Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova
/

cmv_op_10k

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 10k rows

id stringlengths 9 9	title stringlengths 9 300	selftext stringlengths 9 9.73k	text stringlengths 53 9.81k
t3_4xiktc	CMV: In the interest of not being sexist, either circumcision should be rebranded as "male genital mutilation" (and also to give circumcision the frightening name it deserves), or FGM should be rebranded as "female circumcision"	First off, to clarify, I believe that both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation are absolutely horrid, barbaric, archaic practices (at least when done on non-consenting babies) that shame the concept of consent. If you want to do it as an adult or a teenager old enough to consent, then that's your choice, and I suppose it's not my place to care/comment; but it's wretched to do on a helpless and dependent baby that can't do anything about it. So, why is it that slicing off a third to a half of the tissue of the penis (which yes, I've verified this, is a genital) is called "circumcision" and is not called "male genital mutilation"... But doing the same to a female is called "female genital mutilation"? Compare the terms. Female genital mutilation is a much more vicious sounding term that circumcision -- even though male genital mutilation is a completely accurate and literal description of circumcision. It is my honest opinion that male disposability -- the idea that women are sacred and need to be protected (a remnant of 1500s-1800s chivalry/chauvinism) -- is being heavily implied by this term (not that everyone who says it believes it, but that the contrast of the terms can be chalked up to this). In the west at least, FGM is widely regarded as a horrid practice, but circumcision isn't quite there yet. So let's be fair here. Let's not be sexist. Let's ensure both genders are treated equally. We should either: * Rebrand circumcision as MGM; Male Genital Mutilation; so that it gets the vicious name it deserves to make people more aware of it's horror * Rebrand FGM as female circumcision; so that we stop implying female importance here Now all in all, I would greatly prefer going with the former because I do not agree with either practice, but I'd rather go with the latter than keeping things as they are now. Circumcision is an absolutely horrible practice, and independent of the contrast between the naming of it and FGM, I still believe that it should be renamed in the interest of it getting the bad perception that it deserves. I think that calling male genital mutilation "circumcision" is part of the reason why circumcision isn't as badly received as it should be. EDIT: I fully concede that FGM is much more heinous compared to male circumcision, but that does not excuse the immorality and non-consent aspects of circumcision. I believe in spite of it being less heinous, circumcision, because of how bad it is in it's own right (independent of FGM comparison), should be labeled male genital mutilation. It deserves the vicious-sounding name still	CMV: In the interest of not being sexist, either circumcision should be rebranded as "male genital mutilation" (and also to give circumcision the frightening name it deserves), or FGM should be rebranded as "female circumcision". First off, to clarify, I believe that both male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation are absolutely horrid, barbaric, archaic practices (at least when done on non-consenting babies) that shame the concept of consent. If you want to do it as an adult or a teenager old enough to consent, then that's your choice, and I suppose it's not my place to care/comment; but it's wretched to do on a helpless and dependent baby that can't do anything about it. So, why is it that slicing off a third to a half of the tissue of the penis (which yes, I've verified this, is a genital) is called "circumcision" and is not called "male genital mutilation"... But doing the same to a female is called "female genital mutilation"? Compare the terms. Female genital mutilation is a much more vicious sounding term that circumcision -- even though male genital mutilation is a completely accurate and literal description of circumcision. It is my honest opinion that male disposability -- the idea that women are sacred and need to be protected (a remnant of 1500s-1800s chivalry/chauvinism) -- is being heavily implied by this term (not that everyone who says it believes it, but that the contrast of the terms can be chalked up to this). In the west at least, FGM is widely regarded as a horrid practice, but circumcision isn't quite there yet. So let's be fair here. Let's not be sexist. Let's ensure both genders are treated equally. We should either: * Rebrand circumcision as MGM; Male Genital Mutilation; so that it gets the vicious name it deserves to make people more aware of it's horror * Rebrand FGM as female circumcision; so that we stop implying female importance here Now all in all, I would greatly prefer going with the former because I do not agree with either practice, but I'd rather go with the latter than keeping things as they are now. Circumcision is an absolutely horrible practice, and independent of the contrast between the naming of it and FGM, I still believe that it should be renamed in the interest of it getting the bad perception that it deserves. I think that calling male genital mutilation "circumcision" is part of the reason why circumcision isn't as badly received as it should be. EDIT: I fully concede that FGM is much more heinous compared to male circumcision, but that does not excuse the immorality and non-consent aspects of circumcision. I believe in spite of it being less heinous, circumcision, because of how bad it is in it's own right (independent of FGM comparison), should be labeled male genital mutilation. It deserves the vicious-sounding name still
t3_281v2q	CMV: Leaving a child to die in a car is a result of poor parenting, an inherent lack of awareness, and putting other life priorities ahead of your child.	First off I'd like to say I've read plenty of the articles explaining how this is the type of thing that can happen to anyone, and it's not necessarily the parent's fault. They claim it's a matter of a change in brain chemistry when a change in routine coupled with stress and other emotions can lead to a lapse in memory and judgement. It seems like this is a pretty widespread belief nowadays. It baffles my mind though, how someone can claim that this isn't child abuse. When a dog gets left in a car someone can serve jail time, but when a kid dies in a car it's just seen as a simple mistake? I think this happens because parents don't put their child ahead of other aspects of their life. It doesn't mean they are bad people, but they are most certainly not fit to be parents. If it were up to me they would be charged with manslaughter at the least, and would lose custody of any remaining children. I don't get how a psychologist can equate this to losing a set of keys or something trivial like that. After making a post recently about this and getting downvoted but not receiving any counter arguments, I want to hear what CMV has to say on the subject. > 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: Leaving a child to die in a car is a result of poor parenting, an inherent lack of awareness, and putting other life priorities ahead of your child. First off I'd like to say I've read plenty of the articles explaining how this is the type of thing that can happen to anyone, and it's not necessarily the parent's fault. They claim it's a matter of a change in brain chemistry when a change in routine coupled with stress and other emotions can lead to a lapse in memory and judgement. It seems like this is a pretty widespread belief nowadays. It baffles my mind though, how someone can claim that this isn't child abuse. When a dog gets left in a car someone can serve jail time, but when a kid dies in a car it's just seen as a simple mistake? I think this happens because parents don't put their child ahead of other aspects of their life. It doesn't mean they are bad people, but they are most certainly not fit to be parents. If it were up to me they would be charged with manslaughter at the least, and would lose custody of any remaining children. I don't get how a psychologist can equate this to losing a set of keys or something trivial like that. After making a post recently about this and getting downvoted but not receiving any counter arguments, I want to hear what CMV has to say on the subject. > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*
t3_292997	CMV: Facial plastic surgery can turn you into a chick magnet and pave you the way for male modeling.	I'm a really young male (19) but I am seriously considering having a rhinoplasty, chin , jaw and cheek augmentation. I would never say that I'm ugly but I am pretty average. I think that once I get the procedures done I will become dramatically more attractive/handsome more girls will check me and that would boost my confidence to approach them, or even make them approach me. I also believe that having a really attractive face(and a strong body which I'm gonna build) will help me get into male modeling, something that is really interesting and gives you the opportunity to meet new people and travel more. There you go , change my view !	CMV: Facial plastic surgery can turn you into a chick magnet and pave you the way for male modeling. I'm a really young male (19) but I am seriously considering having a rhinoplasty, chin , jaw and cheek augmentation. I would never say that I'm ugly but I am pretty average. I think that once I get the procedures done I will become dramatically more attractive/handsome more girls will check me and that would boost my confidence to approach them, or even make them approach me. I also believe that having a really attractive face(and a strong body which I'm gonna build) will help me get into male modeling, something that is really interesting and gives you the opportunity to meet new people and travel more. There you go , change my view !
t3_204qyh	I hate my Galaxy S4 and want to switch. CMV.	I've had an S4 since around July of last year, and I've slowly grown to hate it. I just think it's too big, and I actually feel like I have too MANY options when it comes to the look of the phone. I like the Android OS, I just don't like the phone. To me, it feels like a toy because it is made out of plastic. I've been craving an iPhone for a few weeks now.(Can't switch, no money + no upgrade till next year.) I like the look of IOS 7, and I like the feel of the actual phone. It feels like an actual, top of the like phone because of the aluminum its encased in. It feels like the perfect size for me. The one thing I think I would dislike about getting an iPhone is the fact that I can't manage files natively. I don't mind jailbreaking though. I have considered selling it and getting a Nexus 5 or an older iPhone, but the difference between selling and buying another phone would be too big. I know most of my complaints are cosmetic and can't be changed, but help me not hate my phone for the next year.	I hate my Galaxy S4 and want to switch. CMV. I've had an S4 since around July of last year, and I've slowly grown to hate it. I just think it's too big, and I actually feel like I have too MANY options when it comes to the look of the phone. I like the Android OS, I just don't like the phone. To me, it feels like a toy because it is made out of plastic. I've been craving an iPhone for a few weeks now.(Can't switch, no money + no upgrade till next year.) I like the look of IOS 7, and I like the feel of the actual phone. It feels like an actual, top of the like phone because of the aluminum its encased in. It feels like the perfect size for me. The one thing I think I would dislike about getting an iPhone is the fact that I can't manage files natively. I don't mind jailbreaking though. I have considered selling it and getting a Nexus 5 or an older iPhone, but the difference between selling and buying another phone would be too big. I know most of my complaints are cosmetic and can't be changed, but help me not hate my phone for the next year.
t3_72kvwi	CMV: Voting new people into office will not actually fix our government	Every day I get more and more jaded about our government and it is extremely depressing. It feels like everyone is corrupt and they are taking our money and being tremendously careless and wasteful ($700 Billion for Defense). It is overwhelmingly disheartening to believe that our government no longer makes decisions with the peoples' best interest in mind, but instead, the decisions are solely focused on what will make them the most money. I don't believe it is a Democrat vs. Republican issue. We are being told to vote on party lines and that by voting for the person who represents your political party, you can change the outcome. In reality, my view is that this is a have vs. have-not or rich vs. poor scenario and that those in power will continue to make decisions that only benefit elites. I also believe that the system supports this notion and that in order to make it to a high-ranking position with any real power of change, you must also make decisions that benefit the elite as opposed to the common man. My overall view is that voting new people into office will not fix the problem. The problem with our government is so ingrained in the system that a new person, who truly supports the people, would never be able to make it into power and create real change. They face so many roadblocks by not being part of "the club" and they could never acquire enough money to actually make it in. Please change my view because it is really depressing to believe that there is little hope that our current system of governance can escape from the current levels of corruption. _____ > 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: Voting new people into office will not actually fix our government. Every day I get more and more jaded about our government and it is extremely depressing. It feels like everyone is corrupt and they are taking our money and being tremendously careless and wasteful ($700 Billion for Defense). It is overwhelmingly disheartening to believe that our government no longer makes decisions with the peoples' best interest in mind, but instead, the decisions are solely focused on what will make them the most money. I don't believe it is a Democrat vs. Republican issue. We are being told to vote on party lines and that by voting for the person who represents your political party, you can change the outcome. In reality, my view is that this is a have vs. have-not or rich vs. poor scenario and that those in power will continue to make decisions that only benefit elites. I also believe that the system supports this notion and that in order to make it to a high-ranking position with any real power of change, you must also make decisions that benefit the elite as opposed to the common man. My overall view is that voting new people into office will not fix the problem. The problem with our government is so ingrained in the system that a new person, who truly supports the people, would never be able to make it into power and create real change. They face so many roadblocks by not being part of "the club" and they could never acquire enough money to actually make it in. Please change my view because it is really depressing to believe that there is little hope that our current system of governance can escape from the current levels of corruption.
t3_3lun8c	CMV: Printed receipts for everyday purchases are outdated and should only be printed if the customer specifically asks	I'll keep this one short and sweet. Most people immediately discard paper receipts from places like Subway, or Starbucks, etc. This amounts to a rather large amount of paper waste which could easily be avoided. Even if you ask the cashier to not give you the receipt, it is usually still printed and they throw it away. In addition, the thermal paper used for a lot of receipts has been found to contain BPA, which is possibly a harmful chemical. There are a few people who might save paper receipts for their own records, but these people are in the minority. If they want a printed receipt they can ask for it. But it should not be default to just print a receipt assuming that the customer will want it, as most will not. How is it not just a massive waste? To change my view, I'd like an argument that gives some reasons that giving each customer a printed receipt is good, and why these reasons outweigh the negatives. 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: Printed receipts for everyday purchases are outdated and should only be printed if the customer specifically asks. I'll keep this one short and sweet. Most people immediately discard paper receipts from places like Subway, or Starbucks, etc. This amounts to a rather large amount of paper waste which could easily be avoided. Even if you ask the cashier to not give you the receipt, it is usually still printed and they throw it away. In addition, the thermal paper used for a lot of receipts has been found to contain BPA, which is possibly a harmful chemical. There are a few people who might save paper receipts for their own records, but these people are in the minority. If they want a printed receipt they can ask for it. But it should not be default to just print a receipt assuming that the customer will want it, as most will not. How is it not just a massive waste? To change my view, I'd like an argument that gives some reasons that giving each customer a printed receipt is good, and why these reasons outweigh the negatives. CMV.
t3_2fgl0w	CMV:I don't believe it is at all wrong to look at the leaked celebrity nudes,and I believe online articles by news sources and magazines are completely in the wrong for shaming those who do.	I am not a misogynist at all.I am not a masculist.I am wholeheartedly in favor of women of all backgrounds,colors,and creeds to have equal rights,wages,and job opportunities as,let's say,a white male. With all this being said,I do not believe there is anything wrong with looking at the recently leaked photographs of the female celebrities.Yes,their privacy was breached in a way that I would not like to happen to me,anyone I know,or any fellow human being.HOWEVER,by simply taking the photos in the first place,they opened themselves up to this.It is impossible to have your nudes leaked if you haven't any nudes to leak.All photos leaked were either taken by the celebrities themselves,or by their significant other.None of the photos were takien by a person physically trespassing on their property and taking these photos.They were taken with each celebrity's knowledge and consent. Did they consent to having their photos leaked online? No,but if they did not want their photos leaked online in the first place,they could have prevented this in a number of different ways,such as: 1)Not taking the photos 2)Keeping the photos offline (say,on a usb they keep under lock-&-key) 3)Encrypting the photos 4)Using stronger passwords.I read that majority of the leaks occurred because the hacker(s) infiltrated the celebrities' accounts by guessing their weak passwords. Why should they have prevented this?They did not know this was going to happen to them. Being a celebrity already makes you a target of occurrences that don't happen in normal,everyday non-celebrity life.This is NOT the first time something like this has happened,and while it is likely to be the last for a while because,hopefully,celebrities learn from this and start not taking nudes or taking better care of their nudes,it most certainly is not the last time this happens.If you are in the public eye,you should know that things like this are more likely to happen to you,and you should start protecting yourselves from things like this,because ignorance of the consequences does not excuse you from those consequences. What also got to me are all of the online articles shaming "ANYONE WHO SO MUCH AS DARES TO THINK OF LOOKING AT THESE NUDES".While I still agree that what happened was a major violation of privacy (albeit,an easily preventable one),it is not the tabloids job to act as the "moral compass" of society and shame people for looking nudes.I find it completely hypocritical that the same mediums that are the first to report & feature pictures of celebrity "wardrobe malfunctions" are trying to guide society in the right moral direction.They hire paparazzi to continually violate these celebrities' privacy,and then they are the first to say "THIS IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY.THIS IS WRONG.".I feel like it all boils down to "DON'T LOOK AT THOSE NUDES.WE DIDN'T LEAK THEM,SO YOU CAN'T LOOK AT 'EM",because the tabloids' sentiments towards the leaks would be COMPLETELY different if they had been the ones to leak the nudes. EDIT:Basic spelling mistakes	CMV:I don't believe it is at all wrong to look at the leaked celebrity nudes,and I believe online articles by news sources and magazines are completely in the wrong for shaming those who do. I am not a misogynist at all.I am not a masculist.I am wholeheartedly in favor of women of all backgrounds,colors,and creeds to have equal rights,wages,and job opportunities as,let's say,a white male. With all this being said,I do not believe there is anything wrong with looking at the recently leaked photographs of the female celebrities.Yes,their privacy was breached in a way that I would not like to happen to me,anyone I know,or any fellow human being.HOWEVER,by simply taking the photos in the first place,they opened themselves up to this.It is impossible to have your nudes leaked if you haven't any nudes to leak.All photos leaked were either taken by the celebrities themselves,or by their significant other.None of the photos were takien by a person physically trespassing on their property and taking these photos.They were taken with each celebrity's knowledge and consent. Did they consent to having their photos leaked online? No,but if they did not want their photos leaked online in the first place,they could have prevented this in a number of different ways,such as: 1)Not taking the photos 2)Keeping the photos offline (say,on a usb they keep under lock-&-key) 3)Encrypting the photos 4)Using stronger passwords.I read that majority of the leaks occurred because the hacker(s) infiltrated the celebrities' accounts by guessing their weak passwords. Why should they have prevented this?They did not know this was going to happen to them. Being a celebrity already makes you a target of occurrences that don't happen in normal,everyday non-celebrity life.This is NOT the first time something like this has happened,and while it is likely to be the last for a while because,hopefully,celebrities learn from this and start not taking nudes or taking better care of their nudes,it most certainly is not the last time this happens.If you are in the public eye,you should know that things like this are more likely to happen to you,and you should start protecting yourselves from things like this,because ignorance of the consequences does not excuse you from those consequences. What also got to me are all of the online articles shaming "ANYONE WHO SO MUCH AS DARES TO THINK OF LOOKING AT THESE NUDES".While I still agree that what happened was a major violation of privacy (albeit,an easily preventable one),it is not the tabloids job to act as the "moral compass" of society and shame people for looking nudes.I find it completely hypocritical that the same mediums that are the first to report & feature pictures of celebrity "wardrobe malfunctions" are trying to guide society in the right moral direction.They hire paparazzi to continually violate these celebrities' privacy,and then they are the first to say "THIS IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY.THIS IS WRONG.".I feel like it all boils down to "DON'T LOOK AT THOSE NUDES.WE DIDN'T LEAK THEM,SO YOU CAN'T LOOK AT 'EM",because the tabloids' sentiments towards the leaks would be COMPLETELY different if they had been the ones to leak the nudes. EDIT:Basic spelling mistakes
t3_725bvs	CMV: NFL players shouldn't kneel during the national anthem	I will preface this by saying I am in complete support of free speech for all people. Everyone should have the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. However, there are times when enacting this right is not appropriate. One such case would be the following: > Within a professional environment, an employee refuses to attend a meeting or fulfil some other business activity, in an act of protest against some ideological belief they hold. Further, this activity would be in the presence of a client. I can't imagine many businesses looking the other way if one of their employees was doing this, and if continued, might be grounds for dismissal as it is not appropriate behaviour in the work environment, especially in front of a client. Now try and compare this to what NFL players are doing. >Within their professional environment, they are refusing to fulfil some business activity, in an act of protest against some ideological belief they hold. Further, this activity is in the presence of clients. I'm going to break this down point by point to ensure the words I have chosen are clear. * Professional environment: These NFL players are professional football players, who are expected to act responsibly and professionally whenever they are at work, and especially during public games. NFL matches are a key aspect of their professional environment. * Business activity: All NFL matches hold national anthems. It's part of the parcel of being an NFL player that you do things such as hold flags, and stand as a unit for national anthems. * Ideological belief: Fairly self explanatory, but the reason NFL players are kneeling is in protest of personal beliefs, be it political, ethnic or moral. * In the presence of clients: Millions of Americans watch football. Many might agree with what the players are protesting, others may not. Choosing to kneel will disrespect certain people simply through disagreement on ideas or since it's broadcasting disdain towards the viewer's country. I argue it is not within the scope of being an NFL football player to bring political or ideological acts into the sphere of public football matches. This harks back to my earlier point, that NFL games are their professional environment. A kid refusing to take part in their class pledge is very different to an NFL player refusing to stand for a national anthem of TV. I'm predicting the following rebuttals that I will address now to avoid repeating myself: * It's important to allow NFL players to protest as it gets people having important conversations about controversial topics: Firstly, most people watching NFL games are there simply to watch some football, and don't want to have political idealogies pushed on them in the meanwhile. I do understand that this form of protest is extremely subtle for those watching live games, but when you're watching TV it's all the cameras focus on, and what the commentators talk about. Secondly, NFL games are players' professional environment - consider again my comparison case at the start. It's inappropriate to make political gestures in your work environment. I'd even argue the fact that so many people are watching makes you have a greater duty to act more responsibly. * Trump called white supremacists 'very fine people' and NFL players who protest 'sons of bitches': I'm not here to debate Trump, I'm here to talk about whether NFL players should protest during the national anthem. I look forward to your responses. _____ > 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: NFL players shouldn't kneel during the national anthem. I will preface this by saying I am in complete support of free speech for all people. Everyone should have the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. However, there are times when enacting this right is not appropriate. One such case would be the following: > Within a professional environment, an employee refuses to attend a meeting or fulfil some other business activity, in an act of protest against some ideological belief they hold. Further, this activity would be in the presence of a client. I can't imagine many businesses looking the other way if one of their employees was doing this, and if continued, might be grounds for dismissal as it is not appropriate behaviour in the work environment, especially in front of a client. Now try and compare this to what NFL players are doing. >Within their professional environment, they are refusing to fulfil some business activity, in an act of protest against some ideological belief they hold. Further, this activity is in the presence of clients. I'm going to break this down point by point to ensure the words I have chosen are clear. * Professional environment: These NFL players are professional football players, who are expected to act responsibly and professionally whenever they are at work, and especially during public games. NFL matches are a key aspect of their professional environment. * Business activity: All NFL matches hold national anthems. It's part of the parcel of being an NFL player that you do things such as hold flags, and stand as a unit for national anthems. * Ideological belief: Fairly self explanatory, but the reason NFL players are kneeling is in protest of personal beliefs, be it political, ethnic or moral. * In the presence of clients: Millions of Americans watch football. Many might agree with what the players are protesting, others may not. Choosing to kneel will disrespect certain people simply through disagreement on ideas or since it's broadcasting disdain towards the viewer's country. I argue it is not within the scope of being an NFL football player to bring political or ideological acts into the sphere of public football matches. This harks back to my earlier point, that NFL games are their professional environment. A kid refusing to take part in their class pledge is very different to an NFL player refusing to stand for a national anthem of TV. I'm predicting the following rebuttals that I will address now to avoid repeating myself: * It's important to allow NFL players to protest as it gets people having important conversations about controversial topics: Firstly, most people watching NFL games are there simply to watch some football, and don't want to have political idealogies pushed on them in the meanwhile. I do understand that this form of protest is extremely subtle for those watching live games, but when you're watching TV it's all the cameras focus on, and what the commentators talk about. Secondly, NFL games are players' professional environment - consider again my comparison case at the start. It's inappropriate to make political gestures in your work environment. I'd even argue the fact that so many people are watching makes you have a greater duty to act more responsibly. * Trump called white supremacists 'very fine people' and NFL players who protest 'sons of bitches': I'm not here to debate Trump, I'm here to talk about whether NFL players should protest during the national anthem. I look forward to your responses.
t3_4obkhs	CMV: There's no such thing as an "unrealistic body image"	Specifically I'm referring to the recent decision of the mayor of London to ban images of models with so-called "unrealistic body images" from the public transportation system. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/world/europe/london-bans-ads-with-unrealistic-body-images.html An unaltered image of a model with a certain body type is, by definition, realistic. Just because most people are unwilling to put in the level of effort in achieving and maintaining that level of physical fitness or beauty does not make it unrealistic. Banning images of models so as not to offend or trigger people with less ideal physiques is like banning the works of virtuoso musicians from the radio, lest we offend untalented, amateur musicians. _____ > 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's no such thing as an "unrealistic body image". Specifically I'm referring to the recent decision of the mayor of London to ban images of models with so-called "unrealistic body images" from the public transportation system. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/world/europe/london-bans-ads-with-unrealistic-body-images.html An unaltered image of a model with a certain body type is, by definition, realistic. Just because most people are unwilling to put in the level of effort in achieving and maintaining that level of physical fitness or beauty does not make it unrealistic. Banning images of models so as not to offend or trigger people with less ideal physiques is like banning the works of virtuoso musicians from the radio, lest we offend untalented, amateur musicians.
t3_5vdgar	CMV: If Paternal Surrender becomes a thing, it should be in conjunction with Paternal Consent, in which men who want children have to pay the women who bear the children for their financial loss and pain and suffering.	Paternal surrender is the idea that a man should be able to legally terminate all rights and responsibilities towards his unborn child while the child is still in the womb because men should get to consent to being a parent or not while a woman they impregnated is pregnant, since that woman gets to decide whether she'll obtain an abortion or not. Tit for tat - if a woman gets to decide about an abortion, then a man should get to decide about paternal surrender. But that only addresses one side of the outcome. That is only about men who don't want to be parents. What of the men who do? If a man wants a baby, all he has to do is orgasm, but if a woman wants a baby, she has to suffer through 9 months of extreme physical and hormonal changes during pregnancy, ending in painful labor and subsequent recovery, along with financial loss. That isn't tit for tat; that is totally unbalanced and unfair. Men who want to be parents should have to do something to make up for all the suffering that their partners endure. If the goal of Parental Surrender is to even out biology, then the only way biology is really evened out is if Parental Surrender is combined with Parental Consent. With a Paternal Consent or Surrender System, anytime a woman gets pregnant, the man who impregnated her has to either Surrender or Consent. If he Surrenders, then he has no responsibilities towards the child, and also no rights towards it or affiliation with it. If he Consents, then he has to pay half of all medicals bills incurred by the woman during pregnancy, pay for half of her lost wages, and pay a "pain and suffering" fee that is the average of the "pain and suffering" percentage amount normally awarded by courts. In this way, the biological unevenness is evened out for both men and women at all stages of the reproduction process.	CMV: If Paternal Surrender becomes a thing, it should be in conjunction with Paternal Consent, in which men who want children have to pay the women who bear the children for their financial loss and pain and suffering. Paternal surrender is the idea that a man should be able to legally terminate all rights and responsibilities towards his unborn child while the child is still in the womb because men should get to consent to being a parent or not while a woman they impregnated is pregnant, since that woman gets to decide whether she'll obtain an abortion or not. Tit for tat - if a woman gets to decide about an abortion, then a man should get to decide about paternal surrender. But that only addresses one side of the outcome. That is only about men who don't want to be parents. What of the men who do? If a man wants a baby, all he has to do is orgasm, but if a woman wants a baby, she has to suffer through 9 months of extreme physical and hormonal changes during pregnancy, ending in painful labor and subsequent recovery, along with financial loss. That isn't tit for tat; that is totally unbalanced and unfair. Men who want to be parents should have to do something to make up for all the suffering that their partners endure. If the goal of Parental Surrender is to even out biology, then the only way biology is really evened out is if Parental Surrender is combined with Parental Consent. With a Paternal Consent or Surrender System, anytime a woman gets pregnant, the man who impregnated her has to either Surrender or Consent. If he Surrenders, then he has no responsibilities towards the child, and also no rights towards it or affiliation with it. If he Consents, then he has to pay half of all medicals bills incurred by the woman during pregnancy, pay for half of her lost wages, and pay a "pain and suffering" fee that is the average of the "pain and suffering" percentage amount normally awarded by courts. In this way, the biological unevenness is evened out for both men and women at all stages of the reproduction process.
t3_26ckpr	CMV: It is not the right course of action to hit a person back that slapped you unless you are in danger	I thought it was more or less accepted by society that the only acceptable reason to use violence was in self defence or the defence of others but me arguing this point got me a lot of downvotes so I am kind of curious now. If you get slapped and are not in any danger to get really harmed in any way, there is in my opinion nothing gained by hitting back. It is not your place to enforce justice (if you feel inclined call the cops) You dont teach them a lesson that violence is the wrong way of discourse by using said violence against them. You risk escalating a situation in a dangerous way. Also to be really clear it is important that the option of walking away unharmed and not taking any more physical abuse is an option, so with that in mind please change my view Edit: sorry I will be gone for a few hours, when I am back I ll try to answer all posts _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: It is not the right course of action to hit a person back that slapped you unless you are in danger. I thought it was more or less accepted by society that the only acceptable reason to use violence was in self defence or the defence of others but me arguing this point got me a lot of downvotes so I am kind of curious now. If you get slapped and are not in any danger to get really harmed in any way, there is in my opinion nothing gained by hitting back. It is not your place to enforce justice (if you feel inclined call the cops) You dont teach them a lesson that violence is the wrong way of discourse by using said violence against them. You risk escalating a situation in a dangerous way. Also to be really clear it is important that the option of walking away unharmed and not taking any more physical abuse is an option, so with that in mind please change my view Edit: sorry I will be gone for a few hours, when I am back I ll try to answer all posts
t3_1t6e8n	I think selfies are incredibly vain and off-putting. CMV	I don't know how to explain this in 500 characters really, but the advent and popularity of this "style" of photography, and the term alone I think signal a trend toward unchecked, “fashionable” vanity. I find selfies off-putting because of this, and for how they seem to ask for approval and validation from their viewers. I don’t think selfies are the cause of vanity but they are definitely an obvious symptom. I think selfies also foster cultural narcissism (Lasch) (I don’t mean simple selfishness but malignant self-love intensified and concentrated by the lens of technology, where construction of the self only happens in the eyes of an audience).	I think selfies are incredibly vain and off-putting. CMV. I don't know how to explain this in 500 characters really, but the advent and popularity of this "style" of photography, and the term alone I think signal a trend toward unchecked, “fashionable” vanity. I find selfies off-putting because of this, and for how they seem to ask for approval and validation from their viewers. I don’t think selfies are the cause of vanity but they are definitely an obvious symptom. I think selfies also foster cultural narcissism (Lasch) (I don’t mean simple selfishness but malignant self-love intensified and concentrated by the lens of technology, where construction of the self only happens in the eyes of an audience).
t3_1egi3m	I don't believe the holocaust is real.	I'm not in anyway racist/nazist I just don't believe it. I saw the bills the germans had in their concentration canps and it didn't seem possible for them to "gas" all of those jews. I'm 1/8 jew and I don't know, I just can't believe it. Please CMV.	I don't believe the holocaust is real. I'm not in anyway racist/nazist I just don't believe it. I saw the bills the germans had in their concentration canps and it didn't seem possible for them to "gas" all of those jews. I'm 1/8 jew and I don't know, I just can't believe it. Please CMV.
t3_3n0hen	CMV: the way black people use the word nigger is racist towards any other race.	I have always thought this but never said it to anyone because I don't want to be called a racist myself. People in the black community always use the word nigger and it's perfectly acceptable, also the word is used a lot in rap music by black rappers and it's fine, But as soon as someone from any other race uses it all hell breaks loose and get called racist. Surely that is racist in itself? I understand the meaning of the word and why they take offence to it, I'm not saying they shouldn't either. So my point is this I just don't understand why it's acceptable for one race to use a word and no others.	CMV: the way black people use the word nigger is racist towards any other race. I have always thought this but never said it to anyone because I don't want to be called a racist myself. People in the black community always use the word nigger and it's perfectly acceptable, also the word is used a lot in rap music by black rappers and it's fine, But as soon as someone from any other race uses it all hell breaks loose and get called racist. Surely that is racist in itself? I understand the meaning of the word and why they take offence to it, I'm not saying they shouldn't either. So my point is this I just don't understand why it's acceptable for one race to use a word and no others.
t3_6mu2pd	CMV: The Death Penalty is Barbaric, and a State Which Kills Those who Kill is Inherently Contradictory as Nothing Tangible Gives the State Higher Powers Over the Right to Life	I used to hold the belief that people who commit heinous crimes forfeit the social contract they hold with the governments which provide services for them, however I came to the understanding that people in states have not chosen to be at the behest of the laws as dictated by the state. I am actually quite authoritarian on most issues, however I find the idea of the death penalty quite totalitarian. Why is the state allowed to kill people? And assuming I can be convinced that they should be allowed to do so, do crimes warrant this punishment? Are some things worse than death? Are those things even less moral? _____ > 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 Death Penalty is Barbaric, and a State Which Kills Those who Kill is Inherently Contradictory as Nothing Tangible Gives the State Higher Powers Over the Right to Life. I used to hold the belief that people who commit heinous crimes forfeit the social contract they hold with the governments which provide services for them, however I came to the understanding that people in states have not chosen to be at the behest of the laws as dictated by the state. I am actually quite authoritarian on most issues, however I find the idea of the death penalty quite totalitarian. Why is the state allowed to kill people? And assuming I can be convinced that they should be allowed to do so, do crimes warrant this punishment? Are some things worse than death? Are those things even less moral?
t3_1ok9ww	I think that organic food is too expensive and unnecessary. CMV.	I think that organic food is too expensive and unnecessary, but my sister doesn't. She has now moved away from home and only buys organic or fairtrade food products. It is expensive, and unnecessary. She has tried to explain to me why it is important to buy organic food and if I buy less and throw away less, the bill will be the same. But it simply doesn't work for me. Organic meat and eggs are almost twice as expensive as normal and it simply hurts to take the one which is more expensive. I understand that organic food may be better for the environment and our nature but I haven't heard a convincing enough argument for me to start buying 100% organic food as long as it is available and waste money on something that tastes the same.	I think that organic food is too expensive and unnecessary. CMV. I think that organic food is too expensive and unnecessary, but my sister doesn't. She has now moved away from home and only buys organic or fairtrade food products. It is expensive, and unnecessary. She has tried to explain to me why it is important to buy organic food and if I buy less and throw away less, the bill will be the same. But it simply doesn't work for me. Organic meat and eggs are almost twice as expensive as normal and it simply hurts to take the one which is more expensive. I understand that organic food may be better for the environment and our nature but I haven't heard a convincing enough argument for me to start buying 100% organic food as long as it is available and waste money on something that tastes the same.
t3_2grh2i	CMV: The X-Men should be in a separate universe than the rest of the Marvel U	The X-Men should not exist in the Marvel 616 universe. They should have their own universe for just them. There are numerous national and international events in X-Men comics that only occasionally are referenced in non-X-men books. I'm not an X-Men expert, but concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of Sentinels, Apocalypse, the Sh'iar, etc are never addressed in, say, Captain America. Wouldn't Captain America have something to say about Sentinels hunting down American citizens? At the moment, there's a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be "hated and feared" by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants (Spider-Man, for example) who don't ever worry about stuff like that. X-Men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes. They would be the only ones capable of stopping the worldwide threats such as the Brood or Magneto, and no one would ask why the Avengers aren't contributing to stopping those threats. If the writers wanted the X-Men to occasionally interact with other Marvel characters, have them go universe hopping with some device built by Forge or Beast. But otherwise, the drama and worldbuilding is much stronger if the universe in question is just for the X-men. _____ > 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 X-Men should be in a separate universe than the rest of the Marvel U. The X-Men should not exist in the Marvel 616 universe. They should have their own universe for just them. There are numerous national and international events in X-Men comics that only occasionally are referenced in non-X-men books. I'm not an X-Men expert, but concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of Sentinels, Apocalypse, the Sh'iar, etc are never addressed in, say, Captain America. Wouldn't Captain America have something to say about Sentinels hunting down American citizens? At the moment, there's a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be "hated and feared" by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants (Spider-Man, for example) who don't ever worry about stuff like that. X-Men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes. They would be the only ones capable of stopping the worldwide threats such as the Brood or Magneto, and no one would ask why the Avengers aren't contributing to stopping those threats. If the writers wanted the X-Men to occasionally interact with other Marvel characters, have them go universe hopping with some device built by Forge or Beast. But otherwise, the drama and worldbuilding is much stronger if the universe in question is just for the X-men.
t3_3gkopv	CMV: people that recline their seats in flights are selfish	The title pretty much sums it up, but I find it selfish when anyone in front of my (or anyone else) reclines their seat in an airplane because it directly impacts the space of the person behind. So sure, the person behind has the option to recline, too, and it is their 'choice' to do so, but what if they just want to remain straight and have the space in front of them? To illustrate that the reclining person is using other people's space: what if all seats started off reclined and people had the option to move forward to an upright position? They can move forward and impact their own space (thus having less space in front of them) without impacting anyone else. For the purpose of this CMV, I'm ignoring external factors such as medical conditions (because these do not impact your average flight) _____ > 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 recline their seats in flights are selfish. The title pretty much sums it up, but I find it selfish when anyone in front of my (or anyone else) reclines their seat in an airplane because it directly impacts the space of the person behind. So sure, the person behind has the option to recline, too, and it is their 'choice' to do so, but what if they just want to remain straight and have the space in front of them? To illustrate that the reclining person is using other people's space: what if all seats started off reclined and people had the option to move forward to an upright position? They can move forward and impact their own space (thus having less space in front of them) without impacting anyone else. For the purpose of this CMV, I'm ignoring external factors such as medical conditions (because these do not impact your average flight)
t3_228hvb	CMV: i think the violin is inferior to the viola and cello	i know this view is wrong because it's hindering me from building my skills necessary for what i want to do and that is compose string arrangements. i cannot stand the high notes of the violin. sure, G, D, & A are fine but when you get to that E string it's just screeching. if it's on the radio that's fine, i can dampen the sound, but playing it right next to my ear, not so much. A string fourth position on the viola is the same as E string notes, but the warm tones of the viola neutralize the harshness of the high pitch. i've developed a bit of a superiority complex when it comes to my lower instruments, but i want to get past this because i think it a. hinders my ability to appreciate my favourite orchestral family the way it should, and b. broaden my potential to compose string arrangements, and c. i'm just a damn snob about it (it offends me when someone calls me a violinist). ETA: i confess i'm also a snob when it comes to my friends and their guitars. most of them are self taught from pictures of chords and tablature, whereas i've had formal training and have learned how to do things like pitch identification, reading music, music theory, etc. 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 just downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: i think the violin is inferior to the viola and cello. i know this view is wrong because it's hindering me from building my skills necessary for what i want to do and that is compose string arrangements. i cannot stand the high notes of the violin. sure, G, D, & A are fine but when you get to that E string it's just screeching. if it's on the radio that's fine, i can dampen the sound, but playing it right next to my ear, not so much. A string fourth position on the viola is the same as E string notes, but the warm tones of the viola neutralize the harshness of the high pitch. i've developed a bit of a superiority complex when it comes to my lower instruments, but i want to get past this because i think it a. hinders my ability to appreciate my favourite orchestral family the way it should, and b. broaden my potential to compose string arrangements, and c. i'm just a damn snob about it (it offends me when someone calls me a violinist). ETA: i confess i'm also a snob when it comes to my friends and their guitars. most of them are self taught from pictures of chords and tablature, whereas i've had formal training and have learned how to do things like pitch identification, reading music, music theory, etc. CMV
t3_4qfsg2	CMV: The Euro has been a bad idea (not the EU)	The Euro limits the amount of regulations that can be made to an extend, that cause economically weaker nations of the Euro-zone to not be able to compete on global markets as their wages are too high in respect to their export quality. With different currencies it would be possible for Greece to depreciate (hope this is the right word, non-native english speaker) and thus be more attractive on global markets because their products are rather cheap compared tot the ones of Germany for example. This problem leads to Greece importing some vegetables because the ones which are produced in Greece itself are more expensive because of the high wages. Accordingly Greece exports way less as their products are "worse" than the ones of Germany for example but the wages don't match it which leads to greek products being overpriced. _____ > 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 Euro has been a bad idea (not the EU). The Euro limits the amount of regulations that can be made to an extend, that cause economically weaker nations of the Euro-zone to not be able to compete on global markets as their wages are too high in respect to their export quality. With different currencies it would be possible for Greece to depreciate (hope this is the right word, non-native english speaker) and thus be more attractive on global markets because their products are rather cheap compared tot the ones of Germany for example. This problem leads to Greece importing some vegetables because the ones which are produced in Greece itself are more expensive because of the high wages. Accordingly Greece exports way less as their products are "worse" than the ones of Germany for example but the wages don't match it which leads to greek products being overpriced.
t3_22q4n9	CMV: I believe that 9/11 was _not_ an inside job and that there is no evidence of it being so.	> Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!* Simply put, I believe all those people who claim to have "Evidence" that 9/11 was committed by anyone _other_ than fanatical Muslims are either a) lying (probably for profit) or b) clueless. As with many other things, I have found that it is easy to find "evidence" and rationalize a belief to yourself - If you do absolutely no research to check the validity of that evidence. So, "truthers" of reddit (That name, BTW, betrays an arrogance bordering on the religious - or going beyond - in certainty of opinion): I think you're wrong. Change my view.	CMV: I believe that 9/11 was _not_ an inside job and that there is no evidence of it being so. > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!* Simply put, I believe all those people who claim to have "Evidence" that 9/11 was committed by anyone _other_ than fanatical Muslims are either a) lying (probably for profit) or b) clueless. As with many other things, I have found that it is easy to find "evidence" and rationalize a belief to yourself - If you do absolutely no research to check the validity of that evidence. So, "truthers" of reddit (That name, BTW, betrays an arrogance bordering on the religious - or going beyond - in certainty of opinion): I think you're wrong. Change my view.
t3_44b7gr	CMV: I think small clubs shouldn't be allowed to play their music louder than 100 - 110 decibel	I don't really mind loud music in clubs, I do think the loudness can add to the experience because you can actually feel the bass. But once you go above 110 decibel, hearing protection won't help anymore. hearing protection reduces noise by around 30 decibel at most. If you have music playing at 130 decibel your hearing will still get damaged after a few minutes. I also doubt that playing music that loud will still add more to the experience, it's not like you can't feel the bass at a volume of 100 decibel. At that point it's only for the sake of being as loud as possible. &nbsp; EDIT: I'm back, I'm sorry I didn't respond. By the time I went to bed there were only a few comments, and I already awarded delta's so I didn't expect any more. Thanks for the responses! &nbsp; EDIT: I thought I'd include my reason for this CMW. There is a local club I went to a while back, you are allowed in from the age of 16. Normally they play music pretty loud, but that night there was a special discjockey. I can't remember the name from the DJ exactly but I think it had decibel in it. And he played a genre of music originating from the Netherlands called "hardstyle". I know I'm may be generalizing a bit, but it's basically high tempo dance music that's very bass heavy. And the DJ's pretty much play it as loud as they are allowed because that's what they, and most hardstyle fans want. So this venue is small and has a low ceiling, there was also a decibel meter in it that went above 120 decibel most of the time, and peaked at 130. I think this combined with underage people and a lot of alcohol would lead to a lot of sore ears. I think most people over there really aren't aware how damaging this is. And even they are, if you are underage you are very prone to peer pressure so they may still decide not to wear any hearing protection. And from what I understand, at that volume hearing protection won't even help. (Though it's not sure, someone commented that it's a little vague how hearing protection actually works because the decibel scale is logarithmic.) Here is a hardstyle sample from /r/hardstyle: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardstyle/comments/2ga8sa/what_sort_of_music_do_you_like/ &nbsp; _____ > 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 small clubs shouldn't be allowed to play their music louder than 100 - 110 decibel. I don't really mind loud music in clubs, I do think the loudness can add to the experience because you can actually feel the bass. But once you go above 110 decibel, hearing protection won't help anymore. hearing protection reduces noise by around 30 decibel at most. If you have music playing at 130 decibel your hearing will still get damaged after a few minutes. I also doubt that playing music that loud will still add more to the experience, it's not like you can't feel the bass at a volume of 100 decibel. At that point it's only for the sake of being as loud as possible. &nbsp; EDIT: I'm back, I'm sorry I didn't respond. By the time I went to bed there were only a few comments, and I already awarded delta's so I didn't expect any more. Thanks for the responses! &nbsp; EDIT: I thought I'd include my reason for this CMW. There is a local club I went to a while back, you are allowed in from the age of 16. Normally they play music pretty loud, but that night there was a special discjockey. I can't remember the name from the DJ exactly but I think it had decibel in it. And he played a genre of music originating from the Netherlands called "hardstyle". I know I'm may be generalizing a bit, but it's basically high tempo dance music that's very bass heavy. And the DJ's pretty much play it as loud as they are allowed because that's what they, and most hardstyle fans want. So this venue is small and has a low ceiling, there was also a decibel meter in it that went above 120 decibel most of the time, and peaked at 130. I think this combined with underage people and a lot of alcohol would lead to a lot of sore ears. I think most people over there really aren't aware how damaging this is. And even they are, if you are underage you are very prone to peer pressure so they may still decide not to wear any hearing protection. And from what I understand, at that volume hearing protection won't even help. (Though it's not sure, someone commented that it's a little vague how hearing protection actually works because the decibel scale is logarithmic.) Here is a hardstyle sample from /r/hardstyle: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardstyle/comments/2ga8sa/what_sort_of_music_do_you_like/ &nbsp;
t3_4xn0cd	CMV: I should have my newborn son circumcised	My wife and I have consulted doctors, did all the research we can. We are very evidence based. Our pediatrician says there is literally no conclusive data either way and it has to be up to us. We've obviously heard a ton of things from biased sources which we cannot confirm (I.e. Circumcision results in less pleasure, or 10% of all uncircumcised males need to get one as an adult for medical reasons anyways). We know that actual data says a circumcised male gets the benefits of better cleanliness and slightly lower chances of STDs. We dont think anyone should rely on that to prevent stds but the other benefits might be nice. We also find the fact that most males in the US, and I (the father) am circumcised, is a minor reason ( no kids wants to look different, could be more harmful than the other indications). The main evidence backed reason not to circumcise is the miniscule chances of complications which we find acceptable, and the "don't do unnecessary irreversible medical procedures to babies who cannot consent" argument, which we find the benefits outlined above just barely overcomes. Am I missing anything? Change my view! But don't bother unless you have a real unbiased medical source backing it up, studies in particular are preferred!	CMV: I should have my newborn son circumcised. My wife and I have consulted doctors, did all the research we can. We are very evidence based. Our pediatrician says there is literally no conclusive data either way and it has to be up to us. We've obviously heard a ton of things from biased sources which we cannot confirm (I.e. Circumcision results in less pleasure, or 10% of all uncircumcised males need to get one as an adult for medical reasons anyways). We know that actual data says a circumcised male gets the benefits of better cleanliness and slightly lower chances of STDs. We dont think anyone should rely on that to prevent stds but the other benefits might be nice. We also find the fact that most males in the US, and I (the father) am circumcised, is a minor reason ( no kids wants to look different, could be more harmful than the other indications). The main evidence backed reason not to circumcise is the miniscule chances of complications which we find acceptable, and the "don't do unnecessary irreversible medical procedures to babies who cannot consent" argument, which we find the benefits outlined above just barely overcomes. Am I missing anything? Change my view! But don't bother unless you have a real unbiased medical source backing it up, studies in particular are preferred!
t3_29q83h	CMV: Biofortification has virtually no problems	Biofortification: To breed plants to inrease certain nutrients. This can be done by genetic engineering or more conventional breeding. Most famous example would be the golden rice. Another interesting application is iron, because approximately 2 billion people suffer from hypoferremia or iron deficiency. I argue that there are [edit: NO!] real reasons to be against it. 1. We have no toxins, resistances or anything that are inherently necessary apart from selection of successful transformed plants. 2. There are no resistances that could be transfered to wild plants resulting in super weeds. 3. Outcrossing with wild plants is no problem - if anything they'll take up more iron, or produce more beta-carotene. If that is not advantageous for the wild plant then it won't be successful. 4. We have no insecticides or pesticide resistance (at least not necessarily) and most criticism of GMOs is connected to those. The only reasons to be against biofortification are in my opinion: (with my refutation) 1. Gateway to make GMOs more acceptable, leading eventually to acceptance of any kind of GMO (which is silly in my opinion, because we should not treat all GMOs as equal, very much like medication. Even if it's true we have to take the risk and rather regulate different GMOs instead of all in the same way) 2. Bad business, monocultures, etc. (They have nothing inherently to do with GMOs and can be dealt with seperately. Connecting those problems with GMOs is dishonest. Also, monocultures are clearly a problem with or without GMOs. Bad business practices can appear in any field (pun not intended)). 3. Religious reasons, i.e. don't mess around with what a god made (Dishonest because we already do anyway. If we were to take this serious then we wouldn't be allowed to eat wheat for example.) So Reddit, I am curious if you can change my view on this. I want to stress again that different gene insertions should be treated differently. And of course any GMO should be tested, again I compare it to medical drugs. _____ > 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: Biofortification has virtually no problems. Biofortification: To breed plants to inrease certain nutrients. This can be done by genetic engineering or more conventional breeding. Most famous example would be the golden rice. Another interesting application is iron, because approximately 2 billion people suffer from hypoferremia or iron deficiency. I argue that there are [edit: NO!] real reasons to be against it. 1. We have no toxins, resistances or anything that are inherently necessary apart from selection of successful transformed plants. 2. There are no resistances that could be transfered to wild plants resulting in super weeds. 3. Outcrossing with wild plants is no problem - if anything they'll take up more iron, or produce more beta-carotene. If that is not advantageous for the wild plant then it won't be successful. 4. We have no insecticides or pesticide resistance (at least not necessarily) and most criticism of GMOs is connected to those. The only reasons to be against biofortification are in my opinion: (with my refutation) 1. Gateway to make GMOs more acceptable, leading eventually to acceptance of any kind of GMO (which is silly in my opinion, because we should not treat all GMOs as equal, very much like medication. Even if it's true we have to take the risk and rather regulate different GMOs instead of all in the same way) 2. Bad business, monocultures, etc. (They have nothing inherently to do with GMOs and can be dealt with seperately. Connecting those problems with GMOs is dishonest. Also, monocultures are clearly a problem with or without GMOs. Bad business practices can appear in any field (pun not intended)). 3. Religious reasons, i.e. don't mess around with what a god made (Dishonest because we already do anyway. If we were to take this serious then we wouldn't be allowed to eat wheat for example.) So Reddit, I am curious if you can change my view on this. I want to stress again that different gene insertions should be treated differently. And of course any GMO should be tested, again I compare it to medical drugs.
t3_2ab6se	CMV: Feminists are members of a sexist, anti-male hate group.	I have worked with, befriended, and dated feminists for many years. I'm not a red-piller (and indeed am shocked by many of their beliefs), but after a lot of debate I have come to the parallel conclusion that the feminist movement is a sexist hate group that attacks both men and masculinity: * A team-based [us vs. them mentality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddgkEg2XSA) is endemic to feminism. Instead of reaching out to like-minded men, feminists [attack male liberals](http://imgur.com/a/BHJWv) vehemently. True gender equality will never be attained while gender issues are being policed by only one side, and feminists [actively discourage men](http://i.imgur.com/PStCpNB.jpg) from joining the conversation. * Feminists are unaware of and/or [refuse to care](http://i.imgur.com/0sdVB.png) about the [many](http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Samaritans_Men_and_Suicide_Report_web.pdf) [serious](http://i.imgur.com/tqWARpb.png) social [issues](http://listverse.com/2013/06/25/10-examples-of-men39s-issues-the-media-loves-to-ignore/) faced by men, either denying their existence or underselling their importance. This is not what you would expect from a movement that claims to be synonymous with equality. Feminists excuse this behavior by claiming that discussing men's issues will distract from "[more important](http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/)" female ones. The same logic could be used (and should not be) to dismiss all feminist issues because starving Africans have it even worse. Instead, the idea that men could ever be at a disadvantage is [ridiculed](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/how-feminism-hurts-men_b_4266733.html?utm_hp_ref=tw). * Feminists [blame](http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html) virtually all of society's ills implicitly on [men](http://i.imgur.com/naj1Bzk.png). When we're not raping or murdering our wives, we are [implied to be lazy or stupid](http://www.newstatesman.com/martha-gill/2013/05/feminists-stop-talking-about#comment-929380505) by our feminist colleages, who unabashedly claim to work twice as hard to accomplish half as much. Feminists default to the position that successful men earn their status through [underhanded means](http://i.imgur.com/BTmQ8L9.jpg), while successful women are treated as a [messianic](http://www.nonfictioncomics.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ff_hillary_clinton1.jpg) [figures](https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1388/95/1388956456384.jpg). * Feminists live in a [political](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEYDUnwmG4U) [echo chamber](http://i.imgur.com/QxvBQgW.jpg). They have all but [silenced men](http://i.imgur.com/kGn4Y.png) on gender-related issues through [bullying](http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/2452lo/rant_im_getting_bullied_by_tumblr_feminists/), making feminism increasingly [radicalised](http://i.imgur.com/kllqQ.png) and socially isolating feminists as individuals. By tunnel-visioning on inequality and then exporting that misery onto anyone who will listen, feminism as a movement [fails to inspire hope](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html). Instead it spreads resentment, [sexual warfare](http://karaj.tumblr.com/post/6376090082/boystown-alexis-hunter-sexual-warfare-1975), and even [violence](http://imgur.com/a/eyadL) (SFW). * Feminists target women less often, even when the [woman in question](http://i.imgur.com/WiEErAZ.jpg) makes extremely anti-female statements. [Sexist statements](http://i.imgur.com/O58Y1o5.jpg) that are anti-male are routinely unchallenged by feminists even when those statements are not being made by feminists themselves. When a man expresses sexism he is an opponent to be defeated. When a woman makes the same statement she is a victim who needs to be saved. * Feminists [conflate](http://i-should-be-writing.tumblr.com/post/60498076704/my-law-class-makes-me-hate-society) even the most benign expressions of male sexuality with rape: e.g. catcalling. They both hate and fear male sexuality, diluting the very serious issue of rape by insisting that every "issue" be treated as a kind of Holocaust. I'd to head off the argument that these issues are due to only a small group of internet extremists. In debates it is common for feminists to morph the definition of feminism into whatever best suits the argument at hand, deflecting any criticism as unrepresentative of "true feminism." The existence of moderate feminists does not dissuade me from the idea that feminism is a poisonous gradient, where the longer one studies it the more anti-male they become.	CMV: Feminists are members of a sexist, anti-male hate group. I have worked with, befriended, and dated feminists for many years. I'm not a red-piller (and indeed am shocked by many of their beliefs), but after a lot of debate I have come to the parallel conclusion that the feminist movement is a sexist hate group that attacks both men and masculinity: * A team-based [us vs. them mentality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddgkEg2XSA) is endemic to feminism. Instead of reaching out to like-minded men, feminists [attack male liberals](http://imgur.com/a/BHJWv) vehemently. True gender equality will never be attained while gender issues are being policed by only one side, and feminists [actively discourage men](http://i.imgur.com/PStCpNB.jpg) from joining the conversation. * Feminists are unaware of and/or [refuse to care](http://i.imgur.com/0sdVB.png) about the [many](http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Samaritans_Men_and_Suicide_Report_web.pdf) [serious](http://i.imgur.com/tqWARpb.png) social [issues](http://listverse.com/2013/06/25/10-examples-of-men39s-issues-the-media-loves-to-ignore/) faced by men, either denying their existence or underselling their importance. This is not what you would expect from a movement that claims to be synonymous with equality. Feminists excuse this behavior by claiming that discussing men's issues will distract from "[more important](http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/)" female ones. The same logic could be used (and should not be) to dismiss all feminist issues because starving Africans have it even worse. Instead, the idea that men could ever be at a disadvantage is [ridiculed](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/how-feminism-hurts-men_b_4266733.html?utm_hp_ref=tw). * Feminists [blame](http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html) virtually all of society's ills implicitly on [men](http://i.imgur.com/naj1Bzk.png). When we're not raping or murdering our wives, we are [implied to be lazy or stupid](http://www.newstatesman.com/martha-gill/2013/05/feminists-stop-talking-about#comment-929380505) by our feminist colleages, who unabashedly claim to work twice as hard to accomplish half as much. Feminists default to the position that successful men earn their status through [underhanded means](http://i.imgur.com/BTmQ8L9.jpg), while successful women are treated as a [messianic](http://www.nonfictioncomics.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ff_hillary_clinton1.jpg) [figures](https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1388/95/1388956456384.jpg). * Feminists live in a [political](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEYDUnwmG4U) [echo chamber](http://i.imgur.com/QxvBQgW.jpg). They have all but [silenced men](http://i.imgur.com/kGn4Y.png) on gender-related issues through [bullying](http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/2452lo/rant_im_getting_bullied_by_tumblr_feminists/), making feminism increasingly [radicalised](http://i.imgur.com/kllqQ.png) and socially isolating feminists as individuals. By tunnel-visioning on inequality and then exporting that misery onto anyone who will listen, feminism as a movement [fails to inspire hope](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html). Instead it spreads resentment, [sexual warfare](http://karaj.tumblr.com/post/6376090082/boystown-alexis-hunter-sexual-warfare-1975), and even [violence](http://imgur.com/a/eyadL) (SFW). * Feminists target women less often, even when the [woman in question](http://i.imgur.com/WiEErAZ.jpg) makes extremely anti-female statements. [Sexist statements](http://i.imgur.com/O58Y1o5.jpg) that are anti-male are routinely unchallenged by feminists even when those statements are not being made by feminists themselves. When a man expresses sexism he is an opponent to be defeated. When a woman makes the same statement she is a victim who needs to be saved. * Feminists [conflate](http://i-should-be-writing.tumblr.com/post/60498076704/my-law-class-makes-me-hate-society) even the most benign expressions of male sexuality with rape: e.g. catcalling. They both hate and fear male sexuality, diluting the very serious issue of rape by insisting that every "issue" be treated as a kind of Holocaust. I'd to head off the argument that these issues are due to only a small group of internet extremists. In debates it is common for feminists to morph the definition of feminism into whatever best suits the argument at hand, deflecting any criticism as unrepresentative of "true feminism." The existence of moderate feminists does not dissuade me from the idea that feminism is a poisonous gradient, where the longer one studies it the more anti-male they become.
t3_6f1cus	CMV: One ply toilet paper should never be used	There are several reasons that make me believe that one ply toilet paper should never be used and it angers me that it is so prevalent in hotels, restaurants, schools and universities. One ply toilet paper is uncomfortable Why would anyone prefer a thin layer of sandpaper over something a little thicker and fluffier? A lot of one ply toilet paper is so thin that it will actually tear (more on this later) resulting in your fingers possibly geting contaminated. In the service industry, I look at different restaurants/hotels less favorably if they have a poor quality of toilet paper. One ply toilet paper is bad for business If there are two hotels or restaurants that are similar in quality which I have visited before, I will always choose the one with the better toilet paper. Although many may not be as picky as me, this is still a small loss in customers. Additionally, when wiping, the toilet paper can rip resulting in people using more and more toilet paper. Whether at home or in a business establishment, it would be cheaper to get higher quality toiler paper because although it would be more expensive, it would rip less and therefore result in less of it being used up. Perhaps I'm being too harsh and picky but one ply toilet paper experiences affect how much I enjoy different restaurants and hotels. 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: One ply toilet paper should never be used. There are several reasons that make me believe that one ply toilet paper should never be used and it angers me that it is so prevalent in hotels, restaurants, schools and universities. One ply toilet paper is uncomfortable Why would anyone prefer a thin layer of sandpaper over something a little thicker and fluffier? A lot of one ply toilet paper is so thin that it will actually tear (more on this later) resulting in your fingers possibly geting contaminated. In the service industry, I look at different restaurants/hotels less favorably if they have a poor quality of toilet paper. One ply toilet paper is bad for business If there are two hotels or restaurants that are similar in quality which I have visited before, I will always choose the one with the better toilet paper. Although many may not be as picky as me, this is still a small loss in customers. Additionally, when wiping, the toilet paper can rip resulting in people using more and more toilet paper. Whether at home or in a business establishment, it would be cheaper to get higher quality toiler paper because although it would be more expensive, it would rip less and therefore result in less of it being used up. Perhaps I'm being too harsh and picky but one ply toilet paper experiences affect how much I enjoy different restaurants and hotels. Change my view!
t3_63iojg	CMV: Falsely accusing someone of rape is just as bad as the act itself and should be considered a crime that constitutes jail-time.	When someone falsely accuses someone for being a rapist, or having been a rapist or doing anything to sexually harass another person should be considered a crime. It destroys not only the legitimacy of other rape victims but destroys other people's lives as a result. If the claim actually does get to court, and the person is found guilty, they have a high probably of actually being sexually assaulted in jail. Falsely accusing someone of rape is also considered fraud as tax payers pay money to resource a false allegation, often for the accuser to gain an advantage for said person going to jail. It is the equivalent of yelling fire and puts other people in a position take precaution. Lastly the accusation severely damages someone else's reputation, and can cost someone their job, status, and worst of all even their family. I think if the accuser has hard evidence of making up the accusation, they should be sentenced to jail time. ____ > 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: Falsely accusing someone of rape is just as bad as the act itself and should be considered a crime that constitutes jail-time. When someone falsely accuses someone for being a rapist, or having been a rapist or doing anything to sexually harass another person should be considered a crime. It destroys not only the legitimacy of other rape victims but destroys other people's lives as a result. If the claim actually does get to court, and the person is found guilty, they have a high probably of actually being sexually assaulted in jail. Falsely accusing someone of rape is also considered fraud as tax payers pay money to resource a false allegation, often for the accuser to gain an advantage for said person going to jail. It is the equivalent of yelling fire and puts other people in a position take precaution. Lastly the accusation severely damages someone else's reputation, and can cost someone their job, status, and worst of all even their family. I think if the accuser has hard evidence of making up the accusation, they should be sentenced to jail time. ____ > 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_1yst0y	I believe education should not be mandatory. CMV	I do not think that education/schooling should be mandatory. Why? Because some of us are just not made for theories learning and are more manual-type people that prefer jobs like construction, truck drivers and plumbers. Our society is headed towards failure because nobody wants to do these jobs, but we need them. What's the point of showing a future truck driver how to graph a function? By doing this, we could alleviate the cost of education and help the ones that really want to learn instead of cramming every teenager in a classroom to learn how many electrons has an atom of potassium.	I believe education should not be mandatory. CMV. I do not think that education/schooling should be mandatory. Why? Because some of us are just not made for theories learning and are more manual-type people that prefer jobs like construction, truck drivers and plumbers. Our society is headed towards failure because nobody wants to do these jobs, but we need them. What's the point of showing a future truck driver how to graph a function? By doing this, we could alleviate the cost of education and help the ones that really want to learn instead of cramming every teenager in a classroom to learn how many electrons has an atom of potassium.
t3_4dc6oi	CMV: In the second season of Young Justice the League should have bribed the tribunal.	In season 2 of Young Justice the Justice League refused to bribe the tribunal that was to decide their fate after they attacked alien planet under Vandal Savage's mind control. This court was transparently corrupt not bribing them only put the League in danger. If they would have bribed the court they would have been on Earth during the Reach invasion. The League's presence could have possibly swayed public opinion away from the Reach stopping the invasion. If they hadn't been successful they could have at least helped the team investigate and defeat the Reach before things got as bad as they did. Ultimately their moral stand didn't even matter because they weren't released because they were innocent but because the team convinced the judges letting them go would get them more bribes in the long run only increasing the scale of the corruption.	CMV: In the second season of Young Justice the League should have bribed the tribunal. In season 2 of Young Justice the Justice League refused to bribe the tribunal that was to decide their fate after they attacked alien planet under Vandal Savage's mind control. This court was transparently corrupt not bribing them only put the League in danger. If they would have bribed the court they would have been on Earth during the Reach invasion. The League's presence could have possibly swayed public opinion away from the Reach stopping the invasion. If they hadn't been successful they could have at least helped the team investigate and defeat the Reach before things got as bad as they did. Ultimately their moral stand didn't even matter because they weren't released because they were innocent but because the team convinced the judges letting them go would get them more bribes in the long run only increasing the scale of the corruption.
t3_1vob3h	I do not think Richard Sherman's interview was bad. I think it was entertaining and more players should be like that. CMV	[Sherman's interview for context.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjOkTib5eVQ) Many people are up in arms and borderline disgusted that a player would act this way. I honestly don't see why it is a big deal. These people are paid to destroy each other on the field. Every other player gives the same boring interview after every game thanking coaches, god, players, etc. I find it way more entertaining that some guy stepped out of the norm. I personally believe that if you were offended by what he did, you take the NFL too seriously.	I do not think Richard Sherman's interview was bad. I think it was entertaining and more players should be like that. CMV. [Sherman's interview for context.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjOkTib5eVQ) Many people are up in arms and borderline disgusted that a player would act this way. I honestly don't see why it is a big deal. These people are paid to destroy each other on the field. Every other player gives the same boring interview after every game thanking coaches, god, players, etc. I find it way more entertaining that some guy stepped out of the norm. I personally believe that if you were offended by what he did, you take the NFL too seriously.
t3_1n6bmg	I believe unmuffled motorcycles should be banned from the streets. CMV.	* They are [aftermarket](http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatements/ExcessiveMotorcycleSound.aspx). It is therefore the motorcycle owner's choice to [install](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070614102152AAtReJf) it. All of the [2014](http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_CA/Motorcycles/compare-bikes.html) model Harleys come with mufflers installed, sometimes even dual mufflers (like the SuperLow). * In my view they are just a way to say "look at me". They serve no other purpose. It is selfish to expose other people to excessive noise just because you think it is cool. * It will damage hearing. When I am a pedestrian and I hear one go by - one turned right behind me after I crossed a light - it hurts my ears. I'm sure if I had to hear that every day it would do some damage. (sarcasm) Maybe the owners have damaged their hearing such that their cycle sounds normal to them. (/sarcasm) Check out [slide five here, under non-occupational.](http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/NoiseToolBoxes/Wear%20Your%20Hearing%20Protection.pdf) CMV. Edit: My view isn't changed completely. I understand that loud pipes are one extra thing to get motorcyclists noticed by, but I think they still can use their horn if needed, and just try to be aware and avoid bad situations, especially since they are always loud (i.e. you don't need them on residential streets). Basically I think their obnoxious-ness is still too much. People make bad judgement calls all the time, even if they hear a motorcyclist around. They could still swing out of their lane without checking their blind spot. Also obligatory, wow front page of CMV! Edit 2: /u/Smiley_Black_Sheep changed my mind by giving a different take on the issue, and I gave a delta. Sure they're annoying, but banning is a bit extreme.	I believe unmuffled motorcycles should be banned from the streets. CMV. * They are [aftermarket](http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatements/ExcessiveMotorcycleSound.aspx). It is therefore the motorcycle owner's choice to [install](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070614102152AAtReJf) it. All of the [2014](http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_CA/Motorcycles/compare-bikes.html) model Harleys come with mufflers installed, sometimes even dual mufflers (like the SuperLow). * In my view they are just a way to say "look at me". They serve no other purpose. It is selfish to expose other people to excessive noise just because you think it is cool. * It will damage hearing. When I am a pedestrian and I hear one go by - one turned right behind me after I crossed a light - it hurts my ears. I'm sure if I had to hear that every day it would do some damage. (sarcasm) Maybe the owners have damaged their hearing such that their cycle sounds normal to them. (/sarcasm) Check out [slide five here, under non-occupational.](http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/NoiseToolBoxes/Wear%20Your%20Hearing%20Protection.pdf) CMV. Edit: My view isn't changed completely. I understand that loud pipes are one extra thing to get motorcyclists noticed by, but I think they still can use their horn if needed, and just try to be aware and avoid bad situations, especially since they are always loud (i.e. you don't need them on residential streets). Basically I think their obnoxious-ness is still too much. People make bad judgement calls all the time, even if they hear a motorcyclist around. They could still swing out of their lane without checking their blind spot. Also obligatory, wow front page of CMV! Edit 2: /u/Smiley_Black_Sheep changed my mind by giving a different take on the issue, and I gave a delta. Sure they're annoying, but banning is a bit extreme.
t3_20ayce	I don't think the free market is a superior system. CMV	... from the limited amount of knowledge I have of it. I intend to research more about it but I love the discussions that come out of this subreddit so I thought I'd put it to you guys. It's my opinion right now that in order to prevent a market from becoming a total monopoly, open to the abuses which come from said position, regulations need to exist. In an ideal world we would have a creatively open-minded, patient, uncommonly rational and objective community of businesses that would play fair with each other or a similarly-minded government, but what we actually have is corporations and a government that are comprised of human beings. Quite frankly, I want the people who are in control of the market to be the ones that the rest of the country are capable of voting out. Free market economics gives complete power over to corporations and that's a concept that terrifies me. Educate me, my friends. I'm aware that I have a simplified view here so I'd welcome opinions from either side of this.	I don't think the free market is a superior system. CMV. ... from the limited amount of knowledge I have of it. I intend to research more about it but I love the discussions that come out of this subreddit so I thought I'd put it to you guys. It's my opinion right now that in order to prevent a market from becoming a total monopoly, open to the abuses which come from said position, regulations need to exist. In an ideal world we would have a creatively open-minded, patient, uncommonly rational and objective community of businesses that would play fair with each other or a similarly-minded government, but what we actually have is corporations and a government that are comprised of human beings. Quite frankly, I want the people who are in control of the market to be the ones that the rest of the country are capable of voting out. Free market economics gives complete power over to corporations and that's a concept that terrifies me. Educate me, my friends. I'm aware that I have a simplified view here so I'd welcome opinions from either side of this.
t3_375u5c	CMV: Everyone should drive an AWD	Pretty simple view, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't drive an all wheel drive vehicle day to day. Slight biases: I have a 1991 Subaru Legacy as my daily driver, have driven many different new vehicles in the past year, and I drive for 10 hours a day so I see a lot of things on the road. The increase in traction provided by an AWD is immesurably valuable. Driving in the rain constantly, hitting black ice, and on rare occasion driving in snow, under no normal driving circumstances has my car come close to losing control. My tires, even when bald, have refused to spin, except under an excessive ammount of throttle while on wet pavement. No RWD I've driven has come close to maintaining as much control in any circumstance as my AWD, running on technology 20+ years older. The only cons I see are lower gas milage and increased cost, but do not believe these are significant enough to negate the benefits. _____ > 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: Everyone should drive an AWD. Pretty simple view, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't drive an all wheel drive vehicle day to day. Slight biases: I have a 1991 Subaru Legacy as my daily driver, have driven many different new vehicles in the past year, and I drive for 10 hours a day so I see a lot of things on the road. The increase in traction provided by an AWD is immesurably valuable. Driving in the rain constantly, hitting black ice, and on rare occasion driving in snow, under no normal driving circumstances has my car come close to losing control. My tires, even when bald, have refused to spin, except under an excessive ammount of throttle while on wet pavement. No RWD I've driven has come close to maintaining as much control in any circumstance as my AWD, running on technology 20+ years older. The only cons I see are lower gas milage and increased cost, but do not believe these are significant enough to negate the benefits.
t3_2n5347	CMV: The axiom that "you need to be happy with yourself to be happy in a relationship" is questionable	All right, I don't have an elaborate initial argument prepared, just a few scattered thoughts about the topic. So often I'll read in advice threads on reddit or hear in casual conversation in real life that the reason a person can't find a relationship is because they're not happy with their lives, or similarly, even if a person can find a relationship, they'll never be happy in that relationship unless they could also be happy without the relationship. Then the speaker will go on to give generic life advice like working out, getting finances in order, or getting into hobbies that bring personal satisfaction. And while none of those things are bad pieces of advice, I just don't see how they're relevant to having relationship satisfaction, and I don't necessarily believe that it's a bad thing to rely on a relationship to bring you happiness. After all, relationships, both platonic and sexual, are things that humans naturally crave. We are social organisms. We depend on social belonging for our sense of well-being, and our sex drives push us to procreational activity regardless of what else is going on in our lives. In [Maslow's hierarchy of needs](http://imgur.com/xXejOT3), both friendship and sexual intimacy are listed on the third tier of the pyramid. While I understand Maslow's hierarchy isn't a completely accepted concept in psychology, I think it's at least a helpful model of human behavior. Saying "you can't find happiness with another person until you're happy in the rest of your life" seems as silly as saying "you can't find happiness in urinating unless you're happy with the rest of your life" or "you can't be happy with friends unless you're happy with other aspects of your life". Urinating and having friends are just two more things that humans need to do to be happy, and even if all else has gone to shit, urinating when you need to urinate and hanging out with friends when you're lonely will bring you some happiness and comfort even if it's short-lived. Why shouldn't it be the same with the pursuit of romantic relationships? CMV _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: The axiom that "you need to be happy with yourself to be happy in a relationship" is questionable. All right, I don't have an elaborate initial argument prepared, just a few scattered thoughts about the topic. So often I'll read in advice threads on reddit or hear in casual conversation in real life that the reason a person can't find a relationship is because they're not happy with their lives, or similarly, even if a person can find a relationship, they'll never be happy in that relationship unless they could also be happy without the relationship. Then the speaker will go on to give generic life advice like working out, getting finances in order, or getting into hobbies that bring personal satisfaction. And while none of those things are bad pieces of advice, I just don't see how they're relevant to having relationship satisfaction, and I don't necessarily believe that it's a bad thing to rely on a relationship to bring you happiness. After all, relationships, both platonic and sexual, are things that humans naturally crave. We are social organisms. We depend on social belonging for our sense of well-being, and our sex drives push us to procreational activity regardless of what else is going on in our lives. In [Maslow's hierarchy of needs](http://imgur.com/xXejOT3), both friendship and sexual intimacy are listed on the third tier of the pyramid. While I understand Maslow's hierarchy isn't a completely accepted concept in psychology, I think it's at least a helpful model of human behavior. Saying "you can't find happiness with another person until you're happy in the rest of your life" seems as silly as saying "you can't find happiness in urinating unless you're happy with the rest of your life" or "you can't be happy with friends unless you're happy with other aspects of your life". Urinating and having friends are just two more things that humans need to do to be happy, and even if all else has gone to shit, urinating when you need to urinate and hanging out with friends when you're lonely will bring you some happiness and comfort even if it's short-lived. Why shouldn't it be the same with the pursuit of romantic relationships? CMV
t3_4vef0m	CMV: AGOT characters aren't as morally ambiguous as some make them out to be.	I'm making the argument that characters from HBO's Game of Thrones aren't as morally ambiguous as some people make out to be. And that saying so is false praise. I believe characters that can be described as pure evil exist, but this doesn't mean the show is any less unrealistic. I also take the show to be fairly black, and white in certain conflicts, and events that happen in the show. Despite this view, I'm not making the argument that the show is unrealistic. The reason I want my view to be challenge is because I believe it will evoke a good discussion on one of my favourite TV shows of all time. I also believe that's it is possible my view might 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: AGOT characters aren't as morally ambiguous as some make them out to be. I'm making the argument that characters from HBO's Game of Thrones aren't as morally ambiguous as some people make out to be. And that saying so is false praise. I believe characters that can be described as pure evil exist, but this doesn't mean the show is any less unrealistic. I also take the show to be fairly black, and white in certain conflicts, and events that happen in the show. Despite this view, I'm not making the argument that the show is unrealistic. The reason I want my view to be challenge is because I believe it will evoke a good discussion on one of my favourite TV shows of all time. I also believe that's it is possible my view might be wrong.
t3_59pkak	CMV: If protesters form a human blockade stopping you from getting to work or class or something else important, you should legally be able to physically push them out of your way by any means necessary.	I see some absolutely stupid protests lately on campuses and on roads where the protesters stand linked in a human chain and block highways and high traffic areas on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=3R6dzZdceT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=harIS0DgW8I (two examples) You can protest however you want, but I believe if it impedes on someones ability to roam free to their destination, and that person asks politely for the other person to move, that they should be able to push them out of the way and/or continue driving forward until they either move out of the way or get run over. I understand the laws protecting pedestrians from being run over, but it seems like in these circumstances where they are purposely blocking people there should be an exception in the law. Edit: I'd like to add that if you try and make it through their blockade, you will be met with violence, and therefore you simply being violent in return to make your way through could be seen as self defense. Also, I agreed with some points made below that the police should deal with it instead of individuals. However, I still am skeptical to how likely the police are to actually do this. I would like to see a relatively simple way that the protesters can be held accountable for infringing obnoxiously in other (innocent) peoples lives. _____ > 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 protesters form a human blockade stopping you from getting to work or class or something else important, you should legally be able to physically push them out of your way by any means necessary. I see some absolutely stupid protests lately on campuses and on roads where the protesters stand linked in a human chain and block highways and high traffic areas on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=3R6dzZdceT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=harIS0DgW8I (two examples) You can protest however you want, but I believe if it impedes on someones ability to roam free to their destination, and that person asks politely for the other person to move, that they should be able to push them out of the way and/or continue driving forward until they either move out of the way or get run over. I understand the laws protecting pedestrians from being run over, but it seems like in these circumstances where they are purposely blocking people there should be an exception in the law. Edit: I'd like to add that if you try and make it through their blockade, you will be met with violence, and therefore you simply being violent in return to make your way through could be seen as self defense. Also, I agreed with some points made below that the police should deal with it instead of individuals. However, I still am skeptical to how likely the police are to actually do this. I would like to see a relatively simple way that the protesters can be held accountable for infringing obnoxiously in other (innocent) peoples lives.
t3_5qbyw7	CMV: Mexico will in some way or another, pay for the proposed wall.	Although they won't pay outright (now at least) for the wall they will pay for it through some shady economic relation changes between the two countries. There are several options I think the US might consider ranging from reasonable to clutching at straws. - Increase import tax on Mexican produce. - Cancel trade agreements - Revoke the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water of the Rio Grande. Claim prior appropriation and disrupt Mexico's water supply. Mexico would be unable to maintain agricultural practice resulting in less produce available for trading. However America tackles it you can be sure that Mexico will make a loss to the tune of the wall's cost. On that note, Trump is looking pretty hardcore since he took office, I wouldn't be surprised if he went further out of spite. In summary: Mexico will find themselves with a deficit the size of the cost of the wall. Edit: I don't mean Mexico will literally shell out the cash for the wall, I'm saying that through some economic mechanisms Mexico will lose out on the cost of the wall and the US will probably be reimbursed for the wall's construction in some way or another. Edit: I'm not suggesting I know the mechanisms the US would use only that there are options out there. Edit: Not a Trump supporter. Edit: Ok, for sake of argument say that they can't recoup the entire amount why does that mean the US couldn't possibly find mechanisms to recoup at least some of it. I might be misinterpreting comments but the general theme seems to be that not even the US government can come up with a mechanism to recoup some of the costs indirectly. I get that I'm not offering great examples but surely it's not far fetched to say the US government's economists can do what they do best. Edit: [BBC article with some ideas on how they'd recoup the money](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37243269) Edit: Ok, I'd like to rephrase my topic. "Mexico will in some way or another pay some of the money America spends on the wall". EDIT: Seriously guys, I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even American. Edit: I'm not saying I have faith in what Trump said, I have faith in the team of specialists charged with figuring it out.	CMV: Mexico will in some way or another, pay for the proposed wall. Although they won't pay outright (now at least) for the wall they will pay for it through some shady economic relation changes between the two countries. There are several options I think the US might consider ranging from reasonable to clutching at straws. - Increase import tax on Mexican produce. - Cancel trade agreements - Revoke the 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water of the Rio Grande. Claim prior appropriation and disrupt Mexico's water supply. Mexico would be unable to maintain agricultural practice resulting in less produce available for trading. However America tackles it you can be sure that Mexico will make a loss to the tune of the wall's cost. On that note, Trump is looking pretty hardcore since he took office, I wouldn't be surprised if he went further out of spite. In summary: Mexico will find themselves with a deficit the size of the cost of the wall. Edit: I don't mean Mexico will literally shell out the cash for the wall, I'm saying that through some economic mechanisms Mexico will lose out on the cost of the wall and the US will probably be reimbursed for the wall's construction in some way or another. Edit: I'm not suggesting I know the mechanisms the US would use only that there are options out there. Edit: Not a Trump supporter. Edit: Ok, for sake of argument say that they can't recoup the entire amount why does that mean the US couldn't possibly find mechanisms to recoup at least some of it. I might be misinterpreting comments but the general theme seems to be that not even the US government can come up with a mechanism to recoup some of the costs indirectly. I get that I'm not offering great examples but surely it's not far fetched to say the US government's economists can do what they do best. Edit: [BBC article with some ideas on how they'd recoup the money](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37243269) Edit: Ok, I'd like to rephrase my topic. "Mexico will in some way or another pay some of the money America spends on the wall". EDIT: Seriously guys, I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even American. Edit: I'm not saying I have faith in what Trump said, I have faith in the team of specialists charged with figuring it out.
t3_32ecsj	CMV: Reddit's voting system works better as it's commonly used (agree/disagree) in many cases than their original intended use (relevance to discussion)	A lot of subreddits like TIL, science, eli5 etc. Provide a platform for learning. I see little benefit to comments being near the top that provide incorrect information just because they're on topic. One could argue that you could just not vote for those at all, and only vote for those that are on topic and accurately informative, however users are given an incentive to not BS and remember to fact check by not wanting to be downvoted. Because of situations like these, it's my opinion that subreddits should be able to decide the purpose of the voting system individually in their own rules, vs a site wide definition.	CMV: Reddit's voting system works better as it's commonly used (agree/disagree) in many cases than their original intended use (relevance to discussion). A lot of subreddits like TIL, science, eli5 etc. Provide a platform for learning. I see little benefit to comments being near the top that provide incorrect information just because they're on topic. One could argue that you could just not vote for those at all, and only vote for those that are on topic and accurately informative, however users are given an incentive to not BS and remember to fact check by not wanting to be downvoted. Because of situations like these, it's my opinion that subreddits should be able to decide the purpose of the voting system individually in their own rules, vs a site wide definition.
t3_2eolww	CMV: I believe there is no such thing as 'moral.'	Moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet I believe it is actually an empty concept. There is no such thing as 'moral', as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is 'moral' is actually just a social contract. Here is one classic example: murder. It is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person's life is believed to be wrong and immoral. But then, isn't the death sentence just another murder? Why is it not wrong? If it's because the murder 'corrects' another murder, then would I be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved? And let's forget about petty homicides; let's talk about war - murder in the toll of millions. Humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it. Another example: many people believe that inequality is 'wrong', and some people should not have as much money as they do. But who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have? If I work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why can't I have it? If I have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who's to say that I can't? Murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons. Some people argue that just because it's natural doesn't mean it's moral and justifiable. The exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages. Now, our argument is that 'because it's natural, it must be accepted.' As an LGBT person, I never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is. The fact that it's more accepted now is a reflection of society's economic and political progress rather than because it's 'right.' I think that what we call 'moral' is a huge misnomer; 'moral' is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong. CMV? > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: I believe there is no such thing as 'moral.'. Moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet I believe it is actually an empty concept. There is no such thing as 'moral', as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is 'moral' is actually just a social contract. Here is one classic example: murder. It is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person's life is believed to be wrong and immoral. But then, isn't the death sentence just another murder? Why is it not wrong? If it's because the murder 'corrects' another murder, then would I be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved? And let's forget about petty homicides; let's talk about war - murder in the toll of millions. Humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it. Another example: many people believe that inequality is 'wrong', and some people should not have as much money as they do. But who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have? If I work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why can't I have it? If I have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who's to say that I can't? Murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons. Some people argue that just because it's natural doesn't mean it's moral and justifiable. The exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages. Now, our argument is that 'because it's natural, it must be accepted.' As an LGBT person, I never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is. The fact that it's more accepted now is a reflection of society's economic and political progress rather than because it's 'right.' I think that what we call 'moral' is a huge misnomer; 'moral' is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong. CMV? > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*
t3_5so756	CMV: Betsy DeVos is not qualified to serve as the US Education Secretary	She has ~~not attended public school~~ not attended/no knowledge of the public education system, for which managing is one of the largest responsibilities of the Education Secretary/Department of Education. As demonstrated in her Senate hearing, she does not know the difference between proficiency and growth, one of the most eminent controversies in standardized testing today. At the hearing, she also declined to state that she supports equal accountability of results for private schools to public schools. A lack of accountability would leave private schools able to progress students through the education system without preparing them properly or by teaching them biased material. She has ~~no prior education~~ almost no prior public education (thanks /u/stargazerAMDG) managerial experience. I want to have an actual conversation with someone who understands the other side of this argument in light of her confirmation. Please help convince me that this confirmation is not horrible for our education system and America's children.	CMV: Betsy DeVos is not qualified to serve as the US Education Secretary. She has ~~not attended public school~~ not attended/no knowledge of the public education system, for which managing is one of the largest responsibilities of the Education Secretary/Department of Education. As demonstrated in her Senate hearing, she does not know the difference between proficiency and growth, one of the most eminent controversies in standardized testing today. At the hearing, she also declined to state that she supports equal accountability of results for private schools to public schools. A lack of accountability would leave private schools able to progress students through the education system without preparing them properly or by teaching them biased material. She has ~~no prior education~~ almost no prior public education (thanks /u/stargazerAMDG) managerial experience. I want to have an actual conversation with someone who understands the other side of this argument in light of her confirmation. Please help convince me that this confirmation is not horrible for our education system and America's children.