are good, they're neither artistic nor educational. They don't push boundaries or take risks. They're really safe. If All in the Family is one of the best television shows that takes on lots of tough issues with comedic grace, then Hey Arnold is the equivalent of that in the cartoon world. Especially compared to post-millennial cartoons which have been quite sterile. The best thing about cartoons is watching them as a kid and having fun with them. But then re-watching them as an adult and understanding a whole new context of it. Sure, some cartoons might have a suggestive joke or two but the really dark themes of it come to light the older you get. For a kids show that never gets too preachy, it tackles some tough shit. Arnold deals with the absence of his parents. Hyunh was separated from his young daughter in Vietnam. Sid has OCD and other mental illnesses. Helga's family is dysfunctional ; Miriam is an alcoholic miserable with Bob ; Olga is burdened to be a perfectionist and so many more things. Much like the real world, Hey Arnold admits that there's done of disparities and inequalities. There's poorer and richer. There's classy and there's unrefined. There's charismatic people and there's socially awkward losers. There's attractive and unattractive people ; shorter and taller people ; fatter and skinnier people. Bullying and unrequited love. This show doesn't glorify these things in anyway, but shows awareness to these things. This, after all is set in NYC, a city of success and failure. A city of luxury and of crime. And the show is full of characters with deep personalities. Nearly every recurring character was able to get an episode or two purely focused toward them. Even the butcher. Also, the show has a really unique way of putting the viewers through the perspective of the characters. For example, there's a reason why the fourth graders are pint-sized and the fifth graders look like hulking college kids. Because at that age, there's genuinely a reverance toward higher grades. Of course until you get in that grade and realize it wasn't as much of a big jump as you thought. Anyway, I explained some of the show's many merits. I can get into detail, but I'm also willing to contend with some criticism too. Lay it on me. But overall, if I had to give a child a DVD's of a television show that will prepare them for all of the problems they're gonna face in their teenhood and life in general, Hey Arnold would be 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: Hey Arnold is one of the greatest cartoons of all time. When a lot of people think of great cartoons, they think of Looney Toons or even Spongebob. The problem is that while these cartoons are good, they're neither artistic nor educational. They don't push boundaries or take risks. They're really safe. If All in the Family is one of the best television shows that takes on lots of tough issues with comedic grace, then Hey Arnold is the equivalent of that in the cartoon world. Especially compared to post-millennial cartoons which have been quite sterile. The best thing about cartoons is watching them as a kid and having fun with them. But then re-watching them as an adult and understanding a whole new context of it. Sure, some cartoons might have a suggestive joke or two but the really dark themes of it come to light the older you get. For a kids show that never gets too preachy, it tackles some tough shit. Arnold deals with the absence of his parents. Hyunh was separated from his young daughter in Vietnam. Sid has OCD and other mental illnesses. Helga's family is dysfunctional ; Miriam is an alcoholic miserable with Bob ; Olga is burdened to be a perfectionist and so many more things. Much like the real world, Hey Arnold admits that there's done of disparities and inequalities. There's poorer and richer. There's classy and there's unrefined. There's charismatic people and there's socially awkward losers. There's attractive and unattractive people ; shorter and taller people ; fatter and skinnier people. Bullying and unrequited love. This show doesn't glorify these things in anyway, but shows awareness to these things. This, after all is set in NYC, a city of success and failure. A city of luxury and of crime. And the show is full of characters with deep personalities. Nearly every recurring character was able to get an episode or two purely focused toward them. Even the butcher. Also, the show has a really unique way of putting the viewers through the perspective of the characters. For example, there's a reason why the fourth graders are pint-sized and the fifth graders look like hulking college kids. Because at that age, there's genuinely a reverance toward higher grades. Of course until you get in that grade and realize it wasn't as much of a big jump as you thought. Anyway, I explained some of the show's many merits. I can get into detail, but I'm also willing to contend with some criticism too. Lay it on me. But overall, if I had to give a child a DVD's of a television show that will prepare them for all of the problems they're gonna face in their teenhood and life in general, Hey Arnold would be it.

t3_1oepi6

I think that advertisements from pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the belief that a serotonin "chemical imbalance" is responsible for depression and anxiety disorders. CMV.

It seems to me like backwards thinking. I believe that there is evidence that a serotonin increase seems to help some people with depression and anxiety, but that doesn't mean that lack of serotonin caused it. There are all kinds of drugs that could make you feel better, but that doesn't mean that the brain of a formally depressed/anxious person on SSRIs has serotonin levels that are more similar to sober non-depressed people than before. I think this lit review supports this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392 Further, there was an instance of a man who had a genetic condition that caused him to have very little serotonin or dopamin, which are both often claimed to be "pleasure/happy neurotransmitters," and he had sleep problems but wasn't depressed: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=27726 ^ Click "full text:" >Before treatment, the patient had mild hypersomnia with long sleep time (704 min), ultradian sleep–wake rhythm (sleep occurred every 11.8 ± 5.3 h), organic hyperphagia, attention/executive dysfunction, and **no depression.** But if there is a good reason to think that low-serotonin levels are linked to depression I'm open to consider that. CMV.

I think that advertisements from pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the belief that a serotonin "chemical imbalance" is responsible for depression and anxiety disorders. CMV. It seems to me like backwards thinking. I believe that there is evidence that a serotonin increase seems to help some people with depression and anxiety, but that doesn't mean that lack of serotonin caused it. There are all kinds of drugs that could make you feel better, but that doesn't mean that the brain of a formally depressed/anxious person on SSRIs has serotonin levels that are more similar to sober non-depressed people than before. I think this lit review supports this: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392 Further, there was an instance of a man who had a genetic condition that caused him to have very little serotonin or dopamin, which are both often claimed to be "pleasure/happy neurotransmitters," and he had sleep problems but wasn't depressed: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=27726 ^ Click "full text:" >Before treatment, the patient had mild hypersomnia with long sleep time (704 min), ultradian sleep–wake rhythm (sleep occurred every 11.8 ± 5.3 h), organic hyperphagia, attention/executive dysfunction, and **no depression.** But if there is a good reason to think that low-serotonin levels are linked to depression I'm open to consider that. CMV.

t3_46bavo

CMV: I think Apple should help 'unlock' the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter

So, this new issue with the iPhone has got me racking my brain and wondering why, according to so many redditors, that I'm 'wrong'. So here are my points to this issue that I can't seem to resolve with the current arguments floating around. So here are my points as to why I think Apple should unlock the phone: 1. Why can't a cell phone be treated like any other item that can be searched with a proper warrant? If I commit a crime serious enough, law enforcement can pretty much search everything I own. They can search my apartment, my car, storage units, ext. Even if they don't have a key to those things, they can constitutionality break in with a proper warrant. Why is a phone any different? 2. By standing by the issue that phones cannot be unlocked, we are providing a guaranteed way to keep a persons information private. Is this position not troublesome to say that "Hey Criminal, don't you dare keep damning evidence in your house or your car, because we can go through that, but your iPhone is sacred and we will never be able to access it no matter what". 3. The 'slippery slope' problem can be mitigated by strong legislation. I think its problematic that a smart phone can be a safe haven for damning evidence, but I also don't want those powers to be applied on an incredibly broad basis. I think that this can be solved by applying the searching of phones to very specific guidelines - say a phone can only be searched if the owner is the suspect of a mass-murder. Something like that... In general, I feel like there is something I am missing in this argument. No, I don't think the Government should be violating our privacy, but I also do not believe that a court-ordered warranted search of a phone is any different than a court-ordered warranted of a house or a car. Maybe you can help me 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 Apple should help 'unlock' the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. So, this new issue with the iPhone has got me racking my brain and wondering why, according to so many redditors, that I'm 'wrong'. So here are my points to this issue that I can't seem to resolve with the current arguments floating around. So here are my points as to why I think Apple should unlock the phone: 1. Why can't a cell phone be treated like any other item that can be searched with a proper warrant? If I commit a crime serious enough, law enforcement can pretty much search everything I own. They can search my apartment, my car, storage units, ext. Even if they don't have a key to those things, they can constitutionality break in with a proper warrant. Why is a phone any different? 2. By standing by the issue that phones cannot be unlocked, we are providing a guaranteed way to keep a persons information private. Is this position not troublesome to say that "Hey Criminal, don't you dare keep damning evidence in your house or your car, because we can go through that, but your iPhone is sacred and we will never be able to access it no matter what". 3. The 'slippery slope' problem can be mitigated by strong legislation. I think its problematic that a smart phone can be a safe haven for damning evidence, but I also don't want those powers to be applied on an incredibly broad basis. I think that this can be solved by applying the searching of phones to very specific guidelines - say a phone can only be searched if the owner is the suspect of a mass-murder. Something like that... In general, I feel like there is something I am missing in this argument. No, I don't think the Government should be violating our privacy, but I also do not believe that a court-ordered warranted search of a phone is any different than a court-ordered warranted of a house or a car. Maybe you can help me change my view..

t3_2bzpcs

CMV: Women who actively campaign against cat-calling online are wasting their efforts.

Think about the typical rowdy ass person - i think when you go through the education system you get exposed to more politically correct views. most people on the internet - going by stereotypes are that kind. Do you think that thug, old creepy man, redneck, bogan or whatever feral "weirdo" stereotype is the kind to browse the feminism tag on tumblr or is subscribed to /r/twoxchromosomes? then a point about creating awareness and it not being okay, fair enough, but all i see it does it creates an apprehension towards strangers/men, there's no given solution, no means of support, no explanation as to why guys do it († i will explain the general mindset of these guys below) - which sometimes can fester to misandry or ironically, further stereotyping, self-discriminating and general mistrust for the public. you walk around in a crowd of thousands, yet maybe cat called by 2-3 men. i think maybe the collective internet community should rather band together to make a change in legislation in their area or do more local awareness work as mentioned before, not everyone is into non-facebook/twitter social media. in fact, most people i encounter don't usually go on content aggregation website - hence why i think working in hug boxes and echo chambers does very little and is unfair to the greater population. † i think in less educated circles of society where ideas of modern 3rd feminism hasn't yet pervaded the microcosms, women tend to be not treated as well but that has become the norm for them (which is unfortunate, i agree). i went to high school in a really socio-economically poor area and maybe a bunch of guys would drive around, drink "have fun", when they're in a testosterone charged environment they want to prove their worth, or so called "alpha-ness" - and they would call out to girls walking by. some of them who as i said, don't know better seem to be flattered while they get cheered on and laughed with by their friends. while i'm not condoning my behaviour, i do believe its better to form a mutual understanding by expressing our views rather then derisively casting them as "pigs" or whatever. Despite their archaic views they are still of human intelligence and if you react to them with that same kind of intelligence, perhaps some can change their views. why do i believe that's the case? I was one of them, i was in the old Ford yelling out "DTF??" to girls. Got out of my small town, went to college - where i had my views challenged by some very smart people and gave it some thought and changed for the better.

CMV: Women who actively campaign against cat-calling online are wasting their efforts. Think about the typical rowdy ass person - i think when you go through the education system you get exposed to more politically correct views. most people on the internet - going by stereotypes are that kind. Do you think that thug, old creepy man, redneck, bogan or whatever feral "weirdo" stereotype is the kind to browse the feminism tag on tumblr or is subscribed to /r/twoxchromosomes? then a point about creating awareness and it not being okay, fair enough, but all i see it does it creates an apprehension towards strangers/men, there's no given solution, no means of support, no explanation as to why guys do it († i will explain the general mindset of these guys below) - which sometimes can fester to misandry or ironically, further stereotyping, self-discriminating and general mistrust for the public. you walk around in a crowd of thousands, yet maybe cat called by 2-3 men. i think maybe the collective internet community should rather band together to make a change in legislation in their area or do more local awareness work as mentioned before, not everyone is into non-facebook/twitter social media. in fact, most people i encounter don't usually go on content aggregation website - hence why i think working in hug boxes and echo chambers does very little and is unfair to the greater population. † i think in less educated circles of society where ideas of modern 3rd feminism hasn't yet pervaded the microcosms, women tend to be not treated as well but that has become the norm for them (which is unfortunate, i agree). i went to high school in a really socio-economically poor area and maybe a bunch of guys would drive around, drink "have fun", when they're in a testosterone charged environment they want to prove their worth, or so called "alpha-ness" - and they would call out to girls walking by. some of them who as i said, don't know better seem to be flattered while they get cheered on and laughed with by their friends. while i'm not condoning my behaviour, i do believe its better to form a mutual understanding by expressing our views rather then derisively casting them as "pigs" or whatever. Despite their archaic views they are still of human intelligence and if you react to them with that same kind of intelligence, perhaps some can change their views. why do i believe that's the case? I was one of them, i was in the old Ford yelling out "DTF??" to girls. Got out of my small town, went to college - where i had my views challenged by some very smart people and gave it some thought and changed for the better.

t3_1eahpl

I am a conscientious non-voter in the US CMV

I don't vote for MORAL REASONS. Most people assume that people who don't vote are unprincipled/lazy myself included. I don't believe that's the case. I've never voted for a national candidate in the past 7 years (since I became eligible,) full stop. By way of giving an example I wouldn't have voted in the last election had I KNOWN FOR A FACT that my vote would have decided the presidency. Ultimately neither candidate was acceptable. Most people I know vote for the "lesser of two evils" but I believe that simply legitimizes a broken federal election system which offers us the choice between two unacceptable candidates (who are differentiated by very little) and some more non-viable candidates. I follow politics as closely as possible and constantly reassess my position on voting, especially during elections. CMV Edit: After significant contemplation of my conversations with people on this thread, I can't say that I've been satisfied. Certainly I have not articulated my view to satisfaction. This means that my view must change. I can't say for sure how my view will change yet. Everyone as of this edit delta

I am a conscientious non-voter in the US CMV. I don't vote for MORAL REASONS. Most people assume that people who don't vote are unprincipled/lazy myself included. I don't believe that's the case. I've never voted for a national candidate in the past 7 years (since I became eligible,) full stop. By way of giving an example I wouldn't have voted in the last election had I KNOWN FOR A FACT that my vote would have decided the presidency. Ultimately neither candidate was acceptable. Most people I know vote for the "lesser of two evils" but I believe that simply legitimizes a broken federal election system which offers us the choice between two unacceptable candidates (who are differentiated by very little) and some more non-viable candidates. I follow politics as closely as possible and constantly reassess my position on voting, especially during elections. CMV Edit: After significant contemplation of my conversations with people on this thread, I can't say that I've been satisfied. Certainly I have not articulated my view to satisfaction. This means that my view must change. I can't say for sure how my view will change yet. Everyone as of this edit delta

t3_47goxl

CMV:That cyclists should have to carry ID with them like every other road user.

In Australia we have a debate happening about introducing a law saying cyclists should have to carry ID with them when riding on the road with cars and other licensed vehicles. I don't understand what the pushback is, but it's fierce. The road is a heavily regulated space, we have laws and rules for conduct on the road and we hold users accountable through licensing laws and consider road use to be a privilege - not a right. So why do cyclists think this doesn't apply to them when they use the same space? **EDIT: Ok, my view has been changed. Or rather, clarified. I can now see that carrying Photo ID at all times for all cyclists is a prohibitive measure and does not increase safety nor accountability for cyclists using public roads. However, I do think that on certain busy roads, i.e. - roads over 4 lanes, motorways and highways that cyclists should be required to hold a license and register a roadworthy bicycle. They share a heavily regulated space with other regulated drivers and I don't think it's reasonable to exempt cyclists from these regulations.** **If you wanna change my edited view - have at 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:That cyclists should have to carry ID with them like every other road user. In Australia we have a debate happening about introducing a law saying cyclists should have to carry ID with them when riding on the road with cars and other licensed vehicles. I don't understand what the pushback is, but it's fierce. The road is a heavily regulated space, we have laws and rules for conduct on the road and we hold users accountable through licensing laws and consider road use to be a privilege - not a right. So why do cyclists think this doesn't apply to them when they use the same space? **EDIT: Ok, my view has been changed. Or rather, clarified. I can now see that carrying Photo ID at all times for all cyclists is a prohibitive measure and does not increase safety nor accountability for cyclists using public roads. However, I do think that on certain busy roads, i.e. - roads over 4 lanes, motorways and highways that cyclists should be required to hold a license and register a roadworthy bicycle. They share a heavily regulated space with other regulated drivers and I don't think it's reasonable to exempt cyclists from these regulations.** **If you wanna change my edited view - have at it.**

t3_6im9dt

CMV: Nancy Pelosi should retire from Congress for the benefit of her party.

The recent Georgia special election featured endless messaging from Republicans tying Nancy Pelosi to Jon Ossoff which was apparently quite effective. Pelosi [has terrible national favorability ratings on high name recognition,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/bernie-sanders-remains-one-of-americas-most-popular-politicians/) and is therefore an excellent foil onto which to levy attacks especially against Democrats in House races. Pelosi is 77 years old and in one of the safest Democratic seats in the country. She can plausibly retire simply due to age, and safe in the knowledge another Democrat will take her seat. Given her connections in the party and caucus, she could even probably arrange a hand picked successor for both her seat and for the leadership of the House Democrats. A successor to her would not have the name recognition/poor polling to be used as a bludgeon against House Democrats running in 2018. The reaction of most Americans to seeing an attack linking a local candidate to Steny Hoyer would be "who the heck is Steny Hoyer?" The only other substantially famous member of the House Democratic caucus, John Lewis, is also much more difficult to attack since he's principally famous for being a civil rights hero who worked closely with Martin Luther King. Pelosi was quite effective in managing her caucus as Speaker. She might be effective as Speaker again, but she is deeply unpopular and running a national election next year on the premise of giving her the Speaker's chair makes it much more likely than otherwise that Paul Ryan would remain Speaker. If Pelosi cares more about her party than her personal power, she should retire at the upcoming election and let new blood replace her in the leadership. _____ > *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: Nancy Pelosi should retire from Congress for the benefit of her party. The recent Georgia special election featured endless messaging from Republicans tying Nancy Pelosi to Jon Ossoff which was apparently quite effective. Pelosi [has terrible national favorability ratings on high name recognition,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/bernie-sanders-remains-one-of-americas-most-popular-politicians/) and is therefore an excellent foil onto which to levy attacks especially against Democrats in House races. Pelosi is 77 years old and in one of the safest Democratic seats in the country. She can plausibly retire simply due to age, and safe in the knowledge another Democrat will take her seat. Given her connections in the party and caucus, she could even probably arrange a hand picked successor for both her seat and for the leadership of the House Democrats. A successor to her would not have the name recognition/poor polling to be used as a bludgeon against House Democrats running in 2018. The reaction of most Americans to seeing an attack linking a local candidate to Steny Hoyer would be "who the heck is Steny Hoyer?" The only other substantially famous member of the House Democratic caucus, John Lewis, is also much more difficult to attack since he's principally famous for being a civil rights hero who worked closely with Martin Luther King. Pelosi was quite effective in managing her caucus as Speaker. She might be effective as Speaker again, but she is deeply unpopular and running a national election next year on the premise of giving her the Speaker's chair makes it much more likely than otherwise that Paul Ryan would remain Speaker. If Pelosi cares more about her party than her personal power, she should retire at the upcoming election and let new blood replace her in the leadership.

t3_1y1fq2

I don't think adults that have sex with teenagers(15+) should have harsh prison sentences (20+ years/life on the sex offender list). CMV

Right now, the age of consent is 18. That's age of consent to do anything such as smoke cigarettes, take out loans and sign contracts without an adult, and even in some countries, drink alcohol. They say that a 15-17 year old can't have sex because they can't consent, same reason they can't sign contracts. However, I took out a bunch of credit cards and maxed them out at 18, I'm now 21. I had very poor judgement then and now my credit is scared for at least a long time. This is just an example. Now, they say that a 25 year old shouldn't have sex with a 15 year old because of predation. The 25 year old has a lot more "authority" and advantages over the 15 year old and thus is considered rape, because it's widely believed that "people under the age of 18 (and in some states 16/17) can't consent". But theoretically, can't a 40 year old prey on a 19 year old as well due to having advantages that the 19 year old doesn't? I have two theories about this. One side of the fence I am on is that if you know what sex is, and the risks of sex, why can't you consent? Same thing that if you know what a loan is, and know the risks of getting a loan, why can't you consent to the loan? I do know that having sex with actual children is horrible because they have no idea what sex is. Adults that have sex with children 0-13 are fucking disgusting, and there's no doubt about that. But I don't see how a 25 year old can destroy a 15 year old's life the same way an actual violent rapist can. She knew what sex was and she wanted to have it, I don't understand what's the huge problem. Sure it's creepy, but so is a 40 year old with a 19 year old. But on the flip side. Why not raise the age of consent to like, 21? I think there you are fully mature and could definitely even consent to someone as old as 40 or so. This is one side of the fence I kind of stand on. That a person who is under 21 cannot consent to anyone over 30. Because, imo, many people who are under 21 are not much more mature than someone who's 15-17. Basically, my overall premise is that adults that have sex with teenagers who knows what sex is, shouldn't be thrown in jail for 20+ years. Yes, it's creepy and should be frowned upon, but no one should go to jail for a long period of time (maybe even at all?) and end up on the sex offender list for life over it.

I don't think adults that have sex with teenagers(15+) should have harsh prison sentences (20+ years/life on the sex offender list). CMV. Right now, the age of consent is 18. That's age of consent to do anything such as smoke cigarettes, take out loans and sign contracts without an adult, and even in some countries, drink alcohol. They say that a 15-17 year old can't have sex because they can't consent, same reason they can't sign contracts. However, I took out a bunch of credit cards and maxed them out at 18, I'm now 21. I had very poor judgement then and now my credit is scared for at least a long time. This is just an example. Now, they say that a 25 year old shouldn't have sex with a 15 year old because of predation. The 25 year old has a lot more "authority" and advantages over the 15 year old and thus is considered rape, because it's widely believed that "people under the age of 18 (and in some states 16/17) can't consent". But theoretically, can't a 40 year old prey on a 19 year old as well due to having advantages that the 19 year old doesn't? I have two theories about this. One side of the fence I am on is that if you know what sex is, and the risks of sex, why can't you consent? Same thing that if you know what a loan is, and know the risks of getting a loan, why can't you consent to the loan? I do know that having sex with actual children is horrible because they have no idea what sex is. Adults that have sex with children 0-13 are fucking disgusting, and there's no doubt about that. But I don't see how a 25 year old can destroy a 15 year old's life the same way an actual violent rapist can. She knew what sex was and she wanted to have it, I don't understand what's the huge problem. Sure it's creepy, but so is a 40 year old with a 19 year old. But on the flip side. Why not raise the age of consent to like, 21? I think there you are fully mature and could definitely even consent to someone as old as 40 or so. This is one side of the fence I kind of stand on. That a person who is under 21 cannot consent to anyone over 30. Because, imo, many people who are under 21 are not much more mature than someone who's 15-17. Basically, my overall premise is that adults that have sex with teenagers who knows what sex is, shouldn't be thrown in jail for 20+ years. Yes, it's creepy and should be frowned upon, but no one should go to jail for a long period of time (maybe even at all?) and end up on the sex offender list for life over it.

t3_35gmd0

CMV:Adults should be able to create families as they see fit as long as human rights are respected

I read an [article](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/10/when-8-adults-and-3-children-are-a-family.html) about a family living together in a house in Connecticut. 3 couples, 3 children, and 2 single people who consider themselves a family though they are not related by blood. The city issued a cease and desist order saying they had to leave their house. It looks like they might lose the case. I honestly don't understand why this group of people should not be allowed to co-habitate. I come from a large extended family and have lived in a household with close family friends who weren't relatives. I don't really see how this is any different. The article doesn't say anything about this group of folks disrupting the neighborhood. I think that a. this group of people are a family, and b. they should be allowed to stay in their home. Why might I be wrong? _____ > *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:Adults should be able to create families as they see fit as long as human rights are respected. I read an [article](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/10/when-8-adults-and-3-children-are-a-family.html) about a family living together in a house in Connecticut. 3 couples, 3 children, and 2 single people who consider themselves a family though they are not related by blood. The city issued a cease and desist order saying they had to leave their house. It looks like they might lose the case. I honestly don't understand why this group of people should not be allowed to co-habitate. I come from a large extended family and have lived in a household with close family friends who weren't relatives. I don't really see how this is any different. The article doesn't say anything about this group of folks disrupting the neighborhood. I think that a. this group of people are a family, and b. they should be allowed to stay in their home. Why might I be wrong?

t3_4mwmah

CMV: MMA, UFC and PBC should be banned due to their high risks of permanent neurological damage.

For the same reasons that bare-knuckle boxing is illegal for the high-risk of fatal injury, I believe that sports that involve intentionally knocking an opponent unconscious should be banned due to their high risk of permanent brain injury. I think governments should stop sanctioning it or recognizing it in any official capacity, and eventually private practice should be curtailed (reasonably) to discourage additional injuries. It's pretty universally agreed upon that concussions are bad for you. It's about on the same level as using hard drugs if you're letting it happen to you repeatedly. Most of these fights end with someone taking on some amount of brain-damage. Even if it's small, that's going to add up over time. I know that they consent to participation in this sport, but it's still self-harm. When people start cutting themselves or attempting suicide, we make a pretty big deal out of it. We shouldn't just stand by while someone maims themselves slowly. I know that American Football is also criticized for the same thing, but I have a different view on that: Football doesn't incentivise knockouts - small changes in rules and gear improvement could greatly reduce the risks of that sport. Regarding enforcement: I wouldn't want to see these sports criminalized, as we aren't going to actually stop people from punching each other unconscious if they really want to. I would be more interested in delegitimizing it as a sport. Basically: make it illegal to pay anyone for participating in certain styles of fighting. ----- EDIT: Only one Delta awarded to /u/rodiraskol for clearing up my misconceptions about bare-knuckle boxing. It seems that everyone else regards me as a authoritarian, freedom-hating pussy for not regarding the entertainment value of watching men give each other brain-damage over the concern for the health of the participants. Since the rest of the arguments have either been strawmen, attacks on my character and conjecture as to what my other political views must be, I am not awarding any other deltas (unless you can come in with an actual argument that holds water). Clearly I have rustled the jimmies of some MMA/UFC/PBC fans, because a lot of these arguments seem to be quite aggressive. I guess if you can't effectively defend what you support, you might benefit from rethinking your support of it...

CMV: MMA, UFC and PBC should be banned due to their high risks of permanent neurological damage. For the same reasons that bare-knuckle boxing is illegal for the high-risk of fatal injury, I believe that sports that involve intentionally knocking an opponent unconscious should be banned due to their high risk of permanent brain injury. I think governments should stop sanctioning it or recognizing it in any official capacity, and eventually private practice should be curtailed (reasonably) to discourage additional injuries. It's pretty universally agreed upon that concussions are bad for you. It's about on the same level as using hard drugs if you're letting it happen to you repeatedly. Most of these fights end with someone taking on some amount of brain-damage. Even if it's small, that's going to add up over time. I know that they consent to participation in this sport, but it's still self-harm. When people start cutting themselves or attempting suicide, we make a pretty big deal out of it. We shouldn't just stand by while someone maims themselves slowly. I know that American Football is also criticized for the same thing, but I have a different view on that: Football doesn't incentivise knockouts - small changes in rules and gear improvement could greatly reduce the risks of that sport. Regarding enforcement: I wouldn't want to see these sports criminalized, as we aren't going to actually stop people from punching each other unconscious if they really want to. I would be more interested in delegitimizing it as a sport. Basically: make it illegal to pay anyone for participating in certain styles of fighting. ----- EDIT: Only one Delta awarded to /u/rodiraskol for clearing up my misconceptions about bare-knuckle boxing. It seems that everyone else regards me as a authoritarian, freedom-hating pussy for not regarding the entertainment value of watching men give each other brain-damage over the concern for the health of the participants. Since the rest of the arguments have either been strawmen, attacks on my character and conjecture as to what my other political views must be, I am not awarding any other deltas (unless you can come in with an actual argument that holds water). Clearly I have rustled the jimmies of some MMA/UFC/PBC fans, because a lot of these arguments seem to be quite aggressive. I guess if you can't effectively defend what you support, you might benefit from rethinking your support of it...

t3_31lac7

CMV: There is no valid reason for a woman to take her husband's name.

Assuming there won't ever be any children to be had (this is the usual argument for women keeping their name - what will the kids be called?), and also assuming that she does not wish to take her husband's name, there are no logical or otherwise reasons for a woman to change her last name after marriage. I believe it to be an old and outdated tradition, and I don't understand why a mans name and identity are perceived to be more important than a woman's. There is no logical reason for a woman to change her last name to be with a man. She is no longer considered to be his property, and has all the same rights and freedoms as he would prior to marriage. However, most men insist it is degrading or emasculating to take a woman's name. This makes no sense to me. If this is the case, how is it not belittling to a woman for her to take a mans name? Isn't it emasculating to attach your self worth to your last name and the basis of whether or not your wife takes it? Why can't a couple make up new names or both hyphenate or both keep their original surnames? Why have I never met a man who would be willing to do this? Or who has done this? Why are men so adamant on their wife's last name being so connected to how "manly" they are? Time and time again I've tried to understand the rationality behind men thinking their wives should take their name and come to a conclusion - there is no reason. Not even they can think of one.

CMV: There is no valid reason for a woman to take her husband's name. Assuming there won't ever be any children to be had (this is the usual argument for women keeping their name - what will the kids be called?), and also assuming that she does not wish to take her husband's name, there are no logical or otherwise reasons for a woman to change her last name after marriage. I believe it to be an old and outdated tradition, and I don't understand why a mans name and identity are perceived to be more important than a woman's. There is no logical reason for a woman to change her last name to be with a man. She is no longer considered to be his property, and has all the same rights and freedoms as he would prior to marriage. However, most men insist it is degrading or emasculating to take a woman's name. This makes no sense to me. If this is the case, how is it not belittling to a woman for her to take a mans name? Isn't it emasculating to attach your self worth to your last name and the basis of whether or not your wife takes it? Why can't a couple make up new names or both hyphenate or both keep their original surnames? Why have I never met a man who would be willing to do this? Or who has done this? Why are men so adamant on their wife's last name being so connected to how "manly" they are? Time and time again I've tried to understand the rationality behind men thinking their wives should take their name and come to a conclusion - there is no reason. Not even they can think of one.

t3_3574mh

[Mod Post] Vote on whether to keep the fixed header or not!

It seems some people aren't happy with the fixed header we've added as part of the [new CSS](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/351lfm/mod_post_we_have_new_css/), so we decided to hold a vote on it. **[Please vote here!](http://strawpoll.me/4301766)** I'm not sure what time limit to keep on voting, but hopefully it'll be clear what people think. Thanks!

[Mod Post] Vote on whether to keep the fixed header or not!. It seems some people aren't happy with the fixed header we've added as part of the [new CSS](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/351lfm/mod_post_we_have_new_css/), so we decided to hold a vote on it. **[Please vote here!](http://strawpoll.me/4301766)** I'm not sure what time limit to keep on voting, but hopefully it'll be clear what people think. Thanks!

t3_3v1lnl

CMV:murder and attempted murder should be the same crime and charged the same.

I believe that attempted murder should be punishable as murder. I dont believe that the murder being bad at murder, the victim being too strong to die, or another person stepping in and being a hero and saving a life, should have any positive outcome for the attempted murderer. I do not believe that they she be rewarded because something out of their control happened to save the victims life, the intention was the same and the effects on the victim could actually be just as bad if not worse (comma, vegetative state, etc). I read a couple CMVs from years ago and my view was not changed, so just FYI these following points will not CMV: Making the punishment the same will incentivise the murderer to finish the job--i dont believe this is going through anyones mind when they are trying to kill someone and i dont believe it would be a factor in the decission making in th moment. It is easier to call it murder because the person is dead, it is harder to prove something is attempted murder if they didnt actually murder them--they already have ways in court and in the justice system to decide if something was murder, man slauter,mattempted murder, assault, etc...this is why there are courts and jurys, to decide this kind of thing...so the court system would follow the evidence and decide if it was attempted murder or not and if so should be punishable as murder. The effect on the victim wasnt as bad as being dead--- that depends on who you are asking. Being in a comma, a begetative state, paralized, etc could be as bad for some as simply dieing. It can ruin your entire life, relationships, career and can put you in horrible pain, financial ruin and give you next to no quality of life and I do not believe it should be considered a "positive outcome" for the victim nor do i believe this outcome should reward the attempted murderer. Please CMV. Edit: thank you /u/aristotle2600 for at least partially changing my view. The idea that charging ALL attempted murder as murder could cause the court to charge attempted murderers with a lesser crime such as assault is very relevant. However I do think the system should change so that obviously relevant cases of attempted murder COULD be charged as murder would be a good thing, the same way in some cases, minors are charged as adults for crimes. _____ > *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:murder and attempted murder should be the same crime and charged the same. I believe that attempted murder should be punishable as murder. I dont believe that the murder being bad at murder, the victim being too strong to die, or another person stepping in and being a hero and saving a life, should have any positive outcome for the attempted murderer. I do not believe that they she be rewarded because something out of their control happened to save the victims life, the intention was the same and the effects on the victim could actually be just as bad if not worse (comma, vegetative state, etc). I read a couple CMVs from years ago and my view was not changed, so just FYI these following points will not CMV: Making the punishment the same will incentivise the murderer to finish the job--i dont believe this is going through anyones mind when they are trying to kill someone and i dont believe it would be a factor in the decission making in th moment. It is easier to call it murder because the person is dead, it is harder to prove something is attempted murder if they didnt actually murder them--they already have ways in court and in the justice system to decide if something was murder, man slauter,mattempted murder, assault, etc...this is why there are courts and jurys, to decide this kind of thing...so the court system would follow the evidence and decide if it was attempted murder or not and if so should be punishable as murder. The effect on the victim wasnt as bad as being dead--- that depends on who you are asking. Being in a comma, a begetative state, paralized, etc could be as bad for some as simply dieing. It can ruin your entire life, relationships, career and can put you in horrible pain, financial ruin and give you next to no quality of life and I do not believe it should be considered a "positive outcome" for the victim nor do i believe this outcome should reward the attempted murderer. Please CMV. Edit: thank you /u/aristotle2600 for at least partially changing my view. The idea that charging ALL attempted murder as murder could cause the court to charge attempted murderers with a lesser crime such as assault is very relevant. However I do think the system should change so that obviously relevant cases of attempted murder COULD be charged as murder would be a good thing, the same way in some cases, minors are charged as adults for crimes.

t3_6jvamt

CMV: the concept of 'orientalism' (and similar) is invalid and attacks how humans naturally conceive of the world

I do feel that a lot of reddit maligned academic concepts have valid roots, but one concept that I just can't agree with is the academic concept of 'orientalism'. That is: ""Orientalism” is a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S. It often involves seeing Arab culture as exotic, backward, uncivilized, and at times dangerous. " (I don't think Orientalism is limited just to Arabs, but also Asians in general. I have other thoughts on the term 'oriental' itself -- that may be a future CMV!) So basically, orientalism is when we think of the middle east and imagine minarets, harems, flying carpets, belly dancers, genies, veiled dark eyed beauties. It is when we think of Japan and imagine pagodas, serene monks, saumarai warriors and ninjas etc. The exotic and mysterious. (if my conception of orientalism is wrong, please correct me) So Orientalism is bad because it's an exotic caricature, that may not bear much relation to the actual people or place. BUT! Exotic caricatures are how all people think about other peoples. If you think of France, you think of the eiffel tower, tall glamorous women, meen in striped jumpers riding bycicles down winding country lanes. If you think of the UK (where I am from) people imagine men in bowler hats, carrying newspapers and umbrellas, while Big Ben bongs behind them. Oh, and foggy old London Town, even though London hasn't been foggy for 40 years. Apparently Paris has this occidontalism so bad there's an actual syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome To me, 'Orientalism' seems essentially how humans see the world inherently and naturally, and attacking it seems only designed to make people feel bad and set yourself up as superior to them. 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: the concept of 'orientalism' (and similar) is invalid and attacks how humans naturally conceive of the world. I do feel that a lot of reddit maligned academic concepts have valid roots, but one concept that I just can't agree with is the academic concept of 'orientalism'. That is: ""Orientalism” is a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S. It often involves seeing Arab culture as exotic, backward, uncivilized, and at times dangerous. " (I don't think Orientalism is limited just to Arabs, but also Asians in general. I have other thoughts on the term 'oriental' itself -- that may be a future CMV!) So basically, orientalism is when we think of the middle east and imagine minarets, harems, flying carpets, belly dancers, genies, veiled dark eyed beauties. It is when we think of Japan and imagine pagodas, serene monks, saumarai warriors and ninjas etc. The exotic and mysterious. (if my conception of orientalism is wrong, please correct me) So Orientalism is bad because it's an exotic caricature, that may not bear much relation to the actual people or place. BUT! Exotic caricatures are how all people think about other peoples. If you think of France, you think of the eiffel tower, tall glamorous women, meen in striped jumpers riding bycicles down winding country lanes. If you think of the UK (where I am from) people imagine men in bowler hats, carrying newspapers and umbrellas, while Big Ben bongs behind them. Oh, and foggy old London Town, even though London hasn't been foggy for 40 years. Apparently Paris has this occidontalism so bad there's an actual syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome To me, 'Orientalism' seems essentially how humans see the world inherently and naturally, and attacking it seems only designed to make people feel bad and set yourself up as superior to them. CMV!

t3_6ebv1h

CMV: All software should be free/libre

If you don't know, free software is software licensed under any license that respects the users freedom to copy, modify, and distribute source code to others in a completely legal way under the same free license. I am refering to free as in freedom not free as in free beer. I believe that all software should be libre because of the following reasons: 1.) Know exactly what the program does. 2.) Promotes innovation because of the ease of which you can obtain and edit a copy of a piece of software. In other words, not having to reinvent the wheel. 3.) The user does not have to depend on a proprietor to develop the software. If a user wants a change in the program, they can either ask a more technical person to modify it, or modify it themselves. 4.) In *most* cases, [anti-features](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-feature) are not present because the programmers are also the users of the program, and usually program only what the users want. If an anti-feature is present, development can branch off into a separate group without the anti-features. 5.) More likely to have security/privacy because the users can easily see everything that is going on in the program. If a malicious feature is found, other developers from a second group can easily take it out. 6.) Finally, free software promotes programming and design education because a student could find out exactly how a real world program works because of the ease of modification, and ease of access to the source code. One might assume that a computer running on completely free software is either very difficult or impossible. That would be far from the truth. There are several [free operating systems](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html) which only require burning the .iso to a usb stick (which can be easily done by a beginner) and loaded on to a computer. The installation process is at the same level or easier than a Windows or MacOS installation. If you want the software at the low level to be free, that can be achieved by using [libreboot](https://libreboot.org/) and a few simple terminal commands on a supported computer (a relatively large range actually). If you don't feel like you would be able to do this, there are many people who would either do it for you, or walk you through it. You might also assume that using free software is a huge inconvenience. In most cases, that is not true. Firstly, getting used to GNU/Linux is not much different than migrating from one Windows version to another. Yes, I will admit that libre games are lacking, but for the average user, this would not be an issue. For most average users, you could use only programs with a GUI, so being a 1337 bash user is not required. Getting help from someone else for a certain problem is no different than asking for help on a Windows or MacOS machine. Finally, one might assume that making money off of free software is near impossible. That would not be true. Making money can and has been done through donations, merchandise, tech support, or even just distributing the software on a physical device (though not very popular anymore). Change my view! Edit: Thanks for the kind discussion u/HereComesMyDingDong!

CMV: All software should be free/libre. If you don't know, free software is software licensed under any license that respects the users freedom to copy, modify, and distribute source code to others in a completely legal way under the same free license. I am refering to free as in freedom not free as in free beer. I believe that all software should be libre because of the following reasons: 1.) Know exactly what the program does. 2.) Promotes innovation because of the ease of which you can obtain and edit a copy of a piece of software. In other words, not having to reinvent the wheel. 3.) The user does not have to depend on a proprietor to develop the software. If a user wants a change in the program, they can either ask a more technical person to modify it, or modify it themselves. 4.) In *most* cases, [anti-features](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-feature) are not present because the programmers are also the users of the program, and usually program only what the users want. If an anti-feature is present, development can branch off into a separate group without the anti-features. 5.) More likely to have security/privacy because the users can easily see everything that is going on in the program. If a malicious feature is found, other developers from a second group can easily take it out. 6.) Finally, free software promotes programming and design education because a student could find out exactly how a real world program works because of the ease of modification, and ease of access to the source code. One might assume that a computer running on completely free software is either very difficult or impossible. That would be far from the truth. There are several [free operating systems](https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html) which only require burning the .iso to a usb stick (which can be easily done by a beginner) and loaded on to a computer. The installation process is at the same level or easier than a Windows or MacOS installation. If you want the software at the low level to be free, that can be achieved by using [libreboot](https://libreboot.org/) and a few simple terminal commands on a supported computer (a relatively large range actually). If you don't feel like you would be able to do this, there are many people who would either do it for you, or walk you through it. You might also assume that using free software is a huge inconvenience. In most cases, that is not true. Firstly, getting used to GNU/Linux is not much different than migrating from one Windows version to another. Yes, I will admit that libre games are lacking, but for the average user, this would not be an issue. For most average users, you could use only programs with a GUI, so being a 1337 bash user is not required. Getting help from someone else for a certain problem is no different than asking for help on a Windows or MacOS machine. Finally, one might assume that making money off of free software is near impossible. That would not be true. Making money can and has been done through donations, merchandise, tech support, or even just distributing the software on a physical device (though not very popular anymore). Change my view! Edit: Thanks for the kind discussion u/HereComesMyDingDong!

t3_2orvjp

CMV: Napoleon was not a great leader.

Of course, Napoleon did many things for france, it's infrastructure, economy, laws and in general frances future, but it seems like he did nothing for the people as individuals and was in general a douche bag to most people? I don't know if this is a common known fact or not, so i'll just provide some source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI at about 16:40 Zamoyski talks about Napoleon as a person being a douchebag, which reflects on how he treated his people. Even though Andrew talked about the positive sides - what he did to france as a country, it still seems like he did nothing much for individuals living in france back then. _____ > *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: Napoleon was not a great leader. Of course, Napoleon did many things for france, it's infrastructure, economy, laws and in general frances future, but it seems like he did nothing for the people as individuals and was in general a douche bag to most people? I don't know if this is a common known fact or not, so i'll just provide some source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI at about 16:40 Zamoyski talks about Napoleon as a person being a douchebag, which reflects on how he treated his people. Even though Andrew talked about the positive sides - what he did to france as a country, it still seems like he did nothing much for individuals living in france back then.

t3_506yz6

CMV:There is no way that Wesley would have been a better swordsman than Inigo Montoya

After Inigo's father is killed, he devotes his life to training to become the best swordsman ever. According to the 30th anniversary edition, "After ten years of training, Inigo becomes the greatest swordsman of his generation and the only living man to hold the rank of "wizard". In addition, he's using the sword that his father, the greatest sword-maker, crafted for the Six Fingered Man, his best sword ever. Yet Wesley, who has frittered away his time as a cabin-boy, and then with all the distraction of being the Dread Pirate Roberts. Sure, there would be *some* swordplay involved, but it certainly wouldn't have compared to Inigo's training. Wesley beat Inigo Montoya? Inconceivable. (Sorry) _____ > *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 no way that Wesley would have been a better swordsman than Inigo Montoya. After Inigo's father is killed, he devotes his life to training to become the best swordsman ever. According to the 30th anniversary edition, "After ten years of training, Inigo becomes the greatest swordsman of his generation and the only living man to hold the rank of "wizard". In addition, he's using the sword that his father, the greatest sword-maker, crafted for the Six Fingered Man, his best sword ever. Yet Wesley, who has frittered away his time as a cabin-boy, and then with all the distraction of being the Dread Pirate Roberts. Sure, there would be *some* swordplay involved, but it certainly wouldn't have compared to Inigo's training. Wesley beat Inigo Montoya? Inconceivable. (Sorry)

t3_2llh8i

CMV: Social security numbers (SSN) are not sensitive and their use should be unrestricted.

There has been much fear about identity theft leading to restrictions on the use of social security numbers (SSN) by government and business. There are laws in various states that limit the collection and use of this identification number. But an SSN is no more sensitive than your name. It is simply a method of identifying an individual. The problem with identify theft is not that others have your personal information but how they can make use of it to open new accounts. Identity theft would be less of a problem if the process of creating new credit card accounts was more secure. When you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report. When you make purchases using a credit card they should only be sent to verified addresses. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Social security numbers (SSN) are not sensitive and their use should be unrestricted. There has been much fear about identity theft leading to restrictions on the use of social security numbers (SSN) by government and business. There are laws in various states that limit the collection and use of this identification number. But an SSN is no more sensitive than your name. It is simply a method of identifying an individual. The problem with identify theft is not that others have your personal information but how they can make use of it to open new accounts. Identity theft would be less of a problem if the process of creating new credit card accounts was more secure. When you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report. When you make purchases using a credit card they should only be sent to verified addresses.

t3_5e3pqo

CMV:The 'social contract' is a farce.

The entire concept of the social contract is the following: A person chooses to give up certain freedoms and rights. In exchange, they gain the protection of the government in addition to other services. I have two major issues with this: 1. A contract, literally or metaphorically, requires consent. A person born into citizenship is both unaware and cannot consent to anything. 2. The US government has established a precedent in that they have no duty to protect US citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html Given these two factors, the entire concept of the 'social contract' seems like a load of nonsense. _____ > *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 'social contract' is a farce. The entire concept of the social contract is the following: A person chooses to give up certain freedoms and rights. In exchange, they gain the protection of the government in addition to other services. I have two major issues with this: 1. A contract, literally or metaphorically, requires consent. A person born into citizenship is both unaware and cannot consent to anything. 2. The US government has established a precedent in that they have no duty to protect US citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html Given these two factors, the entire concept of the 'social contract' seems like a load of nonsense.

t3_5m8hjm

CMV: As a wealthy liberal, I will take delight in the event of the repeal of the ACA aka Obamacare. #MakeAmericaSickAgain

The Republican party seems determined to and may indeed repeal the ACA aka Obamacare. In principle the motivation is that costs are too expensive due to collective insurance, and that in general the government should not exist except to protect property and lower taxes, and no one should pay for others. For years, they have only focused on partisan opposition. For years there has been no viable alternative plan that addresses actually covering the population. The philosophy necessarily means that if youre poor, youre fucked or at least youve got tough luck. As a wealthy liberal, I believe in equal opportunity and building a fair and healthy country with healthy citizens. I put my money where my mouth is: I can and do easily afford the highest level of private healthcare for myself. I could stop there and say "fuck you I got mine" and watch people suffer, but instead I happily elect to pay higher rates and taxes so that other less-wealthy people can receive the healthcare they need. And I believe it will produce a better society in the long run. The states that had the highest obamacare enrollment are the ones voting for the candidate who is going to repeal it from them http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-won-trump-highest-obamacare-enrollment/story?id=44344734 So watching poorer Republican and conservative voters, particularly in poor states with poorer economies vote against their own interests, I can only shake my head and chuckle. I am willing to pay for your healthcare that you need more than I do, but when you bite the hand that feeds you after I go to substantial lengths at my own expense with my vote, energy, and money to help you, I'm going to take some small delight and amusement that you're screwing yourself. It's like watching a teenager get a face tattoo, or take on a ton of credit card debt. I'm trying to help you, but you're only hurting yourself and those around you. Make America Sick Again! **Note:** This amusement does not extend to the situation of those Republican or conservative or liberal voters in rural poor states that believe in the ACA and are getting screwed by their shortsighted, shitty colleagues. Yes, healthcare is hard to solve and the ACA is not an ideal solution. The situation in the US is economically and socially complex. *This view is largely limited to the Republican, conservative principle of not providing healthcare for everyone and stubborn partisan ideology that fucks over themselves.* CMV ya'll _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As a wealthy liberal, I will take delight in the event of the repeal of the ACA aka Obamacare. #MakeAmericaSickAgain. The Republican party seems determined to and may indeed repeal the ACA aka Obamacare. In principle the motivation is that costs are too expensive due to collective insurance, and that in general the government should not exist except to protect property and lower taxes, and no one should pay for others. For years, they have only focused on partisan opposition. For years there has been no viable alternative plan that addresses actually covering the population. The philosophy necessarily means that if youre poor, youre fucked or at least youve got tough luck. As a wealthy liberal, I believe in equal opportunity and building a fair and healthy country with healthy citizens. I put my money where my mouth is: I can and do easily afford the highest level of private healthcare for myself. I could stop there and say "fuck you I got mine" and watch people suffer, but instead I happily elect to pay higher rates and taxes so that other less-wealthy people can receive the healthcare they need. And I believe it will produce a better society in the long run. The states that had the highest obamacare enrollment are the ones voting for the candidate who is going to repeal it from them http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-won-trump-highest-obamacare-enrollment/story?id=44344734 So watching poorer Republican and conservative voters, particularly in poor states with poorer economies vote against their own interests, I can only shake my head and chuckle. I am willing to pay for your healthcare that you need more than I do, but when you bite the hand that feeds you after I go to substantial lengths at my own expense with my vote, energy, and money to help you, I'm going to take some small delight and amusement that you're screwing yourself. It's like watching a teenager get a face tattoo, or take on a ton of credit card debt. I'm trying to help you, but you're only hurting yourself and those around you. Make America Sick Again! **Note:** This amusement does not extend to the situation of those Republican or conservative or liberal voters in rural poor states that believe in the ACA and are getting screwed by their shortsighted, shitty colleagues. Yes, healthcare is hard to solve and the ACA is not an ideal solution. The situation in the US is economically and socially complex. *This view is largely limited to the Republican, conservative principle of not providing healthcare for everyone and stubborn partisan ideology that fucks over themselves.* CMV ya'll

t3_2v94eq

CMV: I don't believe Climate Change is science.

Let my start off by saying I don't know enough to make an informed view on if anthropogenic climate change is happening, however that isn't what this post is about. I don't believe the study of climate change can be considered science because it is not [falsifiable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). Karl Popper argued that if a scientific theory is not falsifiable it is pseudoscience because it cannot be proven untrue. When Einstein proposed his theory of relativity he argued it could be falsified if the either principle of relativity, the constancy of the speed of light, or time dilation could be shown to be false. Several subsequent experiment proved these prediction and the theory of relativity became accepted as "true". Anthropogenic climate change cannot be falsified. Most climate models predicition have been [wrong](http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/) (I apologize for the source). I remember in 2005 every climate scientist was claiming we would have more hurricanes as the Earth warms and then a few years later when the number of hurricanes declined they claimed a warming Earth would reduce the number of hurricanes. What I'm getting at is that no matter how many times the models and prediction are falsified they are simply revised to match the new data. The underlying theory and method are new questioned. Even if I were to show that the Earth is cooling that could fit under the banner of climate change. There is a reason global warming changed to climate change. The Earth cannot be controlled like a science experiment. Even if the Earth is warming it is impossible to determine if humans have caused the change in climate, or the sun, or the Earth's tilt, or a combination of all of them. It's difficult to know if changes in CO2 are a leading or trailing indication of warming. Even the raw data is manipulated in various ways to fix error but it also could work to confirm the result. No matter what the raw data shows, it can be shoehorned to fit into the global warming theory. Even the lack of warming over the last 15 years can be [explained away] (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.47050) as a statsitical anomaly. Unless there is an experiment that could be conducted that disproved climate change it is pseudoscience. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe Climate Change is science. Let my start off by saying I don't know enough to make an informed view on if anthropogenic climate change is happening, however that isn't what this post is about. I don't believe the study of climate change can be considered science because it is not [falsifiable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). Karl Popper argued that if a scientific theory is not falsifiable it is pseudoscience because it cannot be proven untrue. When Einstein proposed his theory of relativity he argued it could be falsified if the either principle of relativity, the constancy of the speed of light, or time dilation could be shown to be false. Several subsequent experiment proved these prediction and the theory of relativity became accepted as "true". Anthropogenic climate change cannot be falsified. Most climate models predicition have been [wrong](http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/) (I apologize for the source). I remember in 2005 every climate scientist was claiming we would have more hurricanes as the Earth warms and then a few years later when the number of hurricanes declined they claimed a warming Earth would reduce the number of hurricanes. What I'm getting at is that no matter how many times the models and prediction are falsified they are simply revised to match the new data. The underlying theory and method are new questioned. Even if I were to show that the Earth is cooling that could fit under the banner of climate change. There is a reason global warming changed to climate change. The Earth cannot be controlled like a science experiment. Even if the Earth is warming it is impossible to determine if humans have caused the change in climate, or the sun, or the Earth's tilt, or a combination of all of them. It's difficult to know if changes in CO2 are a leading or trailing indication of warming. Even the raw data is manipulated in various ways to fix error but it also could work to confirm the result. No matter what the raw data shows, it can be shoehorned to fit into the global warming theory. Even the lack of warming over the last 15 years can be [explained away] (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.47050) as a statsitical anomaly. Unless there is an experiment that could be conducted that disproved climate change it is pseudoscience.

t3_2rtxcw

CMV: The pledge of allegiance should be removed from public schools in the US because it violates both freedom *of* and freedom *from* religion.

#EDIT: View changed. The atheist objection to the pledge of allegiance is not new. "Under God," the phrase added in the Red Scare, is promoting a belief in a deity in a government establishment, school. What hasn't been brought up as often is the objection by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is against their beliefs to pledge allegiance to the flag. To go further, under God promotes the belief in monotheism, excluding polytheists. Removing the pledge would not violate the religious freedom of the Christian supporters of the pledge because there is nothing in their doctrine promoting pledging allegiance to a symbol of government.

CMV: The pledge of allegiance should be removed from public schools in the US because it violates both freedom *of* and freedom *from* religion. #EDIT: View changed. The atheist objection to the pledge of allegiance is not new. "Under God," the phrase added in the Red Scare, is promoting a belief in a deity in a government establishment, school. What hasn't been brought up as often is the objection by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is against their beliefs to pledge allegiance to the flag. To go further, under God promotes the belief in monotheism, excluding polytheists. Removing the pledge would not violate the religious freedom of the Christian supporters of the pledge because there is nothing in their doctrine promoting pledging allegiance to a symbol of government.

t3_27jssu

CMV: GMOs are dangerous for consumption and it's irresponsible for the government to allow large corporations feed them to an ill informed population.

I don't think GMOs are good for people or the environment. They haven't been shown to alleviate the world wide demand for food and they have been banned in a lot of other developed countries. The only studies done by independent scientists that I've seen have shown ill effects of GMOs such as rats with deteriorating organs and female rats giving birth to sterile pups. I think it's irresponsible for the FDA to not require labeling of GMOs on products. If it isn't harmful why is it being hidden? Nothing about GMOs has been shown to be better for you (or even good for you), better for the environment, or better to satiate world hunger. But there has been an increase in chronic illness in Americans and illnesses starting at younger ages. GMO chemicals have been found in the blood of fetuses and have been linked to tumors and the growing population of those with gluten related disorders. So, change my view! Why are GMOs safe to eat?

CMV: GMOs are dangerous for consumption and it's irresponsible for the government to allow large corporations feed them to an ill informed population. I don't think GMOs are good for people or the environment. They haven't been shown to alleviate the world wide demand for food and they have been banned in a lot of other developed countries. The only studies done by independent scientists that I've seen have shown ill effects of GMOs such as rats with deteriorating organs and female rats giving birth to sterile pups. I think it's irresponsible for the FDA to not require labeling of GMOs on products. If it isn't harmful why is it being hidden? Nothing about GMOs has been shown to be better for you (or even good for you), better for the environment, or better to satiate world hunger. But there has been an increase in chronic illness in Americans and illnesses starting at younger ages. GMO chemicals have been found in the blood of fetuses and have been linked to tumors and the growing population of those with gluten related disorders. So, change my view! Why are GMOs safe to eat?

t3_5fd4dn

CMV: Nearly all problems in history are caused by the human obsession with categorization

While we can say "money causes all the problems! Look at the wars for oil!" or "religion causes the problems! Look at the crusades!" and so on, these things are true but I believe it all stems from our innate "desire" (if I can call it that) to categorize things. What I mean by this is that essentially, everyone puts a divide between themselves and others through certain artificial grouping methods, allowing a disconnect which ultimately leads to acting unfavorably towards each other. For example, a war for oil might stem from differing political beliefs, and because they're from x country, you feel no (or far less) sympathy for those people. Even though we're all the same people, we have this man-made concept of a "country" to divide us and disconnect us from others. Same thing with crusades - all part of the same human race, but the man-made concept of religion again puts a disconnect between people and ultimately leads to armed conflict. There's the artificial divide of politics - I looked at all Trump supporters like they were assholes, racist, etc. Not that I necessarily believed *literally every last one of them* was racist, but categorizing them into a big group which generally shared certain qualities. Then I realized a large majority of my family, whom I've loved my whole life, are Trump supporters and we're really not all that different. Similar idea with racism/sexism/xenophobia/etc. - generalizing a big group into a set of core characteristics. I also thought I'd never hang out with some redneck who chews and drives a big obnoxious truck and goes hunting every weekend or whatever. I'm in college right now for Computer Science, and I made a friend this year in working on a project together. He's smart, gets his work done, etc. no complaints about him - but then I realized when he was talking to me once that he was exactly the type of person I thought I'd never be friends with. We're similar in so many ways, and had I known what he was like from the start, it might have warped my perception of him. There's also global warming. The average person just looks at it like it's the big bad companies causing all the problems, or they think it's China and it's pollution, or whatever the cause, and disassociate themselves from the problem, never (or rarely) making lifestyle changes to improve it. They put themselves in a separate group from "global warming causers" and brush it off like someone else will take care of it. Or even something I saw recently - it was some Facebook video talking about how people with dimples are on average more popular or better looking or something along those lines. Of course this is not nearly as "big" as a war, but it's a good example of how "low down" this goes - putting a divide between people with dimples and people without. Making you feel like you're "superior" because you have dimples. (I put superior in quotes because I think that's a bit strong but it's the same sentiment) We are constantly being divided by preconceived notions of beauty/looks/actions, man made concepts like religion/country/politics despite being fairly similar in most ways, and ultimately it leads to virtually any problem in history. 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: Nearly all problems in history are caused by the human obsession with categorization. While we can say "money causes all the problems! Look at the wars for oil!" or "religion causes the problems! Look at the crusades!" and so on, these things are true but I believe it all stems from our innate "desire" (if I can call it that) to categorize things. What I mean by this is that essentially, everyone puts a divide between themselves and others through certain artificial grouping methods, allowing a disconnect which ultimately leads to acting unfavorably towards each other. For example, a war for oil might stem from differing political beliefs, and because they're from x country, you feel no (or far less) sympathy for those people. Even though we're all the same people, we have this man-made concept of a "country" to divide us and disconnect us from others. Same thing with crusades - all part of the same human race, but the man-made concept of religion again puts a disconnect between people and ultimately leads to armed conflict. There's the artificial divide of politics - I looked at all Trump supporters like they were assholes, racist, etc. Not that I necessarily believed *literally every last one of them* was racist, but categorizing them into a big group which generally shared certain qualities. Then I realized a large majority of my family, whom I've loved my whole life, are Trump supporters and we're really not all that different. Similar idea with racism/sexism/xenophobia/etc. - generalizing a big group into a set of core characteristics. I also thought I'd never hang out with some redneck who chews and drives a big obnoxious truck and goes hunting every weekend or whatever. I'm in college right now for Computer Science, and I made a friend this year in working on a project together. He's smart, gets his work done, etc. no complaints about him - but then I realized when he was talking to me once that he was exactly the type of person I thought I'd never be friends with. We're similar in so many ways, and had I known what he was like from the start, it might have warped my perception of him. There's also global warming. The average person just looks at it like it's the big bad companies causing all the problems, or they think it's China and it's pollution, or whatever the cause, and disassociate themselves from the problem, never (or rarely) making lifestyle changes to improve it. They put themselves in a separate group from "global warming causers" and brush it off like someone else will take care of it. Or even something I saw recently - it was some Facebook video talking about how people with dimples are on average more popular or better looking or something along those lines. Of course this is not nearly as "big" as a war, but it's a good example of how "low down" this goes - putting a divide between people with dimples and people without. Making you feel like you're "superior" because you have dimples. (I put superior in quotes because I think that's a bit strong but it's the same sentiment) We are constantly being divided by preconceived notions of beauty/looks/actions, man made concepts like religion/country/politics despite being fairly similar in most ways, and ultimately it leads to virtually any problem in history. CMV.

t3_41hjib

CMV: Libertarians who oppose child pornography and prostitution are contradicting themselves

One of the major tenets of libertarianism is the belief that the government should not regulate private businesses beyond preventing fraud, theft, and violence. Libertarians, from what I've seen, are generally opposed to laws that prevent businesses from hiring children. They are also opposed to laws against pornography and prostitution. If you're in favor of child labor *and* pornography, then you are logically in favor of child pornography. If you're in favor of child labor and prostitution, you're logically in favor of child prostitution. _____ > *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: Libertarians who oppose child pornography and prostitution are contradicting themselves. One of the major tenets of libertarianism is the belief that the government should not regulate private businesses beyond preventing fraud, theft, and violence. Libertarians, from what I've seen, are generally opposed to laws that prevent businesses from hiring children. They are also opposed to laws against pornography and prostitution. If you're in favor of child labor *and* pornography, then you are logically in favor of child pornography. If you're in favor of child labor and prostitution, you're logically in favor of child prostitution.

t3_21ypsk

CMV:Me think Grog should switch cave with me.

Grog no hunt good like me. Grog just lay around and rub sticks together like he do work. He beat rocks into funny shape and roll them around. Grog say thing like "This going to be big thing one day". Me think that Grog just too lazy to work, but still have big cave. Grog have no woman or young Grogs to take care of. Me think that Grog should switch cave since me do more. Me strong. Bring big mammoth home every day. Me fight bear like nothing. Grog not even big. Grog have small arm and funny head. Grog stand weird too. He no bend like rest of us. He make strange word we no understand. Me think he not even like us to begin with. He just wonder into group one day. Him say there more like Grog, but they get mad at Grog to, so he leave. Me think Grog not born right. Maybe Mamma Grog eat some bad berries, make Grog come out wrong. Me have woman, need more room. Grog not. TL;DR: Grog not work hard enough for big cave. Me think Grog should give me cave. _____ > *Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)*** *about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through* ***[our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***.

CMV:Me think Grog should switch cave with me. Grog no hunt good like me. Grog just lay around and rub sticks together like he do work. He beat rocks into funny shape and roll them around. Grog say thing like "This going to be big thing one day". Me think that Grog just too lazy to work, but still have big cave. Grog have no woman or young Grogs to take care of. Me think that Grog should switch cave since me do more. Me strong. Bring big mammoth home every day. Me fight bear like nothing. Grog not even big. Grog have small arm and funny head. Grog stand weird too. He no bend like rest of us. He make strange word we no understand. Me think he not even like us to begin with. He just wonder into group one day. Him say there more like Grog, but they get mad at Grog to, so he leave. Me think Grog not born right. Maybe Mamma Grog eat some bad berries, make Grog come out wrong. Me have woman, need more room. Grog not. TL;DR: Grog not work hard enough for big cave. Me think Grog should give me cave.

t3_2dq3s3

CMV: If hashtag campaigns weren't extremely lucrative and effective, businesses would not be consistently using them.

They are virtually of no cost to implement, can reach tens of millions of people directly and indirectly, and act as an extremely impacting tool by itself or in a more complex marketing scheme. http://mwpartners.com/hashtagcampaigns http://mashable.com/2012/03/23/twitter-hashtag-campaigns/ As you can see and witness businesses love to market via Twitter. It gives them a powerful avenue to keep themselves in your eye. If these campaigns or involvements on social media were as lackluster and boring as people like to make out, then marketing sectors in multiple billion-dollar companies would scrap involvement. But they don't. You see hashtag campaigns from companies all the time. Why would I trust someone denying they work when I keep seeing companies show their willingness to employ social media to increase profit? Why would I take your word over Nike's marketing team? This is mostly in response to people saying how the ALS challenge is nonsense and doesn't do anything good. Which I can also guarantee by showing donation numbers is false. _____ > *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 hashtag campaigns weren't extremely lucrative and effective, businesses would not be consistently using them. They are virtually of no cost to implement, can reach tens of millions of people directly and indirectly, and act as an extremely impacting tool by itself or in a more complex marketing scheme. http://mwpartners.com/hashtagcampaigns http://mashable.com/2012/03/23/twitter-hashtag-campaigns/ As you can see and witness businesses love to market via Twitter. It gives them a powerful avenue to keep themselves in your eye. If these campaigns or involvements on social media were as lackluster and boring as people like to make out, then marketing sectors in multiple billion-dollar companies would scrap involvement. But they don't. You see hashtag campaigns from companies all the time. Why would I trust someone denying they work when I keep seeing companies show their willingness to employ social media to increase profit? Why would I take your word over Nike's marketing team? This is mostly in response to people saying how the ALS challenge is nonsense and doesn't do anything good. Which I can also guarantee by showing donation numbers is false.

t3_310r6w

CMV: I shouldn't have to affect my quality of life to save somebody that I don't know by donating an organ.

Hello CMV, I just stumbled upon [this](http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27817892/colorado-man-uses-truck-help-find-kidney-donor) post while browsing the front page, and I felt something that I myself couldn't explain. I understand it is up to you whether you want to donate your organs to save somebody's life, but I sincerely can't see the point in it. You mean to tell me that I will donate let's say a kidney, or a lung, one of the organs that come in pairs. If I were to get some kind of disease or get in an accident and the remaining one was damaged I "could" have been fine IF I had my other one left. (I know it is a long shot but I'm a worse case scenario kind of person.) I will now be in the list for organ donations if I happen to survive the ordeal. There is no guarantee that I will receive a donation in time for me to survive. Not only this, but what if the organ that I donated gets rejected by the body of the person, that would be a complete loss, unless there is another use for that organ that I am not aware of. I have also been told (not 100% sure) that your quality of life is not as great when you are trying to function with one kidney or lung, and that you have to change your diet and you have to limit the amount of activity/exercise you can do. I understand saving a life can be something amazing, and being a O blood type I donate blood when I am able to even if it doesn't help it does give you a sense of satisfaction. It is just that I believe that the risks outweigh the benefits, I might just be greedy but that's why I am here. Thank you for your time. Edit 1: I also forgot to mention, I've tried changing my own view by asking myself: "What if it was me/family/friend?" But that hasn't worked, I would prefer my family/friends to live a long healthy life than give them the chance of something going wrong if I needed an organ, and I would definitely try to donate an organ if they were in trouble. But right now I'm talking about helping a stranger, somebody that I don't know. _____ > *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 shouldn't have to affect my quality of life to save somebody that I don't know by donating an organ. Hello CMV, I just stumbled upon [this](http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27817892/colorado-man-uses-truck-help-find-kidney-donor) post while browsing the front page, and I felt something that I myself couldn't explain. I understand it is up to you whether you want to donate your organs to save somebody's life, but I sincerely can't see the point in it. You mean to tell me that I will donate let's say a kidney, or a lung, one of the organs that come in pairs. If I were to get some kind of disease or get in an accident and the remaining one was damaged I "could" have been fine IF I had my other one left. (I know it is a long shot but I'm a worse case scenario kind of person.) I will now be in the list for organ donations if I happen to survive the ordeal. There is no guarantee that I will receive a donation in time for me to survive. Not only this, but what if the organ that I donated gets rejected by the body of the person, that would be a complete loss, unless there is another use for that organ that I am not aware of. I have also been told (not 100% sure) that your quality of life is not as great when you are trying to function with one kidney or lung, and that you have to change your diet and you have to limit the amount of activity/exercise you can do. I understand saving a life can be something amazing, and being a O blood type I donate blood when I am able to even if it doesn't help it does give you a sense of satisfaction. It is just that I believe that the risks outweigh the benefits, I might just be greedy but that's why I am here. Thank you for your time. Edit 1: I also forgot to mention, I've tried changing my own view by asking myself: "What if it was me/family/friend?" But that hasn't worked, I would prefer my family/friends to live a long healthy life than give them the chance of something going wrong if I needed an organ, and I would definitely try to donate an organ if they were in trouble. But right now I'm talking about helping a stranger, somebody that I don't know.

t3_1ftl1b

I think the federal government should privatize the US Postal Service. CMV

USPS is loosing huge amounts of money for our government and it's a relic from an era when nothing else like it existed. Now with UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc, our federal government could save tens of billions of dollars a year by selling part or all of the USPS. (Up until last year, New Zealand did this -- http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-post-ends-courier-joint-venture-dhl-wb-121981.) While the USPS has been, in my experience, as reliable as those private companies, UPS and FedEx are generally more pleasant to deal with and to visit in person. I realize there would be job losses, but those fired employees could potentially be hired up by whatever company buys the Postal Service. I also realize it would mean the death of one of America's institutions, but the USPS replaced the Pony Express, and now email has replaced the need for USPS. Change my view.

I think the federal government should privatize the US Postal Service. CMV. USPS is loosing huge amounts of money for our government and it's a relic from an era when nothing else like it existed. Now with UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc, our federal government could save tens of billions of dollars a year by selling part or all of the USPS. (Up until last year, New Zealand did this -- http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-post-ends-courier-joint-venture-dhl-wb-121981.) While the USPS has been, in my experience, as reliable as those private companies, UPS and FedEx are generally more pleasant to deal with and to visit in person. I realize there would be job losses, but those fired employees could potentially be hired up by whatever company buys the Postal Service. I also realize it would mean the death of one of America's institutions, but the USPS replaced the Pony Express, and now email has replaced the need for USPS. Change my view.

t3_4x0556

CMV: People who complain about online "sharking" would do the same thing if they got the chance.

Online, there is a method of trading commonly used on Steam and other games with trading known as "Sharking". It is not against any rules, it is simply lying about the price of something whilst the other person agrees. It is seen as immoral due to them not knowing what they are losing. Sure, using more unorthodox methods (dont trade THAT guy with a good offer hes a hacker!) are very bad but the average person would completely shark somebody if they offered their 1000 dollar item for a 20 cent item. CMV reddit! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People who complain about online "sharking" would do the same thing if they got the chance. Online, there is a method of trading commonly used on Steam and other games with trading known as "Sharking". It is not against any rules, it is simply lying about the price of something whilst the other person agrees. It is seen as immoral due to them not knowing what they are losing. Sure, using more unorthodox methods (dont trade THAT guy with a good offer hes a hacker!) are very bad but the average person would completely shark somebody if they offered their 1000 dollar item for a 20 cent item. CMV reddit!

t3_2nt7r7

CMV: Financed ownership and tenancy are virtually the same.

(US) If you buy a house or other real estate property through a loan from a bank, you're still just a tenant. You don't own it. You're not the owner unless you build it or buy it free and clear. Banks try to brainwash home "buyers" into thinking that they'll be the owners as soon as they have approval and title and start making payments. The security incentive to "buy" a piece of real estate, as opposed to renting, is virtually nil. I've had people try to explain it to me, but I've failed to see how there is any advantage to buying over renting unless you buy the whole thing. It seems to actually be less secure and more complicated. When I tell people it seems it would be better to save up and actually, literally buy a house if that's what you want, they just tell me it's not how the world works. I know I'm being inarticulate and conspicuously ignorant in this post, but I never take "That's (not) how the world works" at face value. _____ > *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: Financed ownership and tenancy are virtually the same. (US) If you buy a house or other real estate property through a loan from a bank, you're still just a tenant. You don't own it. You're not the owner unless you build it or buy it free and clear. Banks try to brainwash home "buyers" into thinking that they'll be the owners as soon as they have approval and title and start making payments. The security incentive to "buy" a piece of real estate, as opposed to renting, is virtually nil. I've had people try to explain it to me, but I've failed to see how there is any advantage to buying over renting unless you buy the whole thing. It seems to actually be less secure and more complicated. When I tell people it seems it would be better to save up and actually, literally buy a house if that's what you want, they just tell me it's not how the world works. I know I'm being inarticulate and conspicuously ignorant in this post, but I never take "That's (not) how the world works" at face value.

t3_3gewqw

CMV: Arby's is amazing, and by far the most underrated fast food.

I've always been a huge Arby's fan. In my mind, Arby's stands head and shoulders above virtually every other fast food option. I think their food is fresh, original, flavorful, and affordable. If most people gave it an honest chance, they would like it. I recently realized how poor of a reputation Arby's has when [Comedy Central released a super-cut of all the Jon Stewart Arby's jokes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/08/07/how-arbys-came-to-embrace-jon-stewarts-jabs-and-even-created-a-sandwich-in-his-honor/). Conan O'Brien has had [his own Arby's gag going for over a decade](http://teamcoco.com/jokes/tag/6360-arbys), at one point earning himself a gag "free Arby's for life" card due to the sheer volume of on-air Arby's mentions. The main criticism of these comedians is that the food is artificial, stomach busting, mystery meat. And I think anyone who's eaten at Arby's ever knows that that's just not true. The food is great, it doesn't taste fast-foody at all, and most of it is downright mouth watering. I remain thoroughly convinced that, if everyone could try Arby's without all the marketing bias of a lifetime of anti-Arby's jokes, they would come away loving it. It's hard to demonstrate taste with writing, but let me give you the next best thing, pictures. Note, all real photos, no promotional images. [Though do have a look at the promotional photos](http://arbys.com/the-meats) #It's not just the curly fries. - [Look at this god damn brisket sandwich](http://i.imgur.com/3l0yMEr.jpg). - [Look at this juicy beef and cheddar](http://i.imgur.com/hOWQMc0.jpg). - [Look at these giant ass onion rings](http://i.imgur.com/sXTePJy.jpg). - [Look at this god damn steak sandwich](http://i.imgur.com/9fUTXOI.jpg) - [Fine, yeah, the curly fries are awesome](http://i.imgur.com/BMOQERz.jpg) - [And yes, the meat mountain does exist, though I've never ordered it](https://www.google.com/search?q=arby%27s+curly+fries&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1375&bih=712&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIzcCQ7q-dxwIVSIoNCh0TRQiT#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=arby%27s+meat+mountain)

CMV: Arby's is amazing, and by far the most underrated fast food. I've always been a huge Arby's fan. In my mind, Arby's stands head and shoulders above virtually every other fast food option. I think their food is fresh, original, flavorful, and affordable. If most people gave it an honest chance, they would like it. I recently realized how poor of a reputation Arby's has when [Comedy Central released a super-cut of all the Jon Stewart Arby's jokes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/08/07/how-arbys-came-to-embrace-jon-stewarts-jabs-and-even-created-a-sandwich-in-his-honor/). Conan O'Brien has had [his own Arby's gag going for over a decade](http://teamcoco.com/jokes/tag/6360-arbys), at one point earning himself a gag "free Arby's for life" card due to the sheer volume of on-air Arby's mentions. The main criticism of these comedians is that the food is artificial, stomach busting, mystery meat. And I think anyone who's eaten at Arby's ever knows that that's just not true. The food is great, it doesn't taste fast-foody at all, and most of it is downright mouth watering. I remain thoroughly convinced that, if everyone could try Arby's without all the marketing bias of a lifetime of anti-Arby's jokes, they would come away loving it. It's hard to demonstrate taste with writing, but let me give you the next best thing, pictures. Note, all real photos, no promotional images. [Though do have a look at the promotional photos](http://arbys.com/the-meats) #It's not just the curly fries. - [Look at this god damn brisket sandwich](http://i.imgur.com/3l0yMEr.jpg). - [Look at this juicy beef and cheddar](http://i.imgur.com/hOWQMc0.jpg). - [Look at these giant ass onion rings](http://i.imgur.com/sXTePJy.jpg). - [Look at this god damn steak sandwich](http://i.imgur.com/9fUTXOI.jpg) - [Fine, yeah, the curly fries are awesome](http://i.imgur.com/BMOQERz.jpg) - [And yes, the meat mountain does exist, though I've never ordered it](https://www.google.com/search?q=arby%27s+curly+fries&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1375&bih=712&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIzcCQ7q-dxwIVSIoNCh0TRQiT#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=arby%27s+meat+mountain)

t3_5obia9

CMV: UBI would not be successful in the United States because of various reasons.

As I see the idea of a Universal Basic Income on the rise among countries in Europe and even some congressmen I started to become startled. As I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I wonder how the cost would be determined and where that money would be obtained. Obviously, the first word that comes to mind is taxes. The second idea that comes to mind is abuse. I have seen and known many people who have taken advantage of the current installments of Government Welfare and different programs. Personally, I believe that people in low income areas may take this and use it as their main income and not be MORE encouraged to work, but less. Also what would motivate people who may have lost their job to pursue a job when they are making a base income although it is low. I know a few people who have gone on unemployment, find out it lasts at least 6 months, and sit on that for 5 months and then start looking for jobs. Another worry that I have is among drug addicts and the use of their UBI for the substance of their choice. There are a few other aspects but these are the most pressing and I would like to believe that this would be beneficial but I feel that people are just too naturally greedy to have this be successful on a national level. Edit: My view on the abuse and the public health issue has been, rather extremely quickly haha, has been changed and no longer under consideration. I would love for someone to go into an explanation on how the cost would be considered and the effect on taxes. Thanks guys! _____ > *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: UBI would not be successful in the United States because of various reasons. As I see the idea of a Universal Basic Income on the rise among countries in Europe and even some congressmen I started to become startled. As I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I wonder how the cost would be determined and where that money would be obtained. Obviously, the first word that comes to mind is taxes. The second idea that comes to mind is abuse. I have seen and known many people who have taken advantage of the current installments of Government Welfare and different programs. Personally, I believe that people in low income areas may take this and use it as their main income and not be MORE encouraged to work, but less. Also what would motivate people who may have lost their job to pursue a job when they are making a base income although it is low. I know a few people who have gone on unemployment, find out it lasts at least 6 months, and sit on that for 5 months and then start looking for jobs. Another worry that I have is among drug addicts and the use of their UBI for the substance of their choice. There are a few other aspects but these are the most pressing and I would like to believe that this would be beneficial but I feel that people are just too naturally greedy to have this be successful on a national level. Edit: My view on the abuse and the public health issue has been, rather extremely quickly haha, has been changed and no longer under consideration. I would love for someone to go into an explanation on how the cost would be considered and the effect on taxes. Thanks guys!

t3_1l7ccx

I think non-professional athletes should be able to profit from selling merchandise and their signature. CMV

Why do I bring this up? Johnny Manziel. If you're unfamiliar with who that is, he's the quarterback for the Texas A&M college football team, The Aggies. [Here](http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/johnny-manziel-football-autograph-paid-suspension-rule-texas-am-aggies/) is what I'm talking about. It makes absolutely no sense why he can't sell jerseys, shirts, etc. with his signature. Why is it that I (a nobody) could legally sell a hat I signed, if someone wanted to buy it? I agree that these kids shouldn't be paid to play college sports, but it seems to me that it would actually benefit the school if they allowed this. For one, they would probably have students paying them large amounts of money to pay off their classes and other school expenses. Two, it's just more shit with their school logo on it. They'd benefit how any team does with getting more merch out. And three, (which is pretty similar to #2) players would be able to sell more than the school could . Let me clarify: if Johnny Manziel bought 100+ hats, shirts, jerseys, gloves, whatever, and signed them all, they'd sell like burgers at mcdonalds. My point is, A&M would have just easily sold 500 or more items without lifting a finger, JM did it for them. I know there must be a side I'm not seeing to this, so please cmv Edit: I should add that I only know it's like this for football. If it isn't like this for other sports, then sorry I sound stupid

I think non-professional athletes should be able to profit from selling merchandise and their signature. CMV. Why do I bring this up? Johnny Manziel. If you're unfamiliar with who that is, he's the quarterback for the Texas A&M college football team, The Aggies. [Here](http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/johnny-manziel-football-autograph-paid-suspension-rule-texas-am-aggies/) is what I'm talking about. It makes absolutely no sense why he can't sell jerseys, shirts, etc. with his signature. Why is it that I (a nobody) could legally sell a hat I signed, if someone wanted to buy it? I agree that these kids shouldn't be paid to play college sports, but it seems to me that it would actually benefit the school if they allowed this. For one, they would probably have students paying them large amounts of money to pay off their classes and other school expenses. Two, it's just more shit with their school logo on it. They'd benefit how any team does with getting more merch out. And three, (which is pretty similar to #2) players would be able to sell more than the school could . Let me clarify: if Johnny Manziel bought 100+ hats, shirts, jerseys, gloves, whatever, and signed them all, they'd sell like burgers at mcdonalds. My point is, A&M would have just easily sold 500 or more items without lifting a finger, JM did it for them. I know there must be a side I'm not seeing to this, so please cmv Edit: I should add that I only know it's like this for football. If it isn't like this for other sports, then sorry I sound stupid

t3_33nwbs

CMV: There is nothing wrong with paid Workshop Mods on Steam.

This little piece of news is blowing up all over the gaming media. [Steam introduced paid Workshop Mods.](http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent) People are freaking out all over the gaming subs. [RIP PC gaming (the beginning of the end)](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33m6mo/rip_pc_gaming_the_beginning_of_the_end/) [STEAM IS NOW SELLING MODS???](https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/33m4fk/steam_is_now_selling_mods/) [And the /r/games thread, with a less hyperbolic title, still has many many people afraid of this change.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/33m403/steam_introduced_paid_workshop_mods/) I don't see anything really wrong with this concept. * It incentivizes more people into doing modding. With the possibility of being paid for your work, there's greater motivation for doing it. Many people burn out from doing free work because of how entitled the people are who use their work. I've seen it a lot in the Android modding community on xda-developers, so I don't imagine that this behavior of entitlement doesn't also exist in many gaming mod communities. * You have a much, much larger platform for getting your work out with Valve's support, as compared to third-party modding forums and websites. * Players were never entitled to mods being free in the first place, and this new addition doesn't change the fact that modders can still release free mods if they want to. * Players were never entitled to updates regardless. What you pay for is the product as is. One person in the /r/games thread was worried that if you buy a mod it might not work in the future. Well, you're not paying for continual support, you're paying for the product as you see it. It works the same way with literally every app on iTunes or the Google Play Store. (Of course, people there still complain that they deserve continuous updates.) So, CMV that there's something wrong with the concept of a paid modding platform on Steam. (Not looking to debate whether or not Valve can follow through with all their promises and keep thieves off of the market and so forth, as this has just begun rolling out so we can't compare it to other online marketplaces yet. If there's something problematic they've stated that I've missed, though, feel free to point it out).

CMV: There is nothing wrong with paid Workshop Mods on Steam. This little piece of news is blowing up all over the gaming media. [Steam introduced paid Workshop Mods.](http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent) People are freaking out all over the gaming subs. [RIP PC gaming (the beginning of the end)](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/33m6mo/rip_pc_gaming_the_beginning_of_the_end/) [STEAM IS NOW SELLING MODS???](https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/33m4fk/steam_is_now_selling_mods/) [And the /r/games thread, with a less hyperbolic title, still has many many people afraid of this change.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/33m403/steam_introduced_paid_workshop_mods/) I don't see anything really wrong with this concept. * It incentivizes more people into doing modding. With the possibility of being paid for your work, there's greater motivation for doing it. Many people burn out from doing free work because of how entitled the people are who use their work. I've seen it a lot in the Android modding community on xda-developers, so I don't imagine that this behavior of entitlement doesn't also exist in many gaming mod communities. * You have a much, much larger platform for getting your work out with Valve's support, as compared to third-party modding forums and websites. * Players were never entitled to mods being free in the first place, and this new addition doesn't change the fact that modders can still release free mods if they want to. * Players were never entitled to updates regardless. What you pay for is the product as is. One person in the /r/games thread was worried that if you buy a mod it might not work in the future. Well, you're not paying for continual support, you're paying for the product as you see it. It works the same way with literally every app on iTunes or the Google Play Store. (Of course, people there still complain that they deserve continuous updates.) So, CMV that there's something wrong with the concept of a paid modding platform on Steam. (Not looking to debate whether or not Valve can follow through with all their promises and keep thieves off of the market and so forth, as this has just begun rolling out so we can't compare it to other online marketplaces yet. If there's something problematic they've stated that I've missed, though, feel free to point it out).

t3_4ukq1q

CMV: It would be irresponsible of the NSA to NOT look into the degree and nature of contacts between presidential candidates and foreign states.

Thinking about some of the newly publicized suggestions that there may be untoward Russian influence on the Trump campaign,* it occurred to me that I really hoped that an agency of the U.S. government actually looked into this sort of thing for all candidates as a matter of routine. But I feel conflicted by that conclusion, because I recognize that it invites a level of scrutiny that I would not normally wish upon people. At the same time, so few people advance this far into their declarations to hold the highest office, that we're only subjecting people to this intrusion who really ought to agree that we should be subjecting people to this intrusion. So they agree that there's no harm of such a security review when it comes to harm to them personally. But are there generalized arguments against this practice? **In short:** Why shouldn't an agency like the NSA attempt to characterize the nature of contact and potential for influence between the most serious presidential candidates and known hostile, if not all, foreign governments? ^* N.B., the truth of the Russia/Trump allegations are irrelevant. FWIW, I suspect the substance of them are untrue. Regardless of this case, my concern is about the desirability of a formalized procedure for evaluating the risks of foreign government influence. _____ > *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 would be irresponsible of the NSA to NOT look into the degree and nature of contacts between presidential candidates and foreign states. Thinking about some of the newly publicized suggestions that there may be untoward Russian influence on the Trump campaign,* it occurred to me that I really hoped that an agency of the U.S. government actually looked into this sort of thing for all candidates as a matter of routine. But I feel conflicted by that conclusion, because I recognize that it invites a level of scrutiny that I would not normally wish upon people. At the same time, so few people advance this far into their declarations to hold the highest office, that we're only subjecting people to this intrusion who really ought to agree that we should be subjecting people to this intrusion. So they agree that there's no harm of such a security review when it comes to harm to them personally. But are there generalized arguments against this practice? **In short:** Why shouldn't an agency like the NSA attempt to characterize the nature of contact and potential for influence between the most serious presidential candidates and known hostile, if not all, foreign governments? ^* N.B., the truth of the Russia/Trump allegations are irrelevant. FWIW, I suspect the substance of them are untrue. Regardless of this case, my concern is about the desirability of a formalized procedure for evaluating the risks of foreign government influence.

t3_1g1nhw

I believe that the social climate in the US is completely at the whim of the powers that be CMV

More specifically, I believe that aside from legislative efforts, any efforts to change the social climate or create mass waves of social progress against the functional will of the higher ups are futile. Occupy, Agriculture & Media Reform, The 'Poverty Problem' Anti-CISPA, SOPA, PRISM etc.; I assert are ultimately up to who controls the almighty dollar. That, or who is better at killing. If it comes down to talking about awareness; rallying people to the cause in an effort to bolster the likelihood of it's effectiveness, I say the ratio of people who care to people who don't is overwhelmingly glaring. Most will remain apathetic, content, and self serving. I'd like to think there is feasible hope for progress.

I believe that the social climate in the US is completely at the whim of the powers that be CMV. More specifically, I believe that aside from legislative efforts, any efforts to change the social climate or create mass waves of social progress against the functional will of the higher ups are futile. Occupy, Agriculture & Media Reform, The 'Poverty Problem' Anti-CISPA, SOPA, PRISM etc.; I assert are ultimately up to who controls the almighty dollar. That, or who is better at killing. If it comes down to talking about awareness; rallying people to the cause in an effort to bolster the likelihood of it's effectiveness, I say the ratio of people who care to people who don't is overwhelmingly glaring. Most will remain apathetic, content, and self serving. I'd like to think there is feasible hope for progress.

t3_26ko76

CMV: It is immoral to initiate force, violence or coercion and taxation is an initiation of force backed up by the threat of violence and is coercive thus government/the state is immoral.

Happy Cucumbers and hello. This is not a CMV about left vs right nor is it a CMV about ideologies or what system would work best, we're strictly talking principles. I see taxation as an initiation of force and theft because: A) The payment demanded was outright yours to begin with because you worked for it or it was given directly to you and you must be the sole owner otherwise you would not have it to give to anyone else such as the tax collectors. B) The consequences of not satisfying the demand would eventually result in force such as arresting you, court, prison etc. Therefore government by definition which requires tax money in order to fund itself and absolutely cannot function without it is immoral. And if 100% tax is slavery at what level is it not? How could you justify a line between 100% taxation or 100% theft as slavery and 10-50% is not? I hold this view because honestly I can't comprehend any other way to look at it, it is what it is really. You can't unsee things so that's one of the reasons I'm posting here maybe another perspective will shed light but I doubt it as I've held this view for a long time and never heard a good argument against it. So please change my view on taxation! I will not accept justification such as "it's for police and we need them" etc this is black and white definitions if someone raped someone it wouldn't matter if he did it to cure cancer they still raped someone and it is immoral in all situations. I will not accept adjectives as arguments "no taxation is utopian" you may as well say that I'm too pancake flappajackery, adjectives aren't arguments. I will not accept strawman arguments, if you can't quote me then don't post anything at all. If the conversation gets too heated or emotional then I will stop responding. **UPDATE :Thank you all for all the different perspectives but sadly no-one changed my view. I may come back and clear up some conversations but I'm beat. <3** _____ > *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 immoral to initiate force, violence or coercion and taxation is an initiation of force backed up by the threat of violence and is coercive thus government/the state is immoral. Happy Cucumbers and hello. This is not a CMV about left vs right nor is it a CMV about ideologies or what system would work best, we're strictly talking principles. I see taxation as an initiation of force and theft because: A) The payment demanded was outright yours to begin with because you worked for it or it was given directly to you and you must be the sole owner otherwise you would not have it to give to anyone else such as the tax collectors. B) The consequences of not satisfying the demand would eventually result in force such as arresting you, court, prison etc. Therefore government by definition which requires tax money in order to fund itself and absolutely cannot function without it is immoral. And if 100% tax is slavery at what level is it not? How could you justify a line between 100% taxation or 100% theft as slavery and 10-50% is not? I hold this view because honestly I can't comprehend any other way to look at it, it is what it is really. You can't unsee things so that's one of the reasons I'm posting here maybe another perspective will shed light but I doubt it as I've held this view for a long time and never heard a good argument against it. So please change my view on taxation! I will not accept justification such as "it's for police and we need them" etc this is black and white definitions if someone raped someone it wouldn't matter if he did it to cure cancer they still raped someone and it is immoral in all situations. I will not accept adjectives as arguments "no taxation is utopian" you may as well say that I'm too pancake flappajackery, adjectives aren't arguments. I will not accept strawman arguments, if you can't quote me then don't post anything at all. If the conversation gets too heated or emotional then I will stop responding. **UPDATE :Thank you all for all the different perspectives but sadly no-one changed my view. I may come back and clear up some conversations but I'm beat. <3**

t3_3c4kyd

CMV:Religion overall is a negative force in the world and has been for the entirety of it's existance

Sorry in advance, this sub must get a lot of posts like these. I've been studying religion for a while, and am going to university next year to carry on my studies, and the more I study religion, the more it seems to suck. Studying Sikhism, the rampant censorship, hate and murder from Emperor Jahangir and Aurangzeb of the muslim Mughal Empire against the Sikh people, the church's resistance to adopt condoms, and therefore aiding the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. Bear in mind I've been brought up in a secular area of Britain and that may distort my view in the same way people who are brought up in ultra religious societies. I probably sound awfully pretentious and I apologise for that. Please either refine or 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:Religion overall is a negative force in the world and has been for the entirety of it's existance. Sorry in advance, this sub must get a lot of posts like these. I've been studying religion for a while, and am going to university next year to carry on my studies, and the more I study religion, the more it seems to suck. Studying Sikhism, the rampant censorship, hate and murder from Emperor Jahangir and Aurangzeb of the muslim Mughal Empire against the Sikh people, the church's resistance to adopt condoms, and therefore aiding the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. Bear in mind I've been brought up in a secular area of Britain and that may distort my view in the same way people who are brought up in ultra religious societies. I probably sound awfully pretentious and I apologise for that. Please either refine or change my view.

t3_27m0gw

CMV: I think the Fat Acceptance movement is dangerous

**Personal story here purely for context, tldr at the bottom** This is something that is extremely personal and hits close to home. I was chubby/fat for pretty much entire life until university, when I met a friend who happened to be your typical gym douche and... turned it all around. He was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say "I can't lose weight." And I told him on quite a few occasions that it's honestly hard for people to lose weight and all sorts of crap about metabolic rate and how some people's bodies "want" to be a certain size. Well since he's also an amateur bodybuilder, he was bulking at the time. And one day, he lamented his abs disappearing and hitting almost 80kg. I had no abs, and I was almost 80kg, I actually had a very similar shape to him at that stage. And of course, he went on to talk about how it doesn't matter since after he cut down to 70kg, it'll all be worth it. And I thought, well fuck, I might as well give it a shot no? If I just copied him, how badly can it go wrong? Lo and behold, I dropped 10kg in time for summer, I felt better than I ever had before, for the first time I felt like I was truly fulfilling my body's potential. I've even been hit on a number of times after that, damn! And here's where everything went downhill. I more or less hopped on the fate shaming bandwagon. I think the problem was that losing weight once I had the right tools and mindset was ridiculously easy. And it's easy to turn around say "look at these pathetic people complaining about it being hard, hah!" I see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is. I see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are. i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and I want to shoot myself. I almost always catch myself though and remind myself of where I had been, and not to be an asshole because there are lots of people who are where I was. But it gets harder and harder with time. The more I hear fat people talk about "but my genetics....", "my metabolism....", "I have a thyroid condition....", "I ate salad for two months but...", or such excuses, it makes me mad with rage. And then there's the times when I hear "But I don't want to look so bulky and disgusting with muscles" or "Running makes my ankles/calves hurt!" I honestly want to punch these people in the face. Just bringing it up makes my blood boil so I think I'll stop myself here. I don't want to turn into a completely apathetic asshole and completely demonise fat people, but the more time that pass, the more I seem to be OK with that. The more time that pass, the more I see fat people who talk about their health as abominations akin to corrupt politicians talk about idealisms, the less I see them as people, the more I wish they would just give up going outside. This is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that I can think this way, I need to change but I can't help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat. **tldr:** Please convince me to not hate fat people. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think the Fat Acceptance movement is dangerous. **Personal story here purely for context, tldr at the bottom** This is something that is extremely personal and hits close to home. I was chubby/fat for pretty much entire life until university, when I met a friend who happened to be your typical gym douche and... turned it all around. He was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say "I can't lose weight." And I told him on quite a few occasions that it's honestly hard for people to lose weight and all sorts of crap about metabolic rate and how some people's bodies "want" to be a certain size. Well since he's also an amateur bodybuilder, he was bulking at the time. And one day, he lamented his abs disappearing and hitting almost 80kg. I had no abs, and I was almost 80kg, I actually had a very similar shape to him at that stage. And of course, he went on to talk about how it doesn't matter since after he cut down to 70kg, it'll all be worth it. And I thought, well fuck, I might as well give it a shot no? If I just copied him, how badly can it go wrong? Lo and behold, I dropped 10kg in time for summer, I felt better than I ever had before, for the first time I felt like I was truly fulfilling my body's potential. I've even been hit on a number of times after that, damn! And here's where everything went downhill. I more or less hopped on the fate shaming bandwagon. I think the problem was that losing weight once I had the right tools and mindset was ridiculously easy. And it's easy to turn around say "look at these pathetic people complaining about it being hard, hah!" I see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is. I see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are. i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and I want to shoot myself. I almost always catch myself though and remind myself of where I had been, and not to be an asshole because there are lots of people who are where I was. But it gets harder and harder with time. The more I hear fat people talk about "but my genetics....", "my metabolism....", "I have a thyroid condition....", "I ate salad for two months but...", or such excuses, it makes me mad with rage. And then there's the times when I hear "But I don't want to look so bulky and disgusting with muscles" or "Running makes my ankles/calves hurt!" I honestly want to punch these people in the face. Just bringing it up makes my blood boil so I think I'll stop myself here. I don't want to turn into a completely apathetic asshole and completely demonise fat people, but the more time that pass, the more I seem to be OK with that. The more time that pass, the more I see fat people who talk about their health as abominations akin to corrupt politicians talk about idealisms, the less I see them as people, the more I wish they would just give up going outside. This is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that I can think this way, I need to change but I can't help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat. **tldr:** Please convince me to not hate fat people.

t3_1r0qgx

I'm not offended by people wishing me "Merry Christmas" CMV.

Regardless of my religion, if someone wishes me "Merry Christmas" I am not offended in any way. They are spreading holiday cheer, and its the sentiment that counts. I would not be offended if a Jewish person wished me "Happy Hannukah" either, and so on. I would like to hear perspective from a party that not only *prefers* the religious-neutral greeting of "Happy Holidays" over the more traditional wishes, but is firmly against greetings of any religious basis whatsoever. I'm not trying to be insensitive or troll, I'm genuinely curious as to why someone may be offended.

I'm not offended by people wishing me "Merry Christmas" CMV. Regardless of my religion, if someone wishes me "Merry Christmas" I am not offended in any way. They are spreading holiday cheer, and its the sentiment that counts. I would not be offended if a Jewish person wished me "Happy Hannukah" either, and so on. I would like to hear perspective from a party that not only *prefers* the religious-neutral greeting of "Happy Holidays" over the more traditional wishes, but is firmly against greetings of any religious basis whatsoever. I'm not trying to be insensitive or troll, I'm genuinely curious as to why someone may be offended.

t3_5qxs3t

CMV: Steve Bannon is not a racist.

The media and Left have been quick, persistent, and forceful in their assertions that Steve Bannon is a racist since his appointment as Chief Strategist to President Trump. Yet I have only found one instance of him explicitly making a racist statement, and [that was from testimony by his ex-wife in their divorce deposition](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293532-bannons-ex-wife-he-didnt-want-the-girls-going-to-school). As far as I can tell, there is no other evidence of him making a racist statement. His role in permitting Breitbart to publish racist material is the evidence used most to make the case for Bannon's racism. However, there is evidence that he does not agree with the racist material published on Breitbart but saw the racist material as "baggage" necessary for the success of a propaganda machine to generate political power in support of fighting what he believes is a war the West is in against crony capitalism and jihadist Islamic facism. Specifically, the quote below is taken [from a 2014 speech he gave to the Institute for Human dignity](https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.thOQa1RJMn#.wd0Yz3yWek). > Look, we believe — strongly — that there is a global tea party movement. We’ve seen that. We were the first group to get in and start reporting on things like UKIP and Front National and other center right. With all the baggage that those groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially — but we think that will all be worked through with time. Evidence that could change my view of Steve Bannon not being a racist would be a document by him or a video/audio recording of him saying something racist. The reason I'm posting this CMV is that I think it's of the utmost importance to have a clear understanding of the man influencing very heavily the decisions of President Trump. Interpreting decisions from the White House thru a lens of racism when it's not, could be extremely dangerous given the political climate, whether you're in support of or opposition to Trump. _____ > *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: Steve Bannon is not a racist. The media and Left have been quick, persistent, and forceful in their assertions that Steve Bannon is a racist since his appointment as Chief Strategist to President Trump. Yet I have only found one instance of him explicitly making a racist statement, and [that was from testimony by his ex-wife in their divorce deposition](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293532-bannons-ex-wife-he-didnt-want-the-girls-going-to-school). As far as I can tell, there is no other evidence of him making a racist statement. His role in permitting Breitbart to publish racist material is the evidence used most to make the case for Bannon's racism. However, there is evidence that he does not agree with the racist material published on Breitbart but saw the racist material as "baggage" necessary for the success of a propaganda machine to generate political power in support of fighting what he believes is a war the West is in against crony capitalism and jihadist Islamic facism. Specifically, the quote below is taken [from a 2014 speech he gave to the Institute for Human dignity](https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.thOQa1RJMn#.wd0Yz3yWek). > Look, we believe — strongly — that there is a global tea party movement. We’ve seen that. We were the first group to get in and start reporting on things like UKIP and Front National and other center right. With all the baggage that those groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially — but we think that will all be worked through with time. Evidence that could change my view of Steve Bannon not being a racist would be a document by him or a video/audio recording of him saying something racist. The reason I'm posting this CMV is that I think it's of the utmost importance to have a clear understanding of the man influencing very heavily the decisions of President Trump. Interpreting decisions from the White House thru a lens of racism when it's not, could be extremely dangerous given the political climate, whether you're in support of or opposition to Trump.

t3_3v1343

CMV: I don't like my girlfriend having a female "Friend with benefits."

I've met the girl of my dreams. We've been dating for quite awhile and it looks like we'll be together for a long long time. Early on, she informed me that she was bi-sexual and that she had a friend with whom she has sex with. There's no love connection like there is with us and it's purely just to satisfy her needs that I can't. (I'm a male btw). I've never been in a relationship like this and at first I had the mindset of "Okay, this is new and scary...but I can't restrain her from who she is. This will be fine." It could be a lot worse! She could be seeing other men. That's where I'd have to draw the line. I couldn't be with someone knowing another man has sexual relationship with her. Recently however, it's been very hard with me to cope with her seeing this other girl. For me sex is very personal and having someone to on the side seems to lessen it for me. I just feel very belittled and I really wish I didn't. I'm trying my hardest to overcome my feelings because I'm madly in love with her. What if I never get over it? What if I can't handle it? I never want her to change who she is, I just wish it didn't bother me so much. Is this something I can change about myself, or am I just digging my own grave. tdlr; Dating a bi woman, and I'm feeling very insecure about her sleeping with another woman. _____ > *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 like my girlfriend having a female "Friend with benefits.". I've met the girl of my dreams. We've been dating for quite awhile and it looks like we'll be together for a long long time. Early on, she informed me that she was bi-sexual and that she had a friend with whom she has sex with. There's no love connection like there is with us and it's purely just to satisfy her needs that I can't. (I'm a male btw). I've never been in a relationship like this and at first I had the mindset of "Okay, this is new and scary...but I can't restrain her from who she is. This will be fine." It could be a lot worse! She could be seeing other men. That's where I'd have to draw the line. I couldn't be with someone knowing another man has sexual relationship with her. Recently however, it's been very hard with me to cope with her seeing this other girl. For me sex is very personal and having someone to on the side seems to lessen it for me. I just feel very belittled and I really wish I didn't. I'm trying my hardest to overcome my feelings because I'm madly in love with her. What if I never get over it? What if I can't handle it? I never want her to change who she is, I just wish it didn't bother me so much. Is this something I can change about myself, or am I just digging my own grave. tdlr; Dating a bi woman, and I'm feeling very insecure about her sleeping with another woman.