Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_2zdsjs

CMV: the human race is currently at it's greatest and evidence shows that the future will be overwhelmingly positive

Many posts in this subreddit are overwhelmingly negative. What do you think of this idea? Economically, culturally, physically, we are at our peak as a species. I've personally experienced evidence of this in some of the poorest and richest places in the world. Economically, every measure of activity and growth has consistently increased and is now at (or near) the best numbers we've recorded. Moore's Law still hasn't slowed down. Every minute new innovations are occurring somewhere around the world. Our governing and economic systems have been refined to the point where violence is no longer necessary to create change. Culturally, we're more connected than ever. Via the internet, extremely cheap methods of travel, and extremely cheap methods of production, we are in a continuous Renaissance culturally. Everyone can be everywhere (virtually within seconds, physically within hours) and create almost anything (hardware, music, etc.) for anyone. Physically, our version of natural selection over the years (killing the weak, rule by the strong) has led us to extremely fit genetics and war is no longer necessary. Nature has done us a huge favor and we only need to nurture ourselves to be great. Just look at the olympics, or any sport for that matter. Even warfare has become more humane. I may be using extreme language here, but it's only because I want you to prove me wrong _____ > *from your moderators, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *report comments that break them, it is more effective to report it than downvote it,* ***[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 human race is currently at it's greatest and evidence shows that the future will be overwhelmingly positive. Many posts in this subreddit are overwhelmingly negative. What do you think of this idea? Economically, culturally, physically, we are at our peak as a species. I've personally experienced evidence of this in some of the poorest and richest places in the world. Economically, every measure of activity and growth has consistently increased and is now at (or near) the best numbers we've recorded. Moore's Law still hasn't slowed down. Every minute new innovations are occurring somewhere around the world. Our governing and economic systems have been refined to the point where violence is no longer necessary to create change. Culturally, we're more connected than ever. Via the internet, extremely cheap methods of travel, and extremely cheap methods of production, we are in a continuous Renaissance culturally. Everyone can be everywhere (virtually within seconds, physically within hours) and create almost anything (hardware, music, etc.) for anyone. Physically, our version of natural selection over the years (killing the weak, rule by the strong) has led us to extremely fit genetics and war is no longer necessary. Nature has done us a huge favor and we only need to nurture ourselves to be great. Just look at the olympics, or any sport for that matter. Even warfare has become more humane. I may be using extreme language here, but it's only because I want you to prove me wrong

t3_2f3055

CMV: Poetry is no longer relevant to our society, and that's okay.

Hi, first-time poster here. I think the title is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll try to elaborate a little. People in the literary world like to lament the "death of poetry" (much as they lament the "death of the novel"), but unlike the novel, which is very much still alive, I think poetry as we knew it has really lost its relevance. I say "as we knew it" because there are modern forms of poetry that we still embrace today, like rap (I know I know) and novel/poetry hybrids (see Ellen Hopkins as a popular example). However, you don't usually see people reading poetry anthologies (with sonnets and all of those old-fashioned forms) these days because people don't generally have the skills or desire to interpret that kind of literature. Schools still like to force traditional poetry on students but it usually ends up making students dislike it even more. I would argue that's okay because if a reader can't make any sense of a written work, then it is the author that is in fault for not communicating their ideas clearly. Poetry is supposed to be entertainment, after all, and if it is not entertaining then nobody is obligated to read it. Hopefully I made my point clear. Change my view, because I'd like to think there's a point in slogging through volumes of poetry at school. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Poetry is no longer relevant to our society, and that's okay. Hi, first-time poster here. I think the title is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll try to elaborate a little. People in the literary world like to lament the "death of poetry" (much as they lament the "death of the novel"), but unlike the novel, which is very much still alive, I think poetry as we knew it has really lost its relevance. I say "as we knew it" because there are modern forms of poetry that we still embrace today, like rap (I know I know) and novel/poetry hybrids (see Ellen Hopkins as a popular example). However, you don't usually see people reading poetry anthologies (with sonnets and all of those old-fashioned forms) these days because people don't generally have the skills or desire to interpret that kind of literature. Schools still like to force traditional poetry on students but it usually ends up making students dislike it even more. I would argue that's okay because if a reader can't make any sense of a written work, then it is the author that is in fault for not communicating their ideas clearly. Poetry is supposed to be entertainment, after all, and if it is not entertaining then nobody is obligated to read it. Hopefully I made my point clear. Change my view, because I'd like to think there's a point in slogging through volumes of poetry at school.

t3_1iavvg

I don't think intelligence should be valued more than beauty.CMV

In pop-media it is clear that beauty is king, but everyone knows that the "right" thing is to look past the superficial looks and instead value intelligence. This tends to be advocated by pseudointellectuals *all day every day*, but I am not really seeing it. A beautiful person is just born beautiful and didn't achieve anything, is usually the mantra I hear. But what the fuck is the difference between being born beautiful and being born intelligent? You didn't have a say in it and so you can't take credit for it. Also unless we are comparing Einstein like intelligence here, I really don't think an averagely intelligent person in 2013 does more good for society than does a stunning girl/guy. A stunning girl will give me a boner, nice fantasies and great sexual experiences that mean a fuck lot more than whether my neighbour can debate pointless politics that noone will ever act on anyway. Obviously if the nature of man was to ACT upon his convictions then I could imagine a world where intelligence gave us more, but alas that isn't happening, I actually think that intelligence is a bit overhyped by ugly guys who think they are intelligent. In reality intelligence isn't inherently good, there is no intrinsic value about intelligence. And due to evolution: beauty gives us more

I don't think intelligence should be valued more than beauty.CMV. In pop-media it is clear that beauty is king, but everyone knows that the "right" thing is to look past the superficial looks and instead value intelligence. This tends to be advocated by pseudointellectuals *all day every day*, but I am not really seeing it. A beautiful person is just born beautiful and didn't achieve anything, is usually the mantra I hear. But what the fuck is the difference between being born beautiful and being born intelligent? You didn't have a say in it and so you can't take credit for it. Also unless we are comparing Einstein like intelligence here, I really don't think an averagely intelligent person in 2013 does more good for society than does a stunning girl/guy. A stunning girl will give me a boner, nice fantasies and great sexual experiences that mean a fuck lot more than whether my neighbour can debate pointless politics that noone will ever act on anyway. Obviously if the nature of man was to ACT upon his convictions then I could imagine a world where intelligence gave us more, but alas that isn't happening, I actually think that intelligence is a bit overhyped by ugly guys who think they are intelligent. In reality intelligence isn't inherently good, there is no intrinsic value about intelligence. And due to evolution: beauty gives us more

t3_1mgwti

I believe that men being sexually raped, harassed, or bullied are (sadly) seen as less important and less concerning issues than women being sexually raped, harassed, or bullied. CMV

White male here. In the past I have been harassed sexually (in public, mostly) as well as have been bullied by women for being a man. I notice a disturbing trend whenever I bring this fact up with close female friends: my experience is treated as less legitimate or less harmful because I am a man. These same friends have even told me about being harassed (etc.) by men on the street and they tell me how wrong it is. When I tell them that both men and women have yelled things like "Hey cutie" or "What are you doing tonight?" at me, they usually dismiss it as a joke, even though the experience felt very humiliating for me. Sadly, I don't think I'm the only one to experience this kind of dialogue. As men in the twenty-first century, we are told that feminism helps everyone because it attacks the patriarchy thereby eliminating gender roles for everyone; i.e., that feminism does good for men. Yet feminism is not a place to discuss issues such as men being harassed on the street, because when these issues are brought up they are dismissed as drawing attention away from, well, women (and rightly so). Men's spaces -- such as, what, MRA discussions -- are not safe spaces either because, their legitimacy aside, they are not respected and are attacked by feminists (maybe rightly so?). From personal experience I know that men do experience these issues, and that they are shameful and humiliating. However, it seems as though they are treated as less legitimate and not the same simply because of the sex of the victim. edit: format edit 2: some of the responses posted are fascinating

I believe that men being sexually raped, harassed, or bullied are (sadly) seen as less important and less concerning issues than women being sexually raped, harassed, or bullied. CMV. White male here. In the past I have been harassed sexually (in public, mostly) as well as have been bullied by women for being a man. I notice a disturbing trend whenever I bring this fact up with close female friends: my experience is treated as less legitimate or less harmful because I am a man. These same friends have even told me about being harassed (etc.) by men on the street and they tell me how wrong it is. When I tell them that both men and women have yelled things like "Hey cutie" or "What are you doing tonight?" at me, they usually dismiss it as a joke, even though the experience felt very humiliating for me. Sadly, I don't think I'm the only one to experience this kind of dialogue. As men in the twenty-first century, we are told that feminism helps everyone because it attacks the patriarchy thereby eliminating gender roles for everyone; i.e., that feminism does good for men. Yet feminism is not a place to discuss issues such as men being harassed on the street, because when these issues are brought up they are dismissed as drawing attention away from, well, women (and rightly so). Men's spaces -- such as, what, MRA discussions -- are not safe spaces either because, their legitimacy aside, they are not respected and are attacked by feminists (maybe rightly so?). From personal experience I know that men do experience these issues, and that they are shameful and humiliating. However, it seems as though they are treated as less legitimate and not the same simply because of the sex of the victim. edit: format edit 2: some of the responses posted are fascinating

t3_268pns

CMV I think people who say they have the right to be protected from reigion are wrong.

Ok what i mean by protected from religion is that some people i have talked to seem to think that if they are out in a public area they should not have to hear any type of relegious speech of any kind even if its two old ladies talking about the church service they went to. I even had one person tell me that to them it would be like having to hear about someones fettish and they would much rather hear about that. But while you may not like religion for what ever reason that dosen't mean that it should be banned from public places. I could say that i really dont want to see two gay men kissing when i go out to eat because it ruins my appatite, or that i dont want to hear a vegan talking about their meal behind me in line at the store. But just becuase i don't like something dosn't mean i have a "right" to be protected from it. The right i have is to remove my self from the situation. i can go to another check out line or another dinner if it offends me that much. And to graze "you are litterly hitler" territory saying you have to right to not have to hear someone talking about their religion to another person is like saying you dont want to have to see any blacks when you are walking down the street. And to cut down on confussion i am talking about public people talking to each other and you hearing the convo's as you walk by or maby having someone bring it up in conversation with you. I am not talking about loud speakers playing a sermon or something that is goverment sponsored.

CMV I think people who say they have the right to be protected from reigion are wrong. Ok what i mean by protected from religion is that some people i have talked to seem to think that if they are out in a public area they should not have to hear any type of relegious speech of any kind even if its two old ladies talking about the church service they went to. I even had one person tell me that to them it would be like having to hear about someones fettish and they would much rather hear about that. But while you may not like religion for what ever reason that dosen't mean that it should be banned from public places. I could say that i really dont want to see two gay men kissing when i go out to eat because it ruins my appatite, or that i dont want to hear a vegan talking about their meal behind me in line at the store. But just becuase i don't like something dosn't mean i have a "right" to be protected from it. The right i have is to remove my self from the situation. i can go to another check out line or another dinner if it offends me that much. And to graze "you are litterly hitler" territory saying you have to right to not have to hear someone talking about their religion to another person is like saying you dont want to have to see any blacks when you are walking down the street. And to cut down on confussion i am talking about public people talking to each other and you hearing the convo's as you walk by or maby having someone bring it up in conversation with you. I am not talking about loud speakers playing a sermon or something that is goverment sponsored.

t3_2dvqry

CMV: Convicted criminals should be ineligible for private welfare

In 1996 convicted drug felons were made ineligible for food stamps and TANF. My proposal would extend this programs to cover more crimes and private welfare programs. The crimes covered would be those where an individual was deliberately harmed including murder, rape, burglary, arson, shoplifting and so on. The programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, Medicaid, Social Security and so on. Excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients. It would more importantly deter people from committing crimes. When immigrants commit crimes they are often deported. Since deporting native citizens is not an option, excluding criminals from private welfare is a similar penalty and deterrant. _____ > *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: Convicted criminals should be ineligible for private welfare. In 1996 convicted drug felons were made ineligible for food stamps and TANF. My proposal would extend this programs to cover more crimes and private welfare programs. The crimes covered would be those where an individual was deliberately harmed including murder, rape, burglary, arson, shoplifting and so on. The programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, Medicaid, Social Security and so on. Excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients. It would more importantly deter people from committing crimes. When immigrants commit crimes they are often deported. Since deporting native citizens is not an option, excluding criminals from private welfare is a similar penalty and deterrant.

t3_23by5v

CMV: I believe that insanity should almost never be a legitimate defense in extreme cases such as murder, etc.

It seems to me that people that are legitimately incapable of managing their mental faculties to the degree where a slip can result in a murder pose as much if not more of a threat to society than a person who knowingly committed a crime. They should not be viewed as any less responsible for their actions, considering that having committed a crime makes them dangerous to society in absolute terms, regardless of the mental state. The only exceptions I can imagine stand where the cause of a lapse in mental faculties cannot be reasonably be expected to be repeated, i.e. if someone were improperly/secretly/inadvertently administered drugs or otherwise mentally impaired in a manner that would not be expected to repeat under any reasonable circumstances. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that insanity should almost never be a legitimate defense in extreme cases such as murder, etc. It seems to me that people that are legitimately incapable of managing their mental faculties to the degree where a slip can result in a murder pose as much if not more of a threat to society than a person who knowingly committed a crime. They should not be viewed as any less responsible for their actions, considering that having committed a crime makes them dangerous to society in absolute terms, regardless of the mental state. The only exceptions I can imagine stand where the cause of a lapse in mental faculties cannot be reasonably be expected to be repeated, i.e. if someone were improperly/secretly/inadvertently administered drugs or otherwise mentally impaired in a manner that would not be expected to repeat under any reasonable circumstances.

t3_24ntwp

CMV: I believe excessively loud car stereo systems should be considered illegal modifications.

You know these cars with "systems." You hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away. The vibrations shake your floors. If you can make out the music, it's usually terrible techno or hip-hop. These systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize. From a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn. From a quality of life standpoint, it's pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night. I feel the DMV should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car's horn. Massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal. Reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.

CMV: I believe excessively loud car stereo systems should be considered illegal modifications. You know these cars with "systems." You hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away. The vibrations shake your floors. If you can make out the music, it's usually terrible techno or hip-hop. These systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize. From a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn. From a quality of life standpoint, it's pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night. I feel the DMV should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car's horn. Massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal. Reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.

t3_2i93xi

CMV: I believe there is a single non-exploitable game theory optimal formula in poker, a game of incomplete information.

It's a generic term that stands for "Game Theory Optimal." Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that has techniques to solve for different types of optimal strategies. In the poker world, we have adopted the term GTO to describe an optimal unexploitable equilibrium strategy. It is also almost universally misunderstood and misapplied in the poker world. It basically means without taking into consideration villain's tendencies it will play in a way that is exploitable. Now this does not necessarily mean that it is the most +EV in any given situation, it simply means that GTO vs any non-GTO strategy would be profitable in the long run. I believe that there can be only a single solution; in rock paper scissors, the non-GTO strategy would be to, using a true RNG, choose rock, paper, and scissors exactly a third of a time. If a strategy would to exist that would chose rock 33.34 percent, paper 33.33 percent, and scissors 33.32 percent there is a strategy BY DEFINITION that can exploit it. CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe there is a single non-exploitable game theory optimal formula in poker, a game of incomplete information. It's a generic term that stands for "Game Theory Optimal." Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that has techniques to solve for different types of optimal strategies. In the poker world, we have adopted the term GTO to describe an optimal unexploitable equilibrium strategy. It is also almost universally misunderstood and misapplied in the poker world. It basically means without taking into consideration villain's tendencies it will play in a way that is exploitable. Now this does not necessarily mean that it is the most +EV in any given situation, it simply means that GTO vs any non-GTO strategy would be profitable in the long run. I believe that there can be only a single solution; in rock paper scissors, the non-GTO strategy would be to, using a true RNG, choose rock, paper, and scissors exactly a third of a time. If a strategy would to exist that would chose rock 33.34 percent, paper 33.33 percent, and scissors 33.32 percent there is a strategy BY DEFINITION that can exploit it. CMV

t3_6jwxux

CMV: The Republican Party today is an evil institution and voting for or supporting Republican politicians is inherently immoral

I believe that, although it's possible that some of their positions and policies are well intentioned and may lead to overall good for American society, overall the actions of the Republican party in 2017 is overall evil and immoral. Thus, supporting this organization in any meaningful way (such as voting for a member of the party), regardless of your reasons, is an immoral action since doing so either equates to supporting these actions and positions or willfully ignoring them. The Republican Party actively supports a number of immoral policies, such as: 1) Removing or restricting rights from LGBTQ people 2) Restricting voting access for minorities 3) Taking away health care from millions to redistribute that money to the wealthy 4) Supporting sexual assault by the president 5) Supporting the mocking of the disabled by the president 6) Supporting the death penalty, which kills innocent people 7) Lying about climate change which may harm millions 8) Actively worsening climate change due to energy policies 9) Damaging public education in favor of private education 10) Supporting the gun industry which is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands I could go on, and some of these are more "evil" than others, but overall this is an organization whose mission is largely to hurt a majority of Americans in favor of slightly improving the lives of a small few. This all isn't to say that the Democratic Party is the opposite or "good" - I could see myself also being convinced that they are also overall evil (I currently don't hold that stance), but this post is simply speaking about the role of the Republican Party in society and the moral implications of either directly or indirectly supporting what I see as an evil institution formed by evil men and women. *EDIT: sorry that I've been away and unable to respond to more comments directly this morning - there's been some good discussion. I'll try to go through and give some deltas out tonight. Overall, I'll say that although my general overall opinion on Republicans hasn't drastically changed, I see that I've used way too broad terms and have not well defined things, and from that perspective I need to go back to the drawing board and really think about what specifically I consider "evil" or "immoral" versus what are policies that reasonable people can disagree on. My list of examples in hindsight was too simplistic and is really just a vague list of positions and actions that I strongly disagree with that I just came up with off the top of my head. I still think that there are some actions and policies that have true malice in their intent that are sold with lies and have no significant public good, but these should be better defined and more scoped towards individuals who vote for or support these. I'm also still trying to reconcile if it's "immoral" to vote for or support, say, an unrepentant sexual predator, but that to be fair is not a Republican issue - that's an issue that happens to be associated with a current prominent Republican. So, the short answer is that I'll officially mark my view as being changed after this discussion. I may think more about these issues and refine the scope of my thoughts, but vague positions that I've laid out don't really hold up after reading the many responses here. ∆ _____ > *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 Republican Party today is an evil institution and voting for or supporting Republican politicians is inherently immoral. I believe that, although it's possible that some of their positions and policies are well intentioned and may lead to overall good for American society, overall the actions of the Republican party in 2017 is overall evil and immoral. Thus, supporting this organization in any meaningful way (such as voting for a member of the party), regardless of your reasons, is an immoral action since doing so either equates to supporting these actions and positions or willfully ignoring them. The Republican Party actively supports a number of immoral policies, such as: 1) Removing or restricting rights from LGBTQ people 2) Restricting voting access for minorities 3) Taking away health care from millions to redistribute that money to the wealthy 4) Supporting sexual assault by the president 5) Supporting the mocking of the disabled by the president 6) Supporting the death penalty, which kills innocent people 7) Lying about climate change which may harm millions 8) Actively worsening climate change due to energy policies 9) Damaging public education in favor of private education 10) Supporting the gun industry which is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands I could go on, and some of these are more "evil" than others, but overall this is an organization whose mission is largely to hurt a majority of Americans in favor of slightly improving the lives of a small few. This all isn't to say that the Democratic Party is the opposite or "good" - I could see myself also being convinced that they are also overall evil (I currently don't hold that stance), but this post is simply speaking about the role of the Republican Party in society and the moral implications of either directly or indirectly supporting what I see as an evil institution formed by evil men and women. *EDIT: sorry that I've been away and unable to respond to more comments directly this morning - there's been some good discussion. I'll try to go through and give some deltas out tonight. Overall, I'll say that although my general overall opinion on Republicans hasn't drastically changed, I see that I've used way too broad terms and have not well defined things, and from that perspective I need to go back to the drawing board and really think about what specifically I consider "evil" or "immoral" versus what are policies that reasonable people can disagree on. My list of examples in hindsight was too simplistic and is really just a vague list of positions and actions that I strongly disagree with that I just came up with off the top of my head. I still think that there are some actions and policies that have true malice in their intent that are sold with lies and have no significant public good, but these should be better defined and more scoped towards individuals who vote for or support these. I'm also still trying to reconcile if it's "immoral" to vote for or support, say, an unrepentant sexual predator, but that to be fair is not a Republican issue - that's an issue that happens to be associated with a current prominent Republican. So, the short answer is that I'll officially mark my view as being changed after this discussion. I may think more about these issues and refine the scope of my thoughts, but vague positions that I've laid out don't really hold up after reading the many responses here. ∆

t3_4rr981

CMV: Black people should be rioting right now

I think there are times when we have to shed our concept of morality, because we live in an amoral time. We have been fortunate to live in a time and (in America) in a country that has relative peace compared to decades/centuries past. We haven't really known bloodshed for the sake of peace in our generation. However, in times of war, genocide, and systematic cleansing, uprisings and liberations are viewed by history as positives. If PoC walked into the streets to block traffic, all stopped going to work, and even more extreme-- started destroying everything they could, we would see social change. At least, I think. I've never been witness to a true riot in my lifetime. _____ > *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: Black people should be rioting right now. I think there are times when we have to shed our concept of morality, because we live in an amoral time. We have been fortunate to live in a time and (in America) in a country that has relative peace compared to decades/centuries past. We haven't really known bloodshed for the sake of peace in our generation. However, in times of war, genocide, and systematic cleansing, uprisings and liberations are viewed by history as positives. If PoC walked into the streets to block traffic, all stopped going to work, and even more extreme-- started destroying everything they could, we would see social change. At least, I think. I've never been witness to a true riot in my lifetime.

t3_42gf82

CMV: The US is certainly not the free-est country in the world and soldiers are not fighting for freedom

I am from the US and I like the country I live in a lot. You can have the opportunity to be rich if you really worked at it. However, technically we are not the free-est county in the world (I don't think we are even top 5). In 2013, the US has had the highest incarceration rate compared to any country in the world.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate). I am also going to share the fact that I am a US veteran and soldiers certainly do not fight for freedom. This is not 1776 or WWII (not fighting exactly for freedom but facing a growing threat). Soldiers in foreign lands fighting other groups of people have no effect on our freedom. Terrorist attacks occur all the time (even from US citizens) so fighting foreign wars is really not doing that great of a job defending this country (look what happened to Iraq, it made things worse). I do respect the actually soldiers , it takes balls to do combat arms jobs. I have met some great NCOs in the military and some horrible NCOs. One sergeant had a reputation of filling a water gun with hot sauce in spraying it in kid's eyes in Iraq (he got in trouble for it eventually). I thought they were all heroes? It is awkward calling all the troops heroes.Change my view. Are we fighting for freedom? Are we the free-est country in the world? *I used wikipedia as a source, but please remember: the Wikipedia page has sources as well. I don't know why people won't accept wiki as a source (I know English professors don't). If you just google the incarceration rate you will get many links confirming this is true. Even president Obama mentioned it a lot (this has nothing to do with Obama, please don't tell me why you don't like him).

CMV: The US is certainly not the free-est country in the world and soldiers are not fighting for freedom. I am from the US and I like the country I live in a lot. You can have the opportunity to be rich if you really worked at it. However, technically we are not the free-est county in the world (I don't think we are even top 5). In 2013, the US has had the highest incarceration rate compared to any country in the world.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate). I am also going to share the fact that I am a US veteran and soldiers certainly do not fight for freedom. This is not 1776 or WWII (not fighting exactly for freedom but facing a growing threat). Soldiers in foreign lands fighting other groups of people have no effect on our freedom. Terrorist attacks occur all the time (even from US citizens) so fighting foreign wars is really not doing that great of a job defending this country (look what happened to Iraq, it made things worse). I do respect the actually soldiers , it takes balls to do combat arms jobs. I have met some great NCOs in the military and some horrible NCOs. One sergeant had a reputation of filling a water gun with hot sauce in spraying it in kid's eyes in Iraq (he got in trouble for it eventually). I thought they were all heroes? It is awkward calling all the troops heroes.Change my view. Are we fighting for freedom? Are we the free-est country in the world? *I used wikipedia as a source, but please remember: the Wikipedia page has sources as well. I don't know why people won't accept wiki as a source (I know English professors don't). If you just google the incarceration rate you will get many links confirming this is true. Even president Obama mentioned it a lot (this has nothing to do with Obama, please don't tell me why you don't like him).

t3_1w3lz6

CMV - Chris Christie as president will bring real change to this country

Here's what the country would be like. The flag will be replaced with a Taco Bell menu. We'll put a Burger King on the moon. A Wendy's in the Statue of Liberty. And instead of the golden gate bridge, there will be "the golden arches". NPR and PBS will be cut, though the food network will be subsidized. Christie will be cutting money off food stamps to needy children to balance the budget whilst force-feeding 12 pizzas into his stomach every night. Oh, and on the reals, he'll probably be a decent capable guy, who will bring in scores of right-wing idiots into the government for political gain. Gotta love the spoils system.

CMV - Chris Christie as president will bring real change to this country. Here's what the country would be like. The flag will be replaced with a Taco Bell menu. We'll put a Burger King on the moon. A Wendy's in the Statue of Liberty. And instead of the golden gate bridge, there will be "the golden arches". NPR and PBS will be cut, though the food network will be subsidized. Christie will be cutting money off food stamps to needy children to balance the budget whilst force-feeding 12 pizzas into his stomach every night. Oh, and on the reals, he'll probably be a decent capable guy, who will bring in scores of right-wing idiots into the government for political gain. Gotta love the spoils system.

t3_1dq78g

I believe we should just allow species to go extinct CMW

I took two years of environmental science in High School, ran in Envirothon, started my first year of college as a Ecology major, but I still believe that keeping species around that are on their way to extinction is a waste of time, money, and effort. The Giant Panda has become some kind of icon for the movement and has been kept in glass cages for the sake of its cuteness. I don't believe whatever the Giant Panda's niche used to be is relevant anymore if only a handful of them even exist in the wild anymore. Other species are less touted but just the same. We funnel funds in to keep them around, but at what service to us? Is it not meddling with the course of nature to prevent them from dying off? I'm more open to consider conservation programs that target reducing and preventing anthropogenic habitat destruction, but I don't believe programs that run just to artificially inseminate creatures is the best use of our efforts.

I believe we should just allow species to go extinct CMW. I took two years of environmental science in High School, ran in Envirothon, started my first year of college as a Ecology major, but I still believe that keeping species around that are on their way to extinction is a waste of time, money, and effort. The Giant Panda has become some kind of icon for the movement and has been kept in glass cages for the sake of its cuteness. I don't believe whatever the Giant Panda's niche used to be is relevant anymore if only a handful of them even exist in the wild anymore. Other species are less touted but just the same. We funnel funds in to keep them around, but at what service to us? Is it not meddling with the course of nature to prevent them from dying off? I'm more open to consider conservation programs that target reducing and preventing anthropogenic habitat destruction, but I don't believe programs that run just to artificially inseminate creatures is the best use of our efforts.

t3_18dkpz

I believe polygamy should be a legal part of marriage. CMV.

While I may not necessarily like polygamous relationships I think consenting adults in a polygamous relationship should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and they should be allowed to marry. This argument is a large part of why I also think gay marriage should be legal. Keeping marriage monogamous hurts people who are polygamous but adding polygamous relationships to marriage won't infringe on the rights of monogamous couples. The right to exercise polygamy takes priority over someone's right to hate it.

I believe polygamy should be a legal part of marriage. CMV. While I may not necessarily like polygamous relationships I think consenting adults in a polygamous relationship should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and they should be allowed to marry. This argument is a large part of why I also think gay marriage should be legal. Keeping marriage monogamous hurts people who are polygamous but adding polygamous relationships to marriage won't infringe on the rights of monogamous couples. The right to exercise polygamy takes priority over someone's right to hate it.

t3_4ukywi

CMV: Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

My current standing on Islam is that it is not a religion of peace. I've been taking a religions class and we just got through the chapter of Islam. While I feel like I have a general understanding of the core beliefs of the religion, I would not say I know all the details that would play a part in this. My current understanding of Islam is that they follow the Qu'ran, the direct words of God, revealed to Muhammad throughout his life. They also model themselves after the life of Muhammad because they see him as the "ideal Muslim". Learning about the history of Muhammad, it seemed like he was a decent guy that was just trying to take back what he viewed as his (referring to the conquest of Mecca). All of this seems fine up front, but once you start looking at specific practices of Islam is where my opinion shifts. It's important to keep in mind that my only experiences with Islam have been with Muslims in America. I believe that Islam can be practiced peacefully, just as people have done with Christianity for years, but surely there is something that makes people choose to do the opposite. This can be shown by oppressive country's that persecute other faiths such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Syria, etc. These same countries often have laws in place that I as a westerner see as backwards such as the prosecution of gays and the oppression of women's rights. Overall what makes me believe they are not a religion of peace is all the violence. Over the last month or so especially, attacks all over the world have filled my news feeds and they always seem to be Muslims. All I ever hear about is Muhammad actively promoting oppression of other religions and the death of people that didn't have the same views. And the biggest one is I'm told these attackers who also happen to be Muslims view their acts as justified because their religion tell them they should actively try to make everyone submit to God. All the oppression and violence I hear about it what makes me view Islam this way. I feel I should clarify a few things because this can be a sensitive subject. • I am not claiming to fully understand Islam, that is why I am here. • I don't hate Muslims nor feel I should fear them. • I view what the teachings of Islam and the culture of countries that strictly follow it as backwards and non peaceful, though it may be practiced peacefully. I don't like that I see it this way, but I currently can't view Islam as a religion of peace. Please CMV. Any sources for good info or specific Suras on the matter would be greatly appreciated, I'm honestly trying to learn.

CMV: Islam is NOT a religion of peace. My current standing on Islam is that it is not a religion of peace. I've been taking a religions class and we just got through the chapter of Islam. While I feel like I have a general understanding of the core beliefs of the religion, I would not say I know all the details that would play a part in this. My current understanding of Islam is that they follow the Qu'ran, the direct words of God, revealed to Muhammad throughout his life. They also model themselves after the life of Muhammad because they see him as the "ideal Muslim". Learning about the history of Muhammad, it seemed like he was a decent guy that was just trying to take back what he viewed as his (referring to the conquest of Mecca). All of this seems fine up front, but once you start looking at specific practices of Islam is where my opinion shifts. It's important to keep in mind that my only experiences with Islam have been with Muslims in America. I believe that Islam can be practiced peacefully, just as people have done with Christianity for years, but surely there is something that makes people choose to do the opposite. This can be shown by oppressive country's that persecute other faiths such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Syria, etc. These same countries often have laws in place that I as a westerner see as backwards such as the prosecution of gays and the oppression of women's rights. Overall what makes me believe they are not a religion of peace is all the violence. Over the last month or so especially, attacks all over the world have filled my news feeds and they always seem to be Muslims. All I ever hear about is Muhammad actively promoting oppression of other religions and the death of people that didn't have the same views. And the biggest one is I'm told these attackers who also happen to be Muslims view their acts as justified because their religion tell them they should actively try to make everyone submit to God. All the oppression and violence I hear about it what makes me view Islam this way. I feel I should clarify a few things because this can be a sensitive subject. • I am not claiming to fully understand Islam, that is why I am here. • I don't hate Muslims nor feel I should fear them. • I view what the teachings of Islam and the culture of countries that strictly follow it as backwards and non peaceful, though it may be practiced peacefully. I don't like that I see it this way, but I currently can't view Islam as a religion of peace. Please CMV. Any sources for good info or specific Suras on the matter would be greatly appreciated, I'm honestly trying to learn.

t3_1xhrpt

I believe if you are a member of the LGBT community or a feminist, you should detest the ideology and the teachings of Islam. Please, CMV

I was born into a right wing family. On the face of it, I don't really mind. I feel like the majority of views I hold I share with my parents. Even though I have always told myself when I decide to vote I would take a clean page, throw out all the bias in my head and vote for whom I think would do the best job. About a year ago I came out to my mother that I was Transgender, she's been accepting and all, but she's worried about the reaction of my father. (I won't waffle further, TL;DR I'm LGBT). The vicious voice I am trying to ward off in my head is telling me that everything that I have heard, saw and have read about Islam is that it is backward, and shows an obvious hatred of the LGBT as well as views women as second class citizens. As a transwoman, and a firm believer of total equal rights of all genders, identifications and sexual orientations, I find it ridiculous how anyone can claim to be a feminist or a member of the LGBT can sympathise with Islam. The way they treat women and LGBT (especially in Muslim Majority countries) makes me feel physically ill to the point where I feel like breaking down. It's not just a different culture that we should be accepting of, its a backwards one. Everything I've learnt either from my parents (mainly my father) or have read or seen about Islam has told me that it is oppressive and arguably insane (Such as the Saudi Cleric who claimed that driving hurts Womens ovaries). I know I'm ignorant, and I know that my intolerance for followers of Islam is disgraceful, but I am having a hard time accepting even the progressive Muslims when the leaders and public speakers of their faith hold such views. This is my first post here (I just happened to stumble across this subreddit) and out of impulse thought I'd share this, because I really feel like I need to be snapped out of this view.

I believe if you are a member of the LGBT community or a feminist, you should detest the ideology and the teachings of Islam. Please, CMV. I was born into a right wing family. On the face of it, I don't really mind. I feel like the majority of views I hold I share with my parents. Even though I have always told myself when I decide to vote I would take a clean page, throw out all the bias in my head and vote for whom I think would do the best job. About a year ago I came out to my mother that I was Transgender, she's been accepting and all, but she's worried about the reaction of my father. (I won't waffle further, TL;DR I'm LGBT). The vicious voice I am trying to ward off in my head is telling me that everything that I have heard, saw and have read about Islam is that it is backward, and shows an obvious hatred of the LGBT as well as views women as second class citizens. As a transwoman, and a firm believer of total equal rights of all genders, identifications and sexual orientations, I find it ridiculous how anyone can claim to be a feminist or a member of the LGBT can sympathise with Islam. The way they treat women and LGBT (especially in Muslim Majority countries) makes me feel physically ill to the point where I feel like breaking down. It's not just a different culture that we should be accepting of, its a backwards one. Everything I've learnt either from my parents (mainly my father) or have read or seen about Islam has told me that it is oppressive and arguably insane (Such as the Saudi Cleric who claimed that driving hurts Womens ovaries). I know I'm ignorant, and I know that my intolerance for followers of Islam is disgraceful, but I am having a hard time accepting even the progressive Muslims when the leaders and public speakers of their faith hold such views. This is my first post here (I just happened to stumble across this subreddit) and out of impulse thought I'd share this, because I really feel like I need to be snapped out of this view.

t3_41s2pb

CMV: Chess is the best board game ever to be invented

EDIT: BEST **TACTICAL GAME** Like the title states, the fair, balanced, and easy-to-learn, hard-to-master nature of chess makes it one of the most valid and therefore best game to play as of now. I have many reasons why: 1. Chess is balanced/fair. All the pieces are the same, luck is not involved at all (i.e. no dice to roll, random card draw, etc.) that can sway the fate of the game. This gives it an objective winner that truly earned their win without any aids or assisting. Unlike other games that rely on RNG, Chess only has 1 mechanic- keeping track of moves and predicting future ones. This is why it is a true game of mental skill. 2. Chess is easy to pick up for new players. Many people can learn chess in elementary school, and since the pieces move in easy-to-remember fashions, new players can be taught how to play in mere minutes. It is also easy to figure out a strategy. It helps that sets only cost $5 or so, leading to its popularity and ease of use. 3. Chess still cannot be 'solved' leading to near-infinite ways to play. The game literally cannot "get old" like checkers or Connect 4, similar games of 'skill'. 4. Chess has multiple game 'phases' that require different methods of thinking unique to its playstyle. In the beginning players have to focus on the best way to gain control of the middle of the board or to stop the opponent from venturing into your territory. Once that is done comes the middlegame, where the king must be secured and pieces should start to breach the opponent's starting line. Then comes the endgame, where the kings play more of an active role trying to avoid checkmate while playing their pieces in a safe fashion to checkmate the opponent's king. All of this is not present in other games of its kind, adding to the dynamic that chess has. I will add more as I think of them. Please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Chess is the best board game ever to be invented. EDIT: BEST **TACTICAL GAME** Like the title states, the fair, balanced, and easy-to-learn, hard-to-master nature of chess makes it one of the most valid and therefore best game to play as of now. I have many reasons why: 1. Chess is balanced/fair. All the pieces are the same, luck is not involved at all (i.e. no dice to roll, random card draw, etc.) that can sway the fate of the game. This gives it an objective winner that truly earned their win without any aids or assisting. Unlike other games that rely on RNG, Chess only has 1 mechanic- keeping track of moves and predicting future ones. This is why it is a true game of mental skill. 2. Chess is easy to pick up for new players. Many people can learn chess in elementary school, and since the pieces move in easy-to-remember fashions, new players can be taught how to play in mere minutes. It is also easy to figure out a strategy. It helps that sets only cost $5 or so, leading to its popularity and ease of use. 3. Chess still cannot be 'solved' leading to near-infinite ways to play. The game literally cannot "get old" like checkers or Connect 4, similar games of 'skill'. 4. Chess has multiple game 'phases' that require different methods of thinking unique to its playstyle. In the beginning players have to focus on the best way to gain control of the middle of the board or to stop the opponent from venturing into your territory. Once that is done comes the middlegame, where the king must be secured and pieces should start to breach the opponent's starting line. Then comes the endgame, where the kings play more of an active role trying to avoid checkmate while playing their pieces in a safe fashion to checkmate the opponent's king. All of this is not present in other games of its kind, adding to the dynamic that chess has. I will add more as I think of them. Please CMV.

t3_2x6mur

CMV: It is unethical for the American media to publicize stories about those merely accused, not convicted of crimes.

My personal view is that it is unethical to publicize the arrest and charges brought against suspected criminals. I understand that media corporations profit from viewership and people freely choose to ignore the immorality of these publications because they are interesting and shocking, however I think that any news source worth respecting would moderate coverage to a mere mention (at most) of allegations. A less venerable company would create entire news stories out of stories as minimal as charges being brought against an individual. The immorality herein (to me) lies in the seemingly lost presumption of "innocent until proven guilty", as many people confuse arrest and charging phases of the executive system with the conviction phase of the judicial system. This causes the accused to be treated like assumed criminals, defaming them and their loved ones before receiving a fair trial.

CMV: It is unethical for the American media to publicize stories about those merely accused, not convicted of crimes. My personal view is that it is unethical to publicize the arrest and charges brought against suspected criminals. I understand that media corporations profit from viewership and people freely choose to ignore the immorality of these publications because they are interesting and shocking, however I think that any news source worth respecting would moderate coverage to a mere mention (at most) of allegations. A less venerable company would create entire news stories out of stories as minimal as charges being brought against an individual. The immorality herein (to me) lies in the seemingly lost presumption of "innocent until proven guilty", as many people confuse arrest and charging phases of the executive system with the conviction phase of the judicial system. This causes the accused to be treated like assumed criminals, defaming them and their loved ones before receiving a fair trial.

t3_3glkro

CMV: Infidelity should be punishable under civil law.

Humans have decided that trust is how we operate. It is the basis of contract law, of commerce, of nations, of democracy and last but certainly not least, it is the basis of personal relationships. If we are willing to try people for breaches of trust in these areas, why then when someone cheats on their partner can the partner not sue for breach of trust? That's not even accounting for the emotional trauma. I don't think that people should go to prison for it but awarding some level of damages to the other person seems fair to me. I feel like I should mention I've never cheated or been cheated on, this is just something I was thinking of earlier today. Edit: My view has been changed. Whilst morally speaking I think there should be some method of remedy for the person being cheated on, the practical impossibilities regarding proof make it too hard an issue to solve legally. _____ > *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: Infidelity should be punishable under civil law. Humans have decided that trust is how we operate. It is the basis of contract law, of commerce, of nations, of democracy and last but certainly not least, it is the basis of personal relationships. If we are willing to try people for breaches of trust in these areas, why then when someone cheats on their partner can the partner not sue for breach of trust? That's not even accounting for the emotional trauma. I don't think that people should go to prison for it but awarding some level of damages to the other person seems fair to me. I feel like I should mention I've never cheated or been cheated on, this is just something I was thinking of earlier today. Edit: My view has been changed. Whilst morally speaking I think there should be some method of remedy for the person being cheated on, the practical impossibilities regarding proof make it too hard an issue to solve legally.

t3_1qzms5

I am both a Libertarian and an Atheist. CMVs.

I realize this may be an odd CMV but I'd like to crowdproof my views of the world. Well, being a Libertarian I believe in small government, school and healthcare vouchers, private property, entrepreneurship, depoliticization or demonopolization of the police force and firefighters, almost all kinds os privatization and etc. Being an Atheist, I don't believe in god, faith or religion. CMVs p.s.: I am from Brazil, a country where Libertarianism and Atheism are -very- far away from being mainstream.

I am both a Libertarian and an Atheist. CMVs. I realize this may be an odd CMV but I'd like to crowdproof my views of the world. Well, being a Libertarian I believe in small government, school and healthcare vouchers, private property, entrepreneurship, depoliticization or demonopolization of the police force and firefighters, almost all kinds os privatization and etc. Being an Atheist, I don't believe in god, faith or religion. CMVs p.s.: I am from Brazil, a country where Libertarianism and Atheism are -very- far away from being mainstream.

t3_2gba5a

CMV:I feel like a woman is wrong for forgiving a man who abused her even once, can you CMV?

So I heard an interesting opinion about the Ray Rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the NFL permanently. The opinion I heard was: If Ray Rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage? Of course not, but that makes sense, and I discarded that opinion quickly, but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction? Would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him? I'm not so sure about the other point, do you think it's OK for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once? For those who don't know, Ray Rice's fiance forgave him and they're getting married. ___ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I feel like a woman is wrong for forgiving a man who abused her even once, can you CMV?. So I heard an interesting opinion about the Ray Rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the NFL permanently. The opinion I heard was: If Ray Rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage? Of course not, but that makes sense, and I discarded that opinion quickly, but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction? Would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him? I'm not so sure about the other point, do you think it's OK for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once? For those who don't know, Ray Rice's fiance forgave him and they're getting married. ___ > *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_1ud15c

I feel I am pro-choice but I can't reconcile pro-life reasoning with my own logic. CMV

This is kinda hard for me to explain, so I'm sorry if this is a bit confusing. I'm pro-choice, I think that while a human hasn't born yet it has no concience, it can't feel or remember anything, so from a pragmatic standpoint it is as it has never lived, therefore, it as (for me), it hasn't lived if it's aborted. But on the other hand this logic doesn't sit right with me because the fact is that there is life, there is a creature on the way of life from the moment it is conceived, and no matter how you put, there exists a legal right to life in pretty much every country of the world. My ultimate position is always that people live and die everyday, and to treat each and every life as sacred when so much bad shit happens all around the world, where lives go out at the snap of a finger and misery, and to try to protect a life of a something that isn't even born yet is rather cynic, and even more so if it's due to moral and religious reasons. I mean, if it's such a big deal shouldn't we be incredibly more outraged of deaths in third world countries, or, I don't know, wars? On the other hand, and this is what I think my strongest reasoning, I think that goverment shouldn't have a say in what a woman does with her body, and that nobody is in a better situation to decide what to do with the creature that is growing inside of her, and I find the need that other feel to intervene is an absolutely disgusting paternalistic attitude.

I feel I am pro-choice but I can't reconcile pro-life reasoning with my own logic. CMV. This is kinda hard for me to explain, so I'm sorry if this is a bit confusing. I'm pro-choice, I think that while a human hasn't born yet it has no concience, it can't feel or remember anything, so from a pragmatic standpoint it is as it has never lived, therefore, it as (for me), it hasn't lived if it's aborted. But on the other hand this logic doesn't sit right with me because the fact is that there is life, there is a creature on the way of life from the moment it is conceived, and no matter how you put, there exists a legal right to life in pretty much every country of the world. My ultimate position is always that people live and die everyday, and to treat each and every life as sacred when so much bad shit happens all around the world, where lives go out at the snap of a finger and misery, and to try to protect a life of a something that isn't even born yet is rather cynic, and even more so if it's due to moral and religious reasons. I mean, if it's such a big deal shouldn't we be incredibly more outraged of deaths in third world countries, or, I don't know, wars? On the other hand, and this is what I think my strongest reasoning, I think that goverment shouldn't have a say in what a woman does with her body, and that nobody is in a better situation to decide what to do with the creature that is growing inside of her, and I find the need that other feel to intervene is an absolutely disgusting paternalistic attitude.

t3_72lcma

CMV: Decreasing taxes and regulation won't do much to create more jobs and increase pay.

This seems to be a tenet of many CEOs and conservatives. Was watching the CEOs of Citibank and IBM talking about how important this is. They seemed to be alluding to the fact that if they had tax breaks and less regulation they would be expanding. But those two companies had net profits of over $2 billion EACH in the 2nd QUARTER. If $2 billion a quarter isn't enough to spur expansion, how much is enough? It isn't just huge companies that are profitable. The stock market has grown by over 250% in the last 8 years. Investors have had record profits while worker's pay has remained flat. IMO, right now, the investor has so much power companies can't expand. Expansion is risky. Why mess with record profits? 250% is unsustainable, yet investors pressure companies to beat last years record profits. Increased productivity is the buzz word because it is a big reason companies are so profitable. Why would additional profits cause companies to pay more and expand (reduce productivity?) It has been very profitable for companies to run lean and mean. Now I get that there will be some increased employment, but record profits havn't spurred investment why will adding to that profit change things? Do we need to give investors 20%, 30% or more in yearly profits, increase the debt and increase pollution in return for a slight bump in wages and employment? The other side believes that expansion happens when demand increases. Increasing salary for the many is a much more effective way to increase demand (for a consumer product) than increasing profits for the few, (which should eventually lead to increased profits for the few anyway.)

CMV: Decreasing taxes and regulation won't do much to create more jobs and increase pay. This seems to be a tenet of many CEOs and conservatives. Was watching the CEOs of Citibank and IBM talking about how important this is. They seemed to be alluding to the fact that if they had tax breaks and less regulation they would be expanding. But those two companies had net profits of over $2 billion EACH in the 2nd QUARTER. If $2 billion a quarter isn't enough to spur expansion, how much is enough? It isn't just huge companies that are profitable. The stock market has grown by over 250% in the last 8 years. Investors have had record profits while worker's pay has remained flat. IMO, right now, the investor has so much power companies can't expand. Expansion is risky. Why mess with record profits? 250% is unsustainable, yet investors pressure companies to beat last years record profits. Increased productivity is the buzz word because it is a big reason companies are so profitable. Why would additional profits cause companies to pay more and expand (reduce productivity?) It has been very profitable for companies to run lean and mean. Now I get that there will be some increased employment, but record profits havn't spurred investment why will adding to that profit change things? Do we need to give investors 20%, 30% or more in yearly profits, increase the debt and increase pollution in return for a slight bump in wages and employment? The other side believes that expansion happens when demand increases. Increasing salary for the many is a much more effective way to increase demand (for a consumer product) than increasing profits for the few, (which should eventually lead to increased profits for the few anyway.)

t3_4svzfj

CMV: Men Should Always Be Responsible for Their Children

Men should always be responsible for their children. This sounds uncontroversial but there is a common argument in MRA circles that if a man is a victim of statutory rape or forcible rape by a woman, he should not be held liable for supporting his child. The man or boy was either under the age of consent or was coerced and thus never really decided to have a child and thus should not be responsible as the argument goes. According to this argument personal choice is what matters. If a woman can choose whether a baby is aborted, given up for adoption, or carried to term then a man should have some rights too over whether he will financially support the child, especially if his right to bodily integrity was violated. I disagree. Child support is not a 'punishment' for having a child. It's purpose is to support the child. Children deserve the support and involvement of both a mother and a father. To deprive a child of that is unjust to the child and disadvantages future generations in favor of 'freedom' for their parents. The child is not a potential creature but an actual one with rights that supersede his or her parents right to 'freedom.' That's what it means to have a child. The child comes first before you do. This moral truth is tough to proclaim in an age such as ours where the ideal of absolute self-determination predominates but it nonetheless has to be proclaimed. In the case of a woman raping a boy or man, the woman should of course be punished under the relevant statutory rape laws. Monetary damages can even be sought from her in civil court that lightens or even erases any child support that the boy/man would be responsible for. I would be totally fine with that. EDIT: I must refine my view to say that there are mitigating cases such as when the father is mentally incompetant, disabled, etc. So strictly speaking I mis-stated my view in the title though I thought the OP in general explained what i was arguing. I have had my view changed. I think government, preferably local/state governments, should have programs in place to provide for children born in such rare circumstances. Btw, here's the case I was thinking about: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf _____ > *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: Men Should Always Be Responsible for Their Children. Men should always be responsible for their children. This sounds uncontroversial but there is a common argument in MRA circles that if a man is a victim of statutory rape or forcible rape by a woman, he should not be held liable for supporting his child. The man or boy was either under the age of consent or was coerced and thus never really decided to have a child and thus should not be responsible as the argument goes. According to this argument personal choice is what matters. If a woman can choose whether a baby is aborted, given up for adoption, or carried to term then a man should have some rights too over whether he will financially support the child, especially if his right to bodily integrity was violated. I disagree. Child support is not a 'punishment' for having a child. It's purpose is to support the child. Children deserve the support and involvement of both a mother and a father. To deprive a child of that is unjust to the child and disadvantages future generations in favor of 'freedom' for their parents. The child is not a potential creature but an actual one with rights that supersede his or her parents right to 'freedom.' That's what it means to have a child. The child comes first before you do. This moral truth is tough to proclaim in an age such as ours where the ideal of absolute self-determination predominates but it nonetheless has to be proclaimed. In the case of a woman raping a boy or man, the woman should of course be punished under the relevant statutory rape laws. Monetary damages can even be sought from her in civil court that lightens or even erases any child support that the boy/man would be responsible for. I would be totally fine with that. EDIT: I must refine my view to say that there are mitigating cases such as when the father is mentally incompetant, disabled, etc. So strictly speaking I mis-stated my view in the title though I thought the OP in general explained what i was arguing. I have had my view changed. I think government, preferably local/state governments, should have programs in place to provide for children born in such rare circumstances. Btw, here's the case I was thinking about: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf

t3_1bhre2

I feel that those diagnosed with Huntington's disease should be forcefully sterilized

I had to write a paper on the disease for school and what i learned was that 97% of new cases of this are inherited from a parent, there is no cure, and treatment only delays the inevitable, so it seems logical to ensure that we stem the flow of new patients. I'd love to hear counterarguments to my opinion

I feel that those diagnosed with Huntington's disease should be forcefully sterilized. I had to write a paper on the disease for school and what i learned was that 97% of new cases of this are inherited from a parent, there is no cure, and treatment only delays the inevitable, so it seems logical to ensure that we stem the flow of new patients. I'd love to hear counterarguments to my opinion

t3_5brkqa

CMV: Tariffs are just welfare

Disclosure of biases. I'm approaching this from an American perspective and I've studied a fair amount of economics, having taken both microeconomics and macroeconomics during my time as an undergraduate. From what I gather, there aren't really any serious economic arguments in favor of protectionism. It's generally understood that protective trade policies might benefit some industry but at the expense of the economy as a whole. In other words, a rational strategy for a nation seeking to maximize its GDP is to freely trade with anyone, regardless of whether they are placing tariffs on your exports or not. Nevertheless there are people who agree and still support protective tariffs out of compassion for American workers. I can understand the sympathy people feel toward these workers and to an extent I feel sympathetic myself. One moment you had income, a livelihood and a sense of purpose and the next day you have none of those. And in many cases you get to watch all the prosperity from your town disappear. However, this perspective proposes limiting the prosperity of everyone else in order to save an industry that doesn't actually provide value. I accept that GDP isn't everything and I hold it as a public good that my countrymen are happy. So why not subsidize the re-education of these workers instead? The alternative is to force Americans to overpay which places a terrible friction on economic activity. I understand tariffs are not significantly used on imports into America. This post is mostly a rejoinder to the protectionist rhetoric from Trump during this election cycle. If you are looking for more protectionism, be careful what you're asking for. _____ > *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: Tariffs are just welfare. Disclosure of biases. I'm approaching this from an American perspective and I've studied a fair amount of economics, having taken both microeconomics and macroeconomics during my time as an undergraduate. From what I gather, there aren't really any serious economic arguments in favor of protectionism. It's generally understood that protective trade policies might benefit some industry but at the expense of the economy as a whole. In other words, a rational strategy for a nation seeking to maximize its GDP is to freely trade with anyone, regardless of whether they are placing tariffs on your exports or not. Nevertheless there are people who agree and still support protective tariffs out of compassion for American workers. I can understand the sympathy people feel toward these workers and to an extent I feel sympathetic myself. One moment you had income, a livelihood and a sense of purpose and the next day you have none of those. And in many cases you get to watch all the prosperity from your town disappear. However, this perspective proposes limiting the prosperity of everyone else in order to save an industry that doesn't actually provide value. I accept that GDP isn't everything and I hold it as a public good that my countrymen are happy. So why not subsidize the re-education of these workers instead? The alternative is to force Americans to overpay which places a terrible friction on economic activity. I understand tariffs are not significantly used on imports into America. This post is mostly a rejoinder to the protectionist rhetoric from Trump during this election cycle. If you are looking for more protectionism, be careful what you're asking for.

t3_1uwelj

I think high end CPU's are not needed for most of the people buying and recommending them. CMV

Basically I see people brag about their i5's and i7's when they will never go above 80% use. Then these same CPU's will be recommended as the baseline when for casual gaming and general computer use they are not needed at all. I say the average user will not stream game play, or use video/image editing software enough to justify the purchase either. I have an [intel i3-530](http://ark.intel.com/products/46472/intel-core-i3-530-processor-4m-cache-2_93-ghz) and I could stream sc2/GTA4/Majora's Mask at pretty decent quality levels. While never going above 80% of my CPU usage. decent quality levels are 30 FPS+. The only times I could use more CPU power are when I'm running some program I made myself that does a as many calculations per second as possible, or when I'm rendering video, both which don't really matter if they take 2mins or 200 because I'm doing it casually or on the side. I also don't know of any games that require an i5 to play at max settings. I understand some people have the money to spend on expensive gear and they want an i7 just because it's really good, but again it's not needed. Some people do stream for lots of people, and them getting an i7 as a safety net is understandable. The same who use their computer for work that requires lots of processing power.

I think high end CPU's are not needed for most of the people buying and recommending them. CMV. Basically I see people brag about their i5's and i7's when they will never go above 80% use. Then these same CPU's will be recommended as the baseline when for casual gaming and general computer use they are not needed at all. I say the average user will not stream game play, or use video/image editing software enough to justify the purchase either. I have an [intel i3-530](http://ark.intel.com/products/46472/intel-core-i3-530-processor-4m-cache-2_93-ghz) and I could stream sc2/GTA4/Majora's Mask at pretty decent quality levels. While never going above 80% of my CPU usage. decent quality levels are 30 FPS+. The only times I could use more CPU power are when I'm running some program I made myself that does a as many calculations per second as possible, or when I'm rendering video, both which don't really matter if they take 2mins or 200 because I'm doing it casually or on the side. I also don't know of any games that require an i5 to play at max settings. I understand some people have the money to spend on expensive gear and they want an i7 just because it's really good, but again it's not needed. Some people do stream for lots of people, and them getting an i7 as a safety net is understandable. The same who use their computer for work that requires lots of processing power.

t3_1daojr

"I" believe that in humanity needs a great disaster to start over and become pure again. CMV.

I quoted "I" in the sentence because it's not me who believes this, it's one of my closest friends who does. He's a primitivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) meaning that he prefers a life free of technology, wide-spread cites and agriculture. He strongly believes at this point in time that the idea of "saving" society is a foolish and ignorant one because its problems are too convoluted, complicated and pointless. He believes we've strayed too far from "our natural roots" and created far too many problems that can be solved efficiently and that we need some sort of revolution or disaster so that we can "start over". I've tried talking to him, but it seems I've failed. Anyone is welcome to reply. Edit: Spelling and grammar errors.

"I" believe that in humanity needs a great disaster to start over and become pure again. CMV. I quoted "I" in the sentence because it's not me who believes this, it's one of my closest friends who does. He's a primitivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) meaning that he prefers a life free of technology, wide-spread cites and agriculture. He strongly believes at this point in time that the idea of "saving" society is a foolish and ignorant one because its problems are too convoluted, complicated and pointless. He believes we've strayed too far from "our natural roots" and created far too many problems that can be solved efficiently and that we need some sort of revolution or disaster so that we can "start over". I've tried talking to him, but it seems I've failed. Anyone is welcome to reply. Edit: Spelling and grammar errors.

t3_1bjii5

I believe that black people asking for reparations for their ancestors being enslaved is ridiculous. CMV.

First off just wanna say slavery was a bad thing, no doubt about it. However why should we pay todays black community for the sins that our ancestors commited? All the people who went through slavery are dead, and I know the segregation era was bad but if anything black people in America are so significantly better off than people in Africa. Africa is crazy right now! There is famine, aids epidemic, tribal feuds, war torn dictators, insane inflation and power vacuums in government. I know slavery was a terrible terrible thing but black people in America are much better off for having their ancestors endure the horrors of slavery. CMV.

I believe that black people asking for reparations for their ancestors being enslaved is ridiculous. CMV. First off just wanna say slavery was a bad thing, no doubt about it. However why should we pay todays black community for the sins that our ancestors commited? All the people who went through slavery are dead, and I know the segregation era was bad but if anything black people in America are so significantly better off than people in Africa. Africa is crazy right now! There is famine, aids epidemic, tribal feuds, war torn dictators, insane inflation and power vacuums in government. I know slavery was a terrible terrible thing but black people in America are much better off for having their ancestors endure the horrors of slavery. CMV.

t3_1jfheq

I believe humans are an incredibly invasive species. CMV.

I think the human race is invasive. I think we have done more things that have damaged this planet than we have done to help. I also feel that there are entirely too many people on this planet - many of which do not contribute to anything in life whatsoever. Sometimes I even feel that we should have allowed natural selection to take place. I'm not saying that I wish for a huge plague to wipe out a good number of people, but I do feel that we should have some sort of population control instead of increasing our numbers. Sometimes I feel like a terrible person for feeling this way. Please CMV.

I believe humans are an incredibly invasive species. CMV. I think the human race is invasive. I think we have done more things that have damaged this planet than we have done to help. I also feel that there are entirely too many people on this planet - many of which do not contribute to anything in life whatsoever. Sometimes I even feel that we should have allowed natural selection to take place. I'm not saying that I wish for a huge plague to wipe out a good number of people, but I do feel that we should have some sort of population control instead of increasing our numbers. Sometimes I feel like a terrible person for feeling this way. Please CMV.

t3_3rou1b

CMV: Advances in gender equality are due to technological advances

As human labor is increasingly done by mechanisms that reduce physical labor, the physical differences between the genders are becoming less and less relevant to labor in general. This is what has given women more bargaining power in society. The parallel to this idea is that if we ever regress in technology level, society will have the tendency to be controlled by males again. Example: Moving boxes by hand (the average male is significantly advantaged, female box loader is paid less) -> Moving boxes by carts/pulleys -> Loading boxes with forklift -> Engineers design robots that load boxes (No advantage for males) _____ > *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: Advances in gender equality are due to technological advances. As human labor is increasingly done by mechanisms that reduce physical labor, the physical differences between the genders are becoming less and less relevant to labor in general. This is what has given women more bargaining power in society. The parallel to this idea is that if we ever regress in technology level, society will have the tendency to be controlled by males again. Example: Moving boxes by hand (the average male is significantly advantaged, female box loader is paid less) -> Moving boxes by carts/pulleys -> Loading boxes with forklift -> Engineers design robots that load boxes (No advantage for males)

t3_6o51oo

CMV: "Retard" is not an offensive or ableist word because the connotation has changed from referring to mentally handicapped people to referring to stupid people, much like how the meaning of other words like "dumb" and "lame" have also changed meanings dramatically.

So a lot of people find the word "Retard" used as an insult to be incredibly offensive, akin to saying the n-word to a black person. They say that this is because historically the word means mentally handicapped person and it was used in a patronizing and derogatory way during a time when there was a massive cultural stigma and disgust with mental disabilities. Yet, many words over the course of history change. Hell, a lot of the words we use today to refer to someone as an idiot - including the word idiot - were historically used to describe mentally ill/handicapped people. To this day, words like Imbecile, Moron and Cretin are used to describe stupid people (or troublemakers, in the case of cretin), yet these words actually mean the exact same thing as "retard". So why is retard singled out as "ableist"? Are people who take offence to the word simply being resistant to the natural evolution of language, or does their anger have merit? EDIT: Everyone made very good points. I'm considering them, but based on the fact that for the most part I had *nothing* to fire back with, I'd say my views have been thoroughly changed and I'm going to phase this word out of my vocabulary. I'm guilty of frequent use - it's easy to just turn to a buddy and say that in good fun without even thinking, but I'll be mindful in the future. Thanks people. Also You get a delta, you get a delta, and you get a delta, everyone gets a delta!!!!! _____ > *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: "Retard" is not an offensive or ableist word because the connotation has changed from referring to mentally handicapped people to referring to stupid people, much like how the meaning of other words like "dumb" and "lame" have also changed meanings dramatically. So a lot of people find the word "Retard" used as an insult to be incredibly offensive, akin to saying the n-word to a black person. They say that this is because historically the word means mentally handicapped person and it was used in a patronizing and derogatory way during a time when there was a massive cultural stigma and disgust with mental disabilities. Yet, many words over the course of history change. Hell, a lot of the words we use today to refer to someone as an idiot - including the word idiot - were historically used to describe mentally ill/handicapped people. To this day, words like Imbecile, Moron and Cretin are used to describe stupid people (or troublemakers, in the case of cretin), yet these words actually mean the exact same thing as "retard". So why is retard singled out as "ableist"? Are people who take offence to the word simply being resistant to the natural evolution of language, or does their anger have merit? EDIT: Everyone made very good points. I'm considering them, but based on the fact that for the most part I had *nothing* to fire back with, I'd say my views have been thoroughly changed and I'm going to phase this word out of my vocabulary. I'm guilty of frequent use - it's easy to just turn to a buddy and say that in good fun without even thinking, but I'll be mindful in the future. Thanks people. Also You get a delta, you get a delta, and you get a delta, everyone gets a delta!!!!!

t3_5z8iqr

CMV: Black Americans deserve more credit than they get for their patience on economic, policing, and other issues.

I know how you'll start with "But they riot and shit!" If you look at it statistically, they are much more willing to "turn the other cheek" toward oppression and violence than many other ethnic groups. France, 2005: Black guy electrocutes himself while running from police. Weeks of riots throughout the country by blacks and Muslims. London, 2011: Half-black, half-chav hardened criminal is killed by police while plotting an attack. Both chavs and blacks riot throughout the UK. Sweden, 2013: EU migrant shot to death by police while attempting to murder his domestic partner. Days of riots among Muslims, Assyrians, EU migrants, and even ethnic Swedes. Japan and South Korea, all the time: Minor insults in textbooks and public art installations lead to public displays of outrage against the other country. USA: It takes a fucking lot for blacks to get off their rear ends and do more than peaceful protests. [12-year-old kid in bumfuck Arkansas with a toy gun is shot by police, and jury finds that society was better off without him? Crickets.](http://www.kait8.com/story/14474707/deaunta-farrow-case-begins) It takes either real and clear evidence of racial persecution combined with disenfranchisement (Ferguson) and poverty (Baltimore), or media hysteria (Zimmerman), to create violent riots. Compare the situation here to black, Muslim, and EU migrants in Europe - who live in unimaginable comfort and luxe compared to American ghettos in Detroit or Arkansas - and you need to give African Americans a round of polite applause. Even the election of a president and party that trumpeted the acquittal of killer cops (thanks, Sheriff David KKKlarke) and warned about "other communities" stealing the elections sparked only isolated riots, most by angsty white teenagers rather than poor blacks. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Black Americans deserve more credit than they get for their patience on economic, policing, and other issues. I know how you'll start with "But they riot and shit!" If you look at it statistically, they are much more willing to "turn the other cheek" toward oppression and violence than many other ethnic groups. France, 2005: Black guy electrocutes himself while running from police. Weeks of riots throughout the country by blacks and Muslims. London, 2011: Half-black, half-chav hardened criminal is killed by police while plotting an attack. Both chavs and blacks riot throughout the UK. Sweden, 2013: EU migrant shot to death by police while attempting to murder his domestic partner. Days of riots among Muslims, Assyrians, EU migrants, and even ethnic Swedes. Japan and South Korea, all the time: Minor insults in textbooks and public art installations lead to public displays of outrage against the other country. USA: It takes a fucking lot for blacks to get off their rear ends and do more than peaceful protests. [12-year-old kid in bumfuck Arkansas with a toy gun is shot by police, and jury finds that society was better off without him? Crickets.](http://www.kait8.com/story/14474707/deaunta-farrow-case-begins) It takes either real and clear evidence of racial persecution combined with disenfranchisement (Ferguson) and poverty (Baltimore), or media hysteria (Zimmerman), to create violent riots. Compare the situation here to black, Muslim, and EU migrants in Europe - who live in unimaginable comfort and luxe compared to American ghettos in Detroit or Arkansas - and you need to give African Americans a round of polite applause. Even the election of a president and party that trumpeted the acquittal of killer cops (thanks, Sheriff David KKKlarke) and warned about "other communities" stealing the elections sparked only isolated riots, most by angsty white teenagers rather than poor blacks.

t3_3mjezn

CMV: letting go of the wheel while driving is dangerous, regardless of the vehicle's speed.

This has been a topic of debate between my brother and me for a while now. Occasionally he lets go of the wheel for no reason, even after I have repeatedly expressed my objections to this while I'm in the car. He argues that because it takes less than a second for him to put his hands back on the wheel, he should be able to quickly react to any unexpected situation. In addition to this, he says that he still has control of the vehicle's speed with his feet, and he can stop the car or greatly reduce its speed as he returns his hands to the wheel. Because of this, in addition to only letting go of the wheel at low speeds, he sees nothing wrong with doing this. I think that all of his arguments in favor of this are pretty weak. His first argument is not always true. Many obstruction in the road are not noticeable until driven over. For example, large potholes are often hard to see, and they can jerk the vehicle around quite a bit. And his second argument is completely ridiculous. My brother drives a pickup truck that's almost 20 years old. Included on the list of its many problems is its brakes. The brake pedal itself is messed up, and it takes at least three seconds to fully push the brake (not including time to move his foot from the gas). Then it takes another 5-10 seconds for the vehicle to actually stop when traveling at about 20 mph. This means that fully stopping the truck could take up to 15 seconds, which is plenty of time for a child to run out into the road. My brother also argues that what he does is no more dangerous than me riding my bicycle without holding onto the handlebars. I'm not entirely convinced on this. According to my cycling odometer, I average about 13 mph when riding. The weight of my bike and me combined can't be much more than 170 pounds, and the brakes and tires are in excellent condition. I would estimate that it takes less than 2 seconds to slow my bike from 13 mph to zero. If you add it returning my hands to the handlebars, it might take a maximum of 5 seconds, 10 seconds less than stopping the truck. In addition to this, I can still control my bike without touching the handlebars, simply by leaning slightly to either side to turn. On the other hand, there is no way to control the truck's direction without turning the steering wheel. Letting go of the steering wheel while driving is a completely unnecessary risk with nothing to gain. It is dangerous to occupants in the vehicle, as well as other bystanders, and a low speed of the vehicle does not make it safe to do this. Change my view. **EDIT** it's now 12:30 am where i live, so i'm going to bed. One delta has been awarded for giving an example of a situation where it would be reasonable to take both hands off the wheel for a brief period. I'll be back in the morning to respond to any more comments _____ > *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: letting go of the wheel while driving is dangerous, regardless of the vehicle's speed. This has been a topic of debate between my brother and me for a while now. Occasionally he lets go of the wheel for no reason, even after I have repeatedly expressed my objections to this while I'm in the car. He argues that because it takes less than a second for him to put his hands back on the wheel, he should be able to quickly react to any unexpected situation. In addition to this, he says that he still has control of the vehicle's speed with his feet, and he can stop the car or greatly reduce its speed as he returns his hands to the wheel. Because of this, in addition to only letting go of the wheel at low speeds, he sees nothing wrong with doing this. I think that all of his arguments in favor of this are pretty weak. His first argument is not always true. Many obstruction in the road are not noticeable until driven over. For example, large potholes are often hard to see, and they can jerk the vehicle around quite a bit. And his second argument is completely ridiculous. My brother drives a pickup truck that's almost 20 years old. Included on the list of its many problems is its brakes. The brake pedal itself is messed up, and it takes at least three seconds to fully push the brake (not including time to move his foot from the gas). Then it takes another 5-10 seconds for the vehicle to actually stop when traveling at about 20 mph. This means that fully stopping the truck could take up to 15 seconds, which is plenty of time for a child to run out into the road. My brother also argues that what he does is no more dangerous than me riding my bicycle without holding onto the handlebars. I'm not entirely convinced on this. According to my cycling odometer, I average about 13 mph when riding. The weight of my bike and me combined can't be much more than 170 pounds, and the brakes and tires are in excellent condition. I would estimate that it takes less than 2 seconds to slow my bike from 13 mph to zero. If you add it returning my hands to the handlebars, it might take a maximum of 5 seconds, 10 seconds less than stopping the truck. In addition to this, I can still control my bike without touching the handlebars, simply by leaning slightly to either side to turn. On the other hand, there is no way to control the truck's direction without turning the steering wheel. Letting go of the steering wheel while driving is a completely unnecessary risk with nothing to gain. It is dangerous to occupants in the vehicle, as well as other bystanders, and a low speed of the vehicle does not make it safe to do this. Change my view. **EDIT** it's now 12:30 am where i live, so i'm going to bed. One delta has been awarded for giving an example of a situation where it would be reasonable to take both hands off the wheel for a brief period. I'll be back in the morning to respond to any more comments

t3_1njksu

I believe any woman can have sex whenever she wants it. CMV

I believe that women can have sex whenever they want. That means that any woman who wants sex can find a male who is willing to have sex with little to effort. A strategy as simple as asking strangers in a public place would eventually reap rewards. A guy could ask a million women to have sex with him in one night and probably not get a single yes. The sex might not be with their ideal candidate depending on the amount of effort put in and their standards, but the fact that women even get to make that distinction is proof enough in itself. There are many men who would grab the chance at sex with any woman, no questions asked. The fact that woman have this opportunity but don't always take advantage because of their standards only further solidifies my opinion. The saying goes, beggars can't be choosers, but choosers can definitely be choosy. I believe any woman can have sex whenever she wants it. CMV

I believe any woman can have sex whenever she wants it. CMV. I believe that women can have sex whenever they want. That means that any woman who wants sex can find a male who is willing to have sex with little to effort. A strategy as simple as asking strangers in a public place would eventually reap rewards. A guy could ask a million women to have sex with him in one night and probably not get a single yes. The sex might not be with their ideal candidate depending on the amount of effort put in and their standards, but the fact that women even get to make that distinction is proof enough in itself. There are many men who would grab the chance at sex with any woman, no questions asked. The fact that woman have this opportunity but don't always take advantage because of their standards only further solidifies my opinion. The saying goes, beggars can't be choosers, but choosers can definitely be choosy. I believe any woman can have sex whenever she wants it. CMV

t3_2ytpco

CMV: All US citizens should have the right to vote.

Most of you are probably thinking, "don't all US citizens already have the right to vote?" The answer is no, there are many groups of people who, although they are US citizens, still lack the right to vote. I will list them below. Those living in Washington, DC do not have representation in the Senate, and only have one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. Those living in the US territories of Guam, Porto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have voting rights at the federal level despite being full US citizens. Those living in the US territory of American Samoa are not even considered US citizens, they are US nationals, so also do not have voting rights. Those who have been convicted of a felony, in most states, lose their right to vote. This fact has lead to US prisons being places which politicians ignore since they know that most Americans don't care about the rights of felons. If felons could vote, than politicians would have to listen to them. Finally, the fact that people under 18 cannot vote is a double standard and is unfair. In many states, a person is automatically tried as an adult when they turn 16, yet they cannot vote. If a person can be tried as an adult, they should be able to vote like an adult. TL;DR All US citizens should be able to vote regardless of where they live or the crimes which they have committed. States should modify their laws so that the age which a person can be tried as an adult is the same as the voting age. Those living in American Samoa should be considered full US citizens with the right to vote. _____ > *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: All US citizens should have the right to vote. Most of you are probably thinking, "don't all US citizens already have the right to vote?" The answer is no, there are many groups of people who, although they are US citizens, still lack the right to vote. I will list them below. Those living in Washington, DC do not have representation in the Senate, and only have one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. Those living in the US territories of Guam, Porto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not have voting rights at the federal level despite being full US citizens. Those living in the US territory of American Samoa are not even considered US citizens, they are US nationals, so also do not have voting rights. Those who have been convicted of a felony, in most states, lose their right to vote. This fact has lead to US prisons being places which politicians ignore since they know that most Americans don't care about the rights of felons. If felons could vote, than politicians would have to listen to them. Finally, the fact that people under 18 cannot vote is a double standard and is unfair. In many states, a person is automatically tried as an adult when they turn 16, yet they cannot vote. If a person can be tried as an adult, they should be able to vote like an adult. TL;DR All US citizens should be able to vote regardless of where they live or the crimes which they have committed. States should modify their laws so that the age which a person can be tried as an adult is the same as the voting age. Those living in American Samoa should be considered full US citizens with the right to vote.

t3_1sax1s

I firmly believe fascism is far left, not far right, CMV

fascism is often considered to be the far right version of communism, but they seem to have more in common on the political spectrum. 1. Fascism is a response to the considered failing of capitalism. Because this is inherently a reactive ideology, it belongs on the left, no? (This is, if right wing is against change and left wing is for change). Trotsky even said the beginnings of fascism and communism were the same. 2. Fascism is often considered to protect an aristocratic class. This seems to be false as in Nazi Germany the Prussian aristocracy had the lowest support for the Nazi Party and the Valkyrie coup plan was largely composed of Prussian aristocrats who wished to undo the Nazi Party, therefore pushing things back to the common status quo. These two points should be sufficient, if the left vs right distinction comes down to "for change" and "against change." EDIT a recurring theme seems to be "its not communism, therefore right wing." just because its not as far left as communism doesnot inherently imply right wing

I firmly believe fascism is far left, not far right, CMV. fascism is often considered to be the far right version of communism, but they seem to have more in common on the political spectrum. 1. Fascism is a response to the considered failing of capitalism. Because this is inherently a reactive ideology, it belongs on the left, no? (This is, if right wing is against change and left wing is for change). Trotsky even said the beginnings of fascism and communism were the same. 2. Fascism is often considered to protect an aristocratic class. This seems to be false as in Nazi Germany the Prussian aristocracy had the lowest support for the Nazi Party and the Valkyrie coup plan was largely composed of Prussian aristocrats who wished to undo the Nazi Party, therefore pushing things back to the common status quo. These two points should be sufficient, if the left vs right distinction comes down to "for change" and "against change." EDIT a recurring theme seems to be "its not communism, therefore right wing." just because its not as far left as communism doesnot inherently imply right wing

t3_5t310v

CMV: Feminism is destined to fail.

There are 3 main reasons I think feminism (2nd wave onwards) as an ideology is destined to fail. 1. It lowers birthrate of a group to the point that there's a push for population replacement. This is happening, for example, in Europe. The population growth rate of Europe is so low that Europeans are being replaced by immigrants with higher birth rates. In fact, every country that has feminist ideology has a low birth rate. Doesn't this mean feminist societies will be outbred? 2. Feminized societies cannot fight. I could take the example of Europe again, but I will take an example from history. In the book "Sex and Society" the historical J.D. Unwin documents how successful societies reach a certain level of decadence, and then become feminized. For example, towards the end of their reign, the Arabs were so feminized that women were freely working in major government sectors. Very soon, their lands were massacred by the Mongols. He documents that this happened in Rome, Babylon, and many others. Doesn't this mean feminized societies will weaken and fail? 3. Feminism breaks down the family structure. Given that we know the family is the best place to raise a kid, it destroys the next generation. We see this, for example, in African American communities where 75+% of kids are born out of wedlock. Not coincidentally, African Americans are the lowest achieving group. Please prove me wrong. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Feminism is destined to fail. There are 3 main reasons I think feminism (2nd wave onwards) as an ideology is destined to fail. 1. It lowers birthrate of a group to the point that there's a push for population replacement. This is happening, for example, in Europe. The population growth rate of Europe is so low that Europeans are being replaced by immigrants with higher birth rates. In fact, every country that has feminist ideology has a low birth rate. Doesn't this mean feminist societies will be outbred? 2. Feminized societies cannot fight. I could take the example of Europe again, but I will take an example from history. In the book "Sex and Society" the historical J.D. Unwin documents how successful societies reach a certain level of decadence, and then become feminized. For example, towards the end of their reign, the Arabs were so feminized that women were freely working in major government sectors. Very soon, their lands were massacred by the Mongols. He documents that this happened in Rome, Babylon, and many others. Doesn't this mean feminized societies will weaken and fail? 3. Feminism breaks down the family structure. Given that we know the family is the best place to raise a kid, it destroys the next generation. We see this, for example, in African American communities where 75+% of kids are born out of wedlock. Not coincidentally, African Americans are the lowest achieving group. Please prove me wrong.

t3_4dt1pr

CMV: I think "cultural appropriation"is perfectly okay, and opponents of cultural appropriation are only further dividing us.

First of all, I don't believe that any race, gender, or ethnicity can collectively "own" anything. Ownership applies to individuals, you cannot own something by extension of a particular group you belong to. To comment on the more practical implications, I think people adopting ideas from other groups of people is how we transform and progress as a human race. A white person having a hairstyle that is predominately worn by black people should not be seen as thievery, but as a sign of respect. Now, I'm obviously not talking about "appropriating" an element of another culture for the purpose of mockery, that is a different story. But saying "You can't do that! Only black/latino/Mexican people are allowed to do that!" seems incredibly divisive to me. It's looking for reasons to divide us, rather than bring us together and allowing cultures to naturally integrate. _____ > *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 "cultural appropriation"is perfectly okay, and opponents of cultural appropriation are only further dividing us. First of all, I don't believe that any race, gender, or ethnicity can collectively "own" anything. Ownership applies to individuals, you cannot own something by extension of a particular group you belong to. To comment on the more practical implications, I think people adopting ideas from other groups of people is how we transform and progress as a human race. A white person having a hairstyle that is predominately worn by black people should not be seen as thievery, but as a sign of respect. Now, I'm obviously not talking about "appropriating" an element of another culture for the purpose of mockery, that is a different story. But saying "You can't do that! Only black/latino/Mexican people are allowed to do that!" seems incredibly divisive to me. It's looking for reasons to divide us, rather than bring us together and allowing cultures to naturally integrate.

t3_3va9te

CMV: I am Islamaphobic

Edit: I'm not racist anymore!! It pretty much dawned on me the other day that I am definitely prejudiced against Muslims. I'm hoping that I can learn a bit more or be proven wrong, because generally I feel like a pretty open minded person and I'm uncomfortable with having racist thoughts. Anyways, here's why I dislike Islam * Burqas/Hijabs. From my perspective, the burqua is a symbol of gender inequality and female oppression. It represents a barbaric culture where women are stowed away and ashamed of their bodies. In high school I read a book, "1000 Splendid Suns" about a girl who grew up in the middle East, and this story gave me the impression that being forced to cover yourself is unfun, psychologically damaging, and traumatizing. My teacher even had us read a supplementary article that discussed the mental effects of children being forced to hide themselves beneath a Muslim head covering. The saddest thing I've probably ever heard was this quote from a Muslim woman who said "my hair is turning gray and it's still never been touched by sunlight". It honestly just seems heartbreaking and unhealthy. I especially hate it because it's sexist-- men don't have to wear them, only women. Growing up in a society where women and men are equal, and gender roles are increasingly irrelevant, this sort of rule seems barbaric and sexist. * More sexism - from what I've heard, the Qur'an has many quotes in it that specifically discuss abuse and beating of women. I understand that the Christan bible has stuff like this, too, but the Qur'an is even worse, supposedly, really focusing in on the extreme, sexist, barbaric elements of religion. I just don't see how someone can even be a moderate of a religion that supports this sort of sexism and psychosis * Honestly, i get angry whenever I see someone with a head covering, especially in cartoons or media, because I feel it's normalizing this sort of oppression of women. I liked what France did when they banned the burqua, and i considered it a victory for gender equality. * One more point-- when I was a kid, I would see Muslim girls in the summer sweating their asses off in full body coverings. How is this not child abuse?? If it's 90+ degrees off you should be in a bathing suit or something. That's pretty much my whole case. Can you change my views to be less prejudiced? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I am Islamaphobic. Edit: I'm not racist anymore!! It pretty much dawned on me the other day that I am definitely prejudiced against Muslims. I'm hoping that I can learn a bit more or be proven wrong, because generally I feel like a pretty open minded person and I'm uncomfortable with having racist thoughts. Anyways, here's why I dislike Islam * Burqas/Hijabs. From my perspective, the burqua is a symbol of gender inequality and female oppression. It represents a barbaric culture where women are stowed away and ashamed of their bodies. In high school I read a book, "1000 Splendid Suns" about a girl who grew up in the middle East, and this story gave me the impression that being forced to cover yourself is unfun, psychologically damaging, and traumatizing. My teacher even had us read a supplementary article that discussed the mental effects of children being forced to hide themselves beneath a Muslim head covering. The saddest thing I've probably ever heard was this quote from a Muslim woman who said "my hair is turning gray and it's still never been touched by sunlight". It honestly just seems heartbreaking and unhealthy. I especially hate it because it's sexist-- men don't have to wear them, only women. Growing up in a society where women and men are equal, and gender roles are increasingly irrelevant, this sort of rule seems barbaric and sexist. * More sexism - from what I've heard, the Qur'an has many quotes in it that specifically discuss abuse and beating of women. I understand that the Christan bible has stuff like this, too, but the Qur'an is even worse, supposedly, really focusing in on the extreme, sexist, barbaric elements of religion. I just don't see how someone can even be a moderate of a religion that supports this sort of sexism and psychosis * Honestly, i get angry whenever I see someone with a head covering, especially in cartoons or media, because I feel it's normalizing this sort of oppression of women. I liked what France did when they banned the burqua, and i considered it a victory for gender equality. * One more point-- when I was a kid, I would see Muslim girls in the summer sweating their asses off in full body coverings. How is this not child abuse?? If it's 90+ degrees off you should be in a bathing suit or something. That's pretty much my whole case. Can you change my views to be less prejudiced?

t3_6l4sxk

CMV: Juries should be able to challenge the application of the law.

A jury should be able to determine if a law that is in place fits the circumstances of the crime. Outlined points: Laws need to be black and white, real life is all shades of gray. On the book laws would instead be seen as suggestions that people want for society. A jury of one's peers enables a diverse group to see if the law of the land is truly fair in practice. No jury would be bound by another jury's interpretation but can see how others viewed a similar case through a legal precedent. Truer "law of/by the people" rhetoric. Juries would not be forced to choose whose story of events is more compelling (voting "I believe in what witness x claims more than witness y"), instead they could just determine if said law would apply in either narrative (I believe both witness' believe they are telling the truth but the law would/wouldn't apply in said case anyhow). Poor example: A man breaks into a pharmacy to get drugs for his dying kids. Yes, he did break windows, steal drugs, etc, but should he face what the State sets as a mandatory sentence for something anyone would do? I believe that is a question the jury should have a right to ask and come to an answer. _____ > *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: Juries should be able to challenge the application of the law. A jury should be able to determine if a law that is in place fits the circumstances of the crime. Outlined points: Laws need to be black and white, real life is all shades of gray. On the book laws would instead be seen as suggestions that people want for society. A jury of one's peers enables a diverse group to see if the law of the land is truly fair in practice. No jury would be bound by another jury's interpretation but can see how others viewed a similar case through a legal precedent. Truer "law of/by the people" rhetoric. Juries would not be forced to choose whose story of events is more compelling (voting "I believe in what witness x claims more than witness y"), instead they could just determine if said law would apply in either narrative (I believe both witness' believe they are telling the truth but the law would/wouldn't apply in said case anyhow). Poor example: A man breaks into a pharmacy to get drugs for his dying kids. Yes, he did break windows, steal drugs, etc, but should he face what the State sets as a mandatory sentence for something anyone would do? I believe that is a question the jury should have a right to ask and come to an answer.

t3_5fknew

CMV: It is immoral to bar the descendants of displaced Palestinians from returning to Israel and Palestine. They have the right to return.

About a million Palestinians became refugees from what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories, after 1948 and 1967. Palestinian refugees, both still living first-generation refugees (c. 30,000 to 50,000 people as of 2012) and their descendants (c. 5 million people as of 2012), have a right to return, and a right to the property their families left behind or were forced to leave in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories (both formerly part of the British Mandate of Palestine), as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, a result of the 1948 Palestine war, and due to the 1967 Six-Day War. I feel it is immoral and hypocritical for Israelis to claim a right to return to the area as their homeland some 1900 years after being expelled by the Roman Empire while refusing the same thing to people displaced within the last 70 years. Yes, I know that hundreds of thousands of Jews were displaced from the Arab countries too, but that doesn't make it right to take that out on the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinians have a right to return. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is immoral to bar the descendants of displaced Palestinians from returning to Israel and Palestine. They have the right to return. About a million Palestinians became refugees from what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories, after 1948 and 1967. Palestinian refugees, both still living first-generation refugees (c. 30,000 to 50,000 people as of 2012) and their descendants (c. 5 million people as of 2012), have a right to return, and a right to the property their families left behind or were forced to leave in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories (both formerly part of the British Mandate of Palestine), as part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, a result of the 1948 Palestine war, and due to the 1967 Six-Day War. I feel it is immoral and hypocritical for Israelis to claim a right to return to the area as their homeland some 1900 years after being expelled by the Roman Empire while refusing the same thing to people displaced within the last 70 years. Yes, I know that hundreds of thousands of Jews were displaced from the Arab countries too, but that doesn't make it right to take that out on the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinians have a right to return.

t3_1szuda

I whole-heatedly believe that alcoholism stems from brain chemistry that can be altered by inner strength, willpower, and education. CMV

I am, "by the book," an alcoholic. It runs in my family, and after I first tried alcohol, I spent four years binge-drinking; oftentimes blacking out completely, night after night. I then quit when I realized how much I was hurting myself, and distracting myself from that hurt, by relying on booze. I was sober for 2 years, and then I slowly started drinking again (starting Thanksgiving 2012), promising myself that I would moderate. I have drank many times in the last year, and have had a few slip-ups. They tend to happen when I go into an environment with alcohol with the mindset of "WOOHOO! I'M GOING TO PARTYYY!" But when I put myself around alcohol whilst keeping in mind my tendency to slip up and drink too much, I do really well, and can **now** cut myself off after a few beers. It has taken so much for me to get to this point. It has not been easy. I was suicidal when I first quit alcohol for many months following. But I firmly believe that we as humans have the capability to do (almost) anything we want with enough effort, strength, and determination. One day, I believe I will be strong enough to not slip up anymore. I have made so much progress already, but I would love to hear other opinions.

I whole-heatedly believe that alcoholism stems from brain chemistry that can be altered by inner strength, willpower, and education. CMV. I am, "by the book," an alcoholic. It runs in my family, and after I first tried alcohol, I spent four years binge-drinking; oftentimes blacking out completely, night after night. I then quit when I realized how much I was hurting myself, and distracting myself from that hurt, by relying on booze. I was sober for 2 years, and then I slowly started drinking again (starting Thanksgiving 2012), promising myself that I would moderate. I have drank many times in the last year, and have had a few slip-ups. They tend to happen when I go into an environment with alcohol with the mindset of "WOOHOO! I'M GOING TO PARTYYY!" But when I put myself around alcohol whilst keeping in mind my tendency to slip up and drink too much, I do really well, and can **now** cut myself off after a few beers. It has taken so much for me to get to this point. It has not been easy. I was suicidal when I first quit alcohol for many months following. But I firmly believe that we as humans have the capability to do (almost) anything we want with enough effort, strength, and determination. One day, I believe I will be strong enough to not slip up anymore. I have made so much progress already, but I would love to hear other opinions.

t3_4oe4xn

CMV: "It's in the constitution" is not an intellectually valid argument for not changing gun ownership laws.

The gun debate is a huge part of the discussions which come up after each mass shooting in America. One of the most common responses levied at the idea of reforming gun laws is that The Second Amendment grants a right to bear arms to all American Citizens, therefore reforming gun laws is not possible. This does not make sense to me. The subject of the conversation is changing laws, so pointing to an existing law which disagrees with the suggested changes is a non-argument. The Constitution is not a religious text, it is subject to change, and has been added to many times in the past. What reason (other than unpopularity) is there that The Second Amendment cannot be changed in order to (for example) prevent people on the FBI watchlist from owning firearms? As far as I know, there is not one, and this non-argument does not make sense. Reddit, make this argument make sense to me and change my view! EDIT: It seems my view has (in essence) been changed. Rather, my original premise appears to be false. The argument made (it has been explained to me) is not "You can't legislate my guns away because of the second amendment." I now understand that the argument being made is "It would be *really hard* to legislate my guns away because of the second amendment." However, if your argument is still that "You *can't* take my guns away because of the second amendment." then I still consider your argument a non-argument. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: "It's in the constitution" is not an intellectually valid argument for not changing gun ownership laws. The gun debate is a huge part of the discussions which come up after each mass shooting in America. One of the most common responses levied at the idea of reforming gun laws is that The Second Amendment grants a right to bear arms to all American Citizens, therefore reforming gun laws is not possible. This does not make sense to me. The subject of the conversation is changing laws, so pointing to an existing law which disagrees with the suggested changes is a non-argument. The Constitution is not a religious text, it is subject to change, and has been added to many times in the past. What reason (other than unpopularity) is there that The Second Amendment cannot be changed in order to (for example) prevent people on the FBI watchlist from owning firearms? As far as I know, there is not one, and this non-argument does not make sense. Reddit, make this argument make sense to me and change my view! EDIT: It seems my view has (in essence) been changed. Rather, my original premise appears to be false. The argument made (it has been explained to me) is not "You can't legislate my guns away because of the second amendment." I now understand that the argument being made is "It would be *really hard* to legislate my guns away because of the second amendment." However, if your argument is still that "You *can't* take my guns away because of the second amendment." then I still consider your argument a non-argument.

t3_1ryhmo

I'm a nihilist PLEASE CMV.

To put it simply someone who believes in Nihilism is someone who has come to the conclusion that the world, the universe and all life means nothing. Everything we do has no meaning or point. People try to say there's points to life, and develop philosophies (religion,'living life',developing wealth and influence) but what does that really accomplish. At the end of the line, is anything different? No, its not. I feel like a way people fight this realization is with religion. They choose to believe in some higher power of existence so everything in their life can mean something and be towards something. But unluckily for me I don't have the pleasure of believing the sanctuary which is religion. Although it must be nice. The reason I'm making this post is although I believe in this way of viewing existence. I hate it, its the most depressing life ruining realization I've ever made. I've lost all motivation I could possibly have to do anything in life. So please change my view.

I'm a nihilist PLEASE CMV. To put it simply someone who believes in Nihilism is someone who has come to the conclusion that the world, the universe and all life means nothing. Everything we do has no meaning or point. People try to say there's points to life, and develop philosophies (religion,'living life',developing wealth and influence) but what does that really accomplish. At the end of the line, is anything different? No, its not. I feel like a way people fight this realization is with religion. They choose to believe in some higher power of existence so everything in their life can mean something and be towards something. But unluckily for me I don't have the pleasure of believing the sanctuary which is religion. Although it must be nice. The reason I'm making this post is although I believe in this way of viewing existence. I hate it, its the most depressing life ruining realization I've ever made. I've lost all motivation I could possibly have to do anything in life. So please change my view.

t3_25u5y2

CMV: If libertarian economic policies would benefit big businesses then corporations and banks would be putting money behind getting a true libertarian candidate elected. They don’t because it would hurt them and result in more competition and be better for consumers.

Some people seem to come at libertarianism with the idea that the implementation of libertarian economic philosophies would automatically result in corporations’ basically taking over and merging and colluding with each other to raise prices and drop quality while consumers would be completely at the mercy of these corporations. If this were actually true then gigantic corporations and mega banks would be putting all their efforts and money into getting a true libertarian candidate elected. Instead they put money millions and millions of dollars behind Democratic and Republican shills who will put in place regulations which benefit the corporations and banks. Many times these regulations are basically written by the corporations themselves (through their lobbyists) with the goal of stifling competition. These regulations give entrepreneurs more hoops to jump through to start a company and make it much less feasible for new companies to make entry in an industry with tons of regulations. Instead of helping to stimulate competition and help consumers the majority of the time these regulations have the opposite effect and result in less consumer choice and lower quality products. I know some people may say the Koch brothers support libertarianism and want no regulations but I believe they only want regulations they benefit them and make it harder for people to come into the market and compete with them. I've also seen stuff about Gary Johnson having a little corporate support but I don’t know enough about it to have formed a good opinion and it was nowhere near the support Obama and Romney received. Thanks ahead of time for everybody’s input. _____ > *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 libertarian economic policies would benefit big businesses then corporations and banks would be putting money behind getting a true libertarian candidate elected. They don’t because it would hurt them and result in more competition and be better for consumers. Some people seem to come at libertarianism with the idea that the implementation of libertarian economic philosophies would automatically result in corporations’ basically taking over and merging and colluding with each other to raise prices and drop quality while consumers would be completely at the mercy of these corporations. If this were actually true then gigantic corporations and mega banks would be putting all their efforts and money into getting a true libertarian candidate elected. Instead they put money millions and millions of dollars behind Democratic and Republican shills who will put in place regulations which benefit the corporations and banks. Many times these regulations are basically written by the corporations themselves (through their lobbyists) with the goal of stifling competition. These regulations give entrepreneurs more hoops to jump through to start a company and make it much less feasible for new companies to make entry in an industry with tons of regulations. Instead of helping to stimulate competition and help consumers the majority of the time these regulations have the opposite effect and result in less consumer choice and lower quality products. I know some people may say the Koch brothers support libertarianism and want no regulations but I believe they only want regulations they benefit them and make it harder for people to come into the market and compete with them. I've also seen stuff about Gary Johnson having a little corporate support but I don’t know enough about it to have formed a good opinion and it was nowhere near the support Obama and Romney received. Thanks ahead of time for everybody’s input.

t3_29rb0b

CMV: I think most video games are a waste of time

For the most part, most video games do nothing but waste your time. Playing video games accomplishes nothing. What does it accomplish? I feel it does not make you a better person or makes you learn anything. For example, Pacman. Pacman has been played a million times. What is the point of playing it? People play it for fun. But that fun is a waste of time because nothing is accomplished. Once that screen turns off, you have accomplished nothing. Sure it was satisfying, but that doesn't mean it advanced you in life. Playing pacman does not make you a better person in any way really. Sure you might get better at it, but whats the point? Not like you're making money off it or anything. Plus there are probably a thousand people better than you, its not like you're going to become a pro gamer or anything. What is the point of being good at Pacman if it doesn't advance you further in life? I feel like it sort of a selfish thing, satisfying your own self. It's not a creative game, you can't be creative with it that much. You play by the rules, no room for creativity. However some games like Minecraft, you are being creative. You're creating. So that is a good thing. You are creating something that is somewhat unique. And other games like the Shadow of the Colossus. Beautiful game. I played it. I loved it. It made me travel to another world and it felt like a movie. Movies aren't a waste of time because you learn something. Movies can change your life, and some video games are just like movies. With that game I felt like I learned about beauty and nature. I learned through that game. But games like pacman or tetris, what can you possibly learn from that? It's not a movie. Its not realistic. Not much to learn that is beneficial. _____ > *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 most video games are a waste of time. For the most part, most video games do nothing but waste your time. Playing video games accomplishes nothing. What does it accomplish? I feel it does not make you a better person or makes you learn anything. For example, Pacman. Pacman has been played a million times. What is the point of playing it? People play it for fun. But that fun is a waste of time because nothing is accomplished. Once that screen turns off, you have accomplished nothing. Sure it was satisfying, but that doesn't mean it advanced you in life. Playing pacman does not make you a better person in any way really. Sure you might get better at it, but whats the point? Not like you're making money off it or anything. Plus there are probably a thousand people better than you, its not like you're going to become a pro gamer or anything. What is the point of being good at Pacman if it doesn't advance you further in life? I feel like it sort of a selfish thing, satisfying your own self. It's not a creative game, you can't be creative with it that much. You play by the rules, no room for creativity. However some games like Minecraft, you are being creative. You're creating. So that is a good thing. You are creating something that is somewhat unique. And other games like the Shadow of the Colossus. Beautiful game. I played it. I loved it. It made me travel to another world and it felt like a movie. Movies aren't a waste of time because you learn something. Movies can change your life, and some video games are just like movies. With that game I felt like I learned about beauty and nature. I learned through that game. But games like pacman or tetris, what can you possibly learn from that? It's not a movie. Its not realistic. Not much to learn that is beneficial.

t3_1njpga

I believe that Obamacare is a good idea. CMV.

It is my understanding that the government shutdown is the result of opposing beliefs on the healthcare bill that was supposed to be passed soon. I'm not well versed on the matter. However, I see no negative side effects to the bill itself. A majority of reddit seems to be with me on this issue, as the hivemind viewpoint is apparent by the comments on many of the well traversed subreddits. I've yet to see a convincing argument made against the healthcare bill, and I'm curious about all of this hoopla. Why are people against the healthcare bill?

I believe that Obamacare is a good idea. CMV. It is my understanding that the government shutdown is the result of opposing beliefs on the healthcare bill that was supposed to be passed soon. I'm not well versed on the matter. However, I see no negative side effects to the bill itself. A majority of reddit seems to be with me on this issue, as the hivemind viewpoint is apparent by the comments on many of the well traversed subreddits. I've yet to see a convincing argument made against the healthcare bill, and I'm curious about all of this hoopla. Why are people against the healthcare bill?

t3_61kq0o

CMV:Privatising healthcare and education leads only to the rich getting access to both, and the poor getting neither

the title is pretty self explanatory, but I feel that privatising healthcare and education will mean that those that are of a lower socio economic status will grow out of the range of the costs of both services. Given those who have a low amount of income to spend, and are Likley already struggling to make ends meet, if healthcare was not funded, then they would be unable to provide healthcare or education for themselves, or for others within their care. I can see that the privatisation of these services would lead to an increase in price, as instead of the services receiving a "guaranteed income" they'd have to provide for themselves, so how would privatisation work. I think, Therefore, the government should subsidie or fully fund both services to ensure equality and access for both services is equal and fair for all _____ > *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:Privatising healthcare and education leads only to the rich getting access to both, and the poor getting neither. the title is pretty self explanatory, but I feel that privatising healthcare and education will mean that those that are of a lower socio economic status will grow out of the range of the costs of both services. Given those who have a low amount of income to spend, and are Likley already struggling to make ends meet, if healthcare was not funded, then they would be unable to provide healthcare or education for themselves, or for others within their care. I can see that the privatisation of these services would lead to an increase in price, as instead of the services receiving a "guaranteed income" they'd have to provide for themselves, so how would privatisation work. I think, Therefore, the government should subsidie or fully fund both services to ensure equality and access for both services is equal and fair for all

t3_2uyf2j

CMV: Schools should not sponsor after-school sports/activities

This is relatively simple, I believe that school-sponsored sports and activities are more harmful than good. 1. It distracts from the real purpose of school I attended a school where sports were really followed and, in turn, American Football players got away with a lot of shit and some of them shouldn't be past 7th grade 2. Divides students This just shows how different people can be, like the really athletic kids become popular, and less athletic ones either only talk to each other, get bullied, or become social pariahs. CMV Btw, I'm on mobile so sorry about formatting, and I won't be able to respond for a few hours because it's late at night where I am. _____ > *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: Schools should not sponsor after-school sports/activities. This is relatively simple, I believe that school-sponsored sports and activities are more harmful than good. 1. It distracts from the real purpose of school I attended a school where sports were really followed and, in turn, American Football players got away with a lot of shit and some of them shouldn't be past 7th grade 2. Divides students This just shows how different people can be, like the really athletic kids become popular, and less athletic ones either only talk to each other, get bullied, or become social pariahs. CMV Btw, I'm on mobile so sorry about formatting, and I won't be able to respond for a few hours because it's late at night where I am.

t3_1o14qd

I believe there is no special merit to maintaining sobriety in one's life, and that mind and body altering substances can be indulged in repeatedly without concern as long as one is functional to participate in society in a positive way. CMV

As I have entered adulthood over the past 6 years, I have continuously indulged in more and more drugs. Starting out at 15 with marijuana, and ultimately graduating to hard opiates at 23, I have sampled and repeatedly used many drugs in-between, including alcohol, cocaine, ketamine, amphetamines, mushrooms, mdma, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, a ranging habit of nicotene, and a myriad of other substances along the way. I have now entered a period of complete abstinence due to my returning to focus on school and studying. I know the effects (both the dangerous and positives) of all my drugs extensively. Some drugs I have no inclination to ever try again, which is not to say they are particularly more harmful than the rest, but they are simply not my cup of tea, as it were. The crux of the debate I'm dealing with now is whether sobriety has more to offer than continuing my judicious use of hashish and opium. Its important for me to offer a disclaimer before you answer. I do not let the drugs interfere with my more important priorities. I am adept at partaking only when the times prove opportune. Maybe more older and experienced redditors can give me some insight into what a future with sobriety only would look like. I have hopes of a big career and starting a family in my future. But at this point in time it is hard for me to fathom a life without my drugs.

I believe there is no special merit to maintaining sobriety in one's life, and that mind and body altering substances can be indulged in repeatedly without concern as long as one is functional to participate in society in a positive way. CMV. As I have entered adulthood over the past 6 years, I have continuously indulged in more and more drugs. Starting out at 15 with marijuana, and ultimately graduating to hard opiates at 23, I have sampled and repeatedly used many drugs in-between, including alcohol, cocaine, ketamine, amphetamines, mushrooms, mdma, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, a ranging habit of nicotene, and a myriad of other substances along the way. I have now entered a period of complete abstinence due to my returning to focus on school and studying. I know the effects (both the dangerous and positives) of all my drugs extensively. Some drugs I have no inclination to ever try again, which is not to say they are particularly more harmful than the rest, but they are simply not my cup of tea, as it were. The crux of the debate I'm dealing with now is whether sobriety has more to offer than continuing my judicious use of hashish and opium. Its important for me to offer a disclaimer before you answer. I do not let the drugs interfere with my more important priorities. I am adept at partaking only when the times prove opportune. Maybe more older and experienced redditors can give me some insight into what a future with sobriety only would look like. I have hopes of a big career and starting a family in my future. But at this point in time it is hard for me to fathom a life without my drugs.

t3_4cp1nf

CMV: Homeless/hungry people in the US are only so because they don't utilize the help available to them

I'm originally from a poor country but grew up in U.S. I see such a substantial amount of help being offered to the homeless and/or the hungry in the US. Tons of shelters, food banks, charities, food programs, donations, welfare, food stamps, etc. etc. etc. I think people in the US who are homeless or say they are "going hungry" is just because they don't seek out the help that is very much available to them. Yes, some of this is caused by mental health issues where the person just doesn't have the mental capacity to get the help, and I do agree with that argument. But it still comes down to them not utilizing the resources available to them. This is a phenomenon/privilege that is specific to the US, and I don't believe this is true for the homeless & needy of those in other countries that have less of an infrastructure in place to provide support. _____ > *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: Homeless/hungry people in the US are only so because they don't utilize the help available to them. I'm originally from a poor country but grew up in U.S. I see such a substantial amount of help being offered to the homeless and/or the hungry in the US. Tons of shelters, food banks, charities, food programs, donations, welfare, food stamps, etc. etc. etc. I think people in the US who are homeless or say they are "going hungry" is just because they don't seek out the help that is very much available to them. Yes, some of this is caused by mental health issues where the person just doesn't have the mental capacity to get the help, and I do agree with that argument. But it still comes down to them not utilizing the resources available to them. This is a phenomenon/privilege that is specific to the US, and I don't believe this is true for the homeless & needy of those in other countries that have less of an infrastructure in place to provide support.

t3_1n37pc

I believe Israeli Jews have become the new Nazi. CMV

Every time I post a reply that mentions it, I get downvoted to oblivion. If being involved in Holocaust entitled Jewish people to a piece of the land, then Gypsies, Gays and Jehovah's Witnesses should have a piece of the landscape devoted to them too. Oh yeah, and have planes bombing the everloving shit out of people who just want their homes back. The Bullied have become the Bully. I don't think they deserve to be in that place. No I'm not anti-semitic. I don't harbour any particular animosity against Jewish people in general. I just don't like the Israeli people. Had the international governments saw it fit to put Gypsies in there, I would've said the same thing too. So yeah, if you're going to downvote, share your opinion. p.s. clarification regarding the 'Nazi' bit: no, I'm not saying they're fascists. I used the term because they act on their genocidal plans to kill Palestine people just because they happen to be Palestine people. Persecuting others based on their race is not acceptable by my definition. If you think it's OK, then change my view.

I believe Israeli Jews have become the new Nazi. CMV. Every time I post a reply that mentions it, I get downvoted to oblivion. If being involved in Holocaust entitled Jewish people to a piece of the land, then Gypsies, Gays and Jehovah's Witnesses should have a piece of the landscape devoted to them too. Oh yeah, and have planes bombing the everloving shit out of people who just want their homes back. The Bullied have become the Bully. I don't think they deserve to be in that place. No I'm not anti-semitic. I don't harbour any particular animosity against Jewish people in general. I just don't like the Israeli people. Had the international governments saw it fit to put Gypsies in there, I would've said the same thing too. So yeah, if you're going to downvote, share your opinion. p.s. clarification regarding the 'Nazi' bit: no, I'm not saying they're fascists. I used the term because they act on their genocidal plans to kill Palestine people just because they happen to be Palestine people. Persecuting others based on their race is not acceptable by my definition. If you think it's OK, then change my view.

t3_42cm6r

CMV: Non-parents’ views on parenting are worthless to parents.

As a father of two, I regularly encounter non-parents who have strong opinions regarding how parents should raise their children. This is akin to a patient giving a physician unsolicited medical advice. Sure, this patient has experience with both good and bad doctors, has been under the care of a physician and been prescribed medicine, and they may have even administered first-aid for someone in need. However, if an established physician well into his/her career wakes up one day and thinks, “I really need some advice.” Where does this physician go to attain it? Some likely possibilities: * An older, more experienced physician * A respected colleague * A medical journal of new findings Examples of where this physician might not go for medical advice: * Someone whose only experience in the medical field is as a patient * A person whose brother, sister, or friend is a physician * A person who worked in a doctor’s office This analogy is not perfect but helps crystalize some of the key problems in the overzealous sharing of ill-informed opinions of non-parents. I understand the limitations of my own subjective experience, and therefore do not assert my views as being equally valid in areas of inexperience. Why then, should non-parents get a pass here?

CMV: Non-parents’ views on parenting are worthless to parents. As a father of two, I regularly encounter non-parents who have strong opinions regarding how parents should raise their children. This is akin to a patient giving a physician unsolicited medical advice. Sure, this patient has experience with both good and bad doctors, has been under the care of a physician and been prescribed medicine, and they may have even administered first-aid for someone in need. However, if an established physician well into his/her career wakes up one day and thinks, “I really need some advice.” Where does this physician go to attain it? Some likely possibilities: * An older, more experienced physician * A respected colleague * A medical journal of new findings Examples of where this physician might not go for medical advice: * Someone whose only experience in the medical field is as a patient * A person whose brother, sister, or friend is a physician * A person who worked in a doctor’s office This analogy is not perfect but helps crystalize some of the key problems in the overzealous sharing of ill-informed opinions of non-parents. I understand the limitations of my own subjective experience, and therefore do not assert my views as being equally valid in areas of inexperience. Why then, should non-parents get a pass here?

t3_68yhbr

CMV: Rights/freedoms by nature limit rights/freedoms of others.

This is a fairly new idea that I've formed over a month or so, so I'm guessing it has some deep flaws. Maybe it's a minor one, maybe it's a major one, and it seems like this is a good place to ask. I'm also new to this subreddit, so do tell me if I'm violating any written or implicit rules. It is not my intention to violate them, and I read the rules but I'm not 100% confident I'm doing this right. My view: I think rights and freedoms are a concept that's abused when people want something. Every single freedom or right by nature, must limit someone else's freedom or right. ~~Let's take one of the most widely accepted right, right to life. This right would mean that we're limiting people's freedom to kill others. Now, I think in this case it is justified (I'm a utilitarian, if that helps understanding my position), since being able to live without a constant threat of death is more important than being able to kill other people without consequences.~~ There's also right to own slaves (which I disagree with), which limits the freedom of slaves. On the other hand, freedom of slaves limit the right to own slaves. For more controversial freedom/right, legalizing same-sex marriage (or banning the ban on it) means more rights/freedoms for gay couples, but it also means people who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong can't legally deny service. I think these examples support my idea well, but I can't prove a positive through examples, since there always may be other cases I have not yet considered that can prove my idea wrong. Thank you for reading, and for your insightful comments. EDIT1: I officially retract "freedom to kill" argument, since pretty much no society has ever granted such a right to general population. Even for supporters of inalienable rights, I think it's reasonable to assume they don't endorse murder as an inalienable right. _____ > *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: Rights/freedoms by nature limit rights/freedoms of others. This is a fairly new idea that I've formed over a month or so, so I'm guessing it has some deep flaws. Maybe it's a minor one, maybe it's a major one, and it seems like this is a good place to ask. I'm also new to this subreddit, so do tell me if I'm violating any written or implicit rules. It is not my intention to violate them, and I read the rules but I'm not 100% confident I'm doing this right. My view: I think rights and freedoms are a concept that's abused when people want something. Every single freedom or right by nature, must limit someone else's freedom or right. ~~Let's take one of the most widely accepted right, right to life. This right would mean that we're limiting people's freedom to kill others. Now, I think in this case it is justified (I'm a utilitarian, if that helps understanding my position), since being able to live without a constant threat of death is more important than being able to kill other people without consequences.~~ There's also right to own slaves (which I disagree with), which limits the freedom of slaves. On the other hand, freedom of slaves limit the right to own slaves. For more controversial freedom/right, legalizing same-sex marriage (or banning the ban on it) means more rights/freedoms for gay couples, but it also means people who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong can't legally deny service. I think these examples support my idea well, but I can't prove a positive through examples, since there always may be other cases I have not yet considered that can prove my idea wrong. Thank you for reading, and for your insightful comments. EDIT1: I officially retract "freedom to kill" argument, since pretty much no society has ever granted such a right to general population. Even for supporters of inalienable rights, I think it's reasonable to assume they don't endorse murder as an inalienable right.

t3_2zmmed

CMV: Standardized tests and credit requirements for high school graduation should be the same nationwide.

#EDIT: View changed by /u/garnteller. A high school diploma is vital for many paths of life. However, diplomas between states or even between districts don't reflect the same level of education. Credit requirements may lean more toward STEM or social sciences or electives depending on where you are, and the number of total credits can also vary. Standardized tests required to graduate are also constantly shifting, as well as senior project requirements. For such a universal standard, the requirements should be more strict so everyone achieves the same level of education regardless of where they live. Having different requirements makes it too easy in some areas. I'm not in favor of choosing the lowest standards to be universal, but rather the highest so that high school graduates can be more competitive and more career and college ready.

CMV: Standardized tests and credit requirements for high school graduation should be the same nationwide. #EDIT: View changed by /u/garnteller. A high school diploma is vital for many paths of life. However, diplomas between states or even between districts don't reflect the same level of education. Credit requirements may lean more toward STEM or social sciences or electives depending on where you are, and the number of total credits can also vary. Standardized tests required to graduate are also constantly shifting, as well as senior project requirements. For such a universal standard, the requirements should be more strict so everyone achieves the same level of education regardless of where they live. Having different requirements makes it too easy in some areas. I'm not in favor of choosing the lowest standards to be universal, but rather the highest so that high school graduates can be more competitive and more career and college ready.

t3_24vym9

CMV:Legislation to ban denying genocide (regardless of country or genocide in question) is hypocritical and a tyrrannical infringement on the human right of free speech.

Now I know that free speech isn't unlimited (like the thing about yelling Fire in a Theater). But in all instances were we limit this freedom of speech it is in a stituation where there is a potential victim to the speech (like with most crimes, and all that I agree with beeing illegal). If you yell fire in a theater it may result in a panic that can potentionally hurt or kill People. If you insite violence on somebody, there is a chance that people may act on that. If you say the Holocaust did'nt happen, who will get hurt? The feelings of those who survived? Well, only as Long as they listen. They have a right to not listen, and I should have a right to say incredibly offensive things. Another Thing that quirks me about these kinds of laws is that they are so specific they have to be hypocritical. For example Germany and Austria have laws against denying the Holocaust, but not against denying Holdomor. Or the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there were probably far too many genocides in history to legislate against all of them, even if you tried. I live in Austria btw, so I don't know a lot about the laws in other countries. _____ > *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:Legislation to ban denying genocide (regardless of country or genocide in question) is hypocritical and a tyrrannical infringement on the human right of free speech. Now I know that free speech isn't unlimited (like the thing about yelling Fire in a Theater). But in all instances were we limit this freedom of speech it is in a stituation where there is a potential victim to the speech (like with most crimes, and all that I agree with beeing illegal). If you yell fire in a theater it may result in a panic that can potentionally hurt or kill People. If you insite violence on somebody, there is a chance that people may act on that. If you say the Holocaust did'nt happen, who will get hurt? The feelings of those who survived? Well, only as Long as they listen. They have a right to not listen, and I should have a right to say incredibly offensive things. Another Thing that quirks me about these kinds of laws is that they are so specific they have to be hypocritical. For example Germany and Austria have laws against denying the Holocaust, but not against denying Holdomor. Or the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there were probably far too many genocides in history to legislate against all of them, even if you tried. I live in Austria btw, so I don't know a lot about the laws in other countries.

t3_2289xa

CMV: Dark Knight Rises (2012) > The Dark Knight (2008).

**SPOILER WARNING** Christian Bale (Batman), Heath Ledger (Joker) and Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent) all had incredibly amazing performances. The movie had over-the-top action sequences, a thrilling ending and lots of standout scenes. The meat behind the story is the morality. But Nolan picks the laziest way to discuss morality possible. Good vs. evil. Batman was over-idealized. Joker was over-idealized as well (as a badass, or evil genius). Harvey Dent existed as a coin-flip dichotomy: a saint or a mass murderer. It was an allegory, much like George Orwell's Animal Farm of freedom vs. communism. There was nothing to question or ponder. You knew what was what. Dark Knight Rises (2012) was a much more complex movie. It juggled four protagonists, each of which are flawed characters with moments of decency, as opposed to the mary-sue nature of it's predecessor. DKR challenged me and I had to watch it several times to give a greater understanding to it. TDK (2008) is fun to watch but beneath the theatrics is quite hollow. I think the reason why Rises (2012) isn't nearly as praised because it's lack of viral footage. It was a movie that you had to take in as a whole, whereas it's predecessor largely consisted of 5-10 memorable scenes. It was a movie that knew it's most powerful moments weren't gun shots or explosions, but it was fed to an audience that valued those things above storytelling. A year after you watch a movie at the theatre, you don't remember much. People remember moments; not overarching themes throughout the narrative. The Dark Knight (2008) was a fun summer blockbuster. Actually, it was an amazingly and incredibly fun summer blockbuster. But The Dark Knight Rises (2012) had the depth. It meant so much more. It didn't just pander to my tastes. It challenged them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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: Dark Knight Rises (2012) > The Dark Knight (2008). **SPOILER WARNING** Christian Bale (Batman), Heath Ledger (Joker) and Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent) all had incredibly amazing performances. The movie had over-the-top action sequences, a thrilling ending and lots of standout scenes. The meat behind the story is the morality. But Nolan picks the laziest way to discuss morality possible. Good vs. evil. Batman was over-idealized. Joker was over-idealized as well (as a badass, or evil genius). Harvey Dent existed as a coin-flip dichotomy: a saint or a mass murderer. It was an allegory, much like George Orwell's Animal Farm of freedom vs. communism. There was nothing to question or ponder. You knew what was what. Dark Knight Rises (2012) was a much more complex movie. It juggled four protagonists, each of which are flawed characters with moments of decency, as opposed to the mary-sue nature of it's predecessor. DKR challenged me and I had to watch it several times to give a greater understanding to it. TDK (2008) is fun to watch but beneath the theatrics is quite hollow. I think the reason why Rises (2012) isn't nearly as praised because it's lack of viral footage. It was a movie that you had to take in as a whole, whereas it's predecessor largely consisted of 5-10 memorable scenes. It was a movie that knew it's most powerful moments weren't gun shots or explosions, but it was fed to an audience that valued those things above storytelling. A year after you watch a movie at the theatre, you don't remember much. People remember moments; not overarching themes throughout the narrative. The Dark Knight (2008) was a fun summer blockbuster. Actually, it was an amazingly and incredibly fun summer blockbuster. But The Dark Knight Rises (2012) had the depth. It meant so much more. It didn't just pander to my tastes. It challenged them.

t3_5xpfug

CMV: HBO offers superior content to anybody else and is held back by their pre-internet business ideas.

First off, I like Netflix. I have Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now. Netflix has _by far_ the best user experience, but I think most of their content isn't very good. HBO, on the other hand has excellent content. Some of the best stuff out there right now is on HBO. Their problem, however, is that they still run their online services like they're a tv station. For example, before every show, they run commercials for themselves and their other shows. This is stupid. I already _pay_ for your service. I know what you've got. Why am I being pestered and bothered by advertisements for stuff I already bought? Netflix doesn't do adverts of any kind. Their website (I'm using HBO Now) is also absolute shit. It's indescribably bad. I work in the web app sphere, so I know it's hard to write good applications on the web, but Jesus. It's hard to navigate because nothing is intuitive. Probably 30% of the time the player will flat out fail. Their fast forward feature offers no preview, so I'm stuck guessing how far I was into a show that I need to fast forward in. And navigating seasons of their shows is stupidly complicated for no reason. It also seems to me that the reason their site is so bad is that they still see themselves as a television station. They put out shows. Shows have commercials. They go out on the tv. Tune in at x o'Clock to watch game of thrones. Their streaming site seems like an afterthought (which is also how I remember it being introduced). I think if HBO adopted a more Netflix like approach to their online content, their sales would jump through the roof, because their actual content is superior. _____ > *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: HBO offers superior content to anybody else and is held back by their pre-internet business ideas. First off, I like Netflix. I have Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now. Netflix has _by far_ the best user experience, but I think most of their content isn't very good. HBO, on the other hand has excellent content. Some of the best stuff out there right now is on HBO. Their problem, however, is that they still run their online services like they're a tv station. For example, before every show, they run commercials for themselves and their other shows. This is stupid. I already _pay_ for your service. I know what you've got. Why am I being pestered and bothered by advertisements for stuff I already bought? Netflix doesn't do adverts of any kind. Their website (I'm using HBO Now) is also absolute shit. It's indescribably bad. I work in the web app sphere, so I know it's hard to write good applications on the web, but Jesus. It's hard to navigate because nothing is intuitive. Probably 30% of the time the player will flat out fail. Their fast forward feature offers no preview, so I'm stuck guessing how far I was into a show that I need to fast forward in. And navigating seasons of their shows is stupidly complicated for no reason. It also seems to me that the reason their site is so bad is that they still see themselves as a television station. They put out shows. Shows have commercials. They go out on the tv. Tune in at x o'Clock to watch game of thrones. Their streaming site seems like an afterthought (which is also how I remember it being introduced). I think if HBO adopted a more Netflix like approach to their online content, their sales would jump through the roof, because their actual content is superior.

t3_306o9o

CMV: It is impossible to prove or disprove that our universe is deterministic.

While I do not claim to know whether the universe is deterministic or not, I claim that it is impossible to know with certainty whether the universe is deterministic or not. I'll start with the first part of the claim: it is impossible to prove that our universe is deterministic. Suppose, for example, that humans have discovered all laws of physics in the observable universe. This would be a bare minimum of establishing determinism. In this case, there is always the possibility that the universe is a simulated reality. As far as I can imagine it is impossible to disprove that our universe is simulated. So long as this possibility exists, it is also possible that the universe in which the simulation is run is non-deterministic, or that there is some inherent randomness. We have no way of proving that the universe that simulates us is deterministic, after all, so we must entertain this possibility. Now, if the universe that simulates ours is non-deterministic, it is possible that the simulation is constructed so that the laws of physics change with a small probability every second (or any arbitrary unit of time). Even if we knew the laws of physics were constant according to the best of our observations, we can only observe what has already occurred, so we can't be certain that the laws of physics will not change sometime in the future. Basically, it is impossible to disprove that the laws of physics will not change randomly. And so long as we cannot disprove this, it is impossible to say that the universe is certainly deterministic. Even if to all observation, the laws of physics appear deterministic, they could easily change to a non-deterministic set of laws. The proof that it is impossible to disprove that the universe is deterministic is similar. In short, any observable universe could be constructed by a deterministic simulation from a higher universe. At this point I am wondering if everything I said is logically sound. _____ > *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 impossible to prove or disprove that our universe is deterministic. While I do not claim to know whether the universe is deterministic or not, I claim that it is impossible to know with certainty whether the universe is deterministic or not. I'll start with the first part of the claim: it is impossible to prove that our universe is deterministic. Suppose, for example, that humans have discovered all laws of physics in the observable universe. This would be a bare minimum of establishing determinism. In this case, there is always the possibility that the universe is a simulated reality. As far as I can imagine it is impossible to disprove that our universe is simulated. So long as this possibility exists, it is also possible that the universe in which the simulation is run is non-deterministic, or that there is some inherent randomness. We have no way of proving that the universe that simulates us is deterministic, after all, so we must entertain this possibility. Now, if the universe that simulates ours is non-deterministic, it is possible that the simulation is constructed so that the laws of physics change with a small probability every second (or any arbitrary unit of time). Even if we knew the laws of physics were constant according to the best of our observations, we can only observe what has already occurred, so we can't be certain that the laws of physics will not change sometime in the future. Basically, it is impossible to disprove that the laws of physics will not change randomly. And so long as we cannot disprove this, it is impossible to say that the universe is certainly deterministic. Even if to all observation, the laws of physics appear deterministic, they could easily change to a non-deterministic set of laws. The proof that it is impossible to disprove that the universe is deterministic is similar. In short, any observable universe could be constructed by a deterministic simulation from a higher universe. At this point I am wondering if everything I said is logically sound.

t3_1xnax5

I believe the impulse behind technological development is pathological, CMV

It's more and more that technology has been made to seem like our salvation, and the more I see this the more I grow suspicious. Needs are constantly manufactured, and with the prime objective of most technology manufacturers constant innovation (spurred on by ruthless capitalism), I cannot help but see this strive (and market) for innovation futile and as a symptom of a larger problem to do with human limitations and the desire to be omnipotent. I believe technology can never create omnipotence and that it does little to deliver us from the human condition. I feel our strive to find more and better technology will result in little good, (actually increasing alienation) and only the appearance of "progress."

I believe the impulse behind technological development is pathological, CMV. It's more and more that technology has been made to seem like our salvation, and the more I see this the more I grow suspicious. Needs are constantly manufactured, and with the prime objective of most technology manufacturers constant innovation (spurred on by ruthless capitalism), I cannot help but see this strive (and market) for innovation futile and as a symptom of a larger problem to do with human limitations and the desire to be omnipotent. I believe technology can never create omnipotence and that it does little to deliver us from the human condition. I feel our strive to find more and better technology will result in little good, (actually increasing alienation) and only the appearance of "progress."

t3_6fkemq

CMV: Black Lives Matter should focus on black crime, since there is no evidence of racism causing disproportionate police brutality

**To clarify - My position is not that they're unjustified in criticizing police brutality, it's that they're unjustified in suggesting it's a result of racism, and they're unjustified in making this their primary focus of criticism, when far more pressing issues of considerably greater magnitude face the black community, which would solve the police brutality "problem" by extension.** Black folks could solve the problem of disproportionate police brutality, by having considerably less encounters with cops, i.e. committing less crimes, or complying with police demands. This is self evident, since we know cops aren't just walking up to random black dudes and beating the shit out of them for no apparent reason. A few cops making a mistake is the fault of the few cops, they are fallible human beings. If this was a more widespread issue with a ton of cops committing unlawful shootings, I would agree that this is obviously indicative of a larger problem with the institution, but it's not. Especially when the institution does not condone, glorify or encourage this behaviour in any way. By contrast we have black culture which does glorify and encourage crime, and we have a ton of black people committing crimes versus two cops convicted of unlawful shootings. The institution should be commended if you ask me, I'd have expected a lot more unlawful shootings considering the fact that these people are put under constant mental strain on the front lines of crime, on a daily basis, while being scrutinized by the media. It's a miracle that only a handful of them cracked under the pressure. What they deserve is more appreciation, these people save countless lives. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Black Lives Matter should focus on black crime, since there is no evidence of racism causing disproportionate police brutality. **To clarify - My position is not that they're unjustified in criticizing police brutality, it's that they're unjustified in suggesting it's a result of racism, and they're unjustified in making this their primary focus of criticism, when far more pressing issues of considerably greater magnitude face the black community, which would solve the police brutality "problem" by extension.** Black folks could solve the problem of disproportionate police brutality, by having considerably less encounters with cops, i.e. committing less crimes, or complying with police demands. This is self evident, since we know cops aren't just walking up to random black dudes and beating the shit out of them for no apparent reason. A few cops making a mistake is the fault of the few cops, they are fallible human beings. If this was a more widespread issue with a ton of cops committing unlawful shootings, I would agree that this is obviously indicative of a larger problem with the institution, but it's not. Especially when the institution does not condone, glorify or encourage this behaviour in any way. By contrast we have black culture which does glorify and encourage crime, and we have a ton of black people committing crimes versus two cops convicted of unlawful shootings. The institution should be commended if you ask me, I'd have expected a lot more unlawful shootings considering the fact that these people are put under constant mental strain on the front lines of crime, on a daily basis, while being scrutinized by the media. It's a miracle that only a handful of them cracked under the pressure. What they deserve is more appreciation, these people save countless lives.

t3_25ttah

CMV: I'm a good looking guy who believes that long term relationships is selling myself short

The longest relationship I've been in is about 6 months and at the end, it was just heart ache and pain of having someone break up with me. On the other hand, having hookups/FWB is so simple. We have sexual intimacy, we can hang out and we can talk. It's pretty much all the best parts of a LTR without the hassle of being committed/having to care. Why should I settle down when I can use my youth to my full advantage? Are there any benefits for me to actually try to get to know a person and possibly have a relationship with them? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I'm a good looking guy who believes that long term relationships is selling myself short. The longest relationship I've been in is about 6 months and at the end, it was just heart ache and pain of having someone break up with me. On the other hand, having hookups/FWB is so simple. We have sexual intimacy, we can hang out and we can talk. It's pretty much all the best parts of a LTR without the hassle of being committed/having to care. Why should I settle down when I can use my youth to my full advantage? Are there any benefits for me to actually try to get to know a person and possibly have a relationship with them?

t3_1v97rw

I believe, in the right context and with the right audience, anything is OK to joke about. CMV.

I understand that many topics are inheirently horrible (the holocaust, dead babies, rape) and should never be taken lightly. However, I believe people are smart enough to be able to joke about something while recognizing the behavior being joked about is unacceptable. Similarly, I am fully tolerant of all and am gay, yet I have no problem at all cracking a racial or gay joke with my friends, and they reciprocate in turn. So when I see people say it's NEVER okay to make jokes on some subjects, what do they mean? I won't go into public and shout abortion jokes, but with friends who I know won't be offended, what's the problem?

I believe, in the right context and with the right audience, anything is OK to joke about. CMV. I understand that many topics are inheirently horrible (the holocaust, dead babies, rape) and should never be taken lightly. However, I believe people are smart enough to be able to joke about something while recognizing the behavior being joked about is unacceptable. Similarly, I am fully tolerant of all and am gay, yet I have no problem at all cracking a racial or gay joke with my friends, and they reciprocate in turn. So when I see people say it's NEVER okay to make jokes on some subjects, what do they mean? I won't go into public and shout abortion jokes, but with friends who I know won't be offended, what's the problem?

t3_2r1ntj

CMV: The idea of "Buy local" or "Buy American" is primarily grounded in selfishness.

Recently there has been a shift from the industrial globalized system of goods (food, handmade items, clothing, etc) to more alternative systems like farmers markets, local businesses, and "buying American" (or whatever country the person lives in). However, this seems to be primarily based on selfishness. The idea is that by keeping money in the local economy, that the surrounding region will become more economically strong as increased local spending increases local jobs and profits for businesses (and then taxes for municipalities or the country). However, this seems to be a selfish type of logic that prioritizes the well-being of people in the community over the 'otherized' "non-community, non-nation citizen" Instead of a customer supporting a farm in a developing country, they are instead supporting their local organic farmer. While I'm not trying to say that local organic farmers should not have a successful business, the marketing and ideology of "buying local" is often employed to strengthen those already in power, to the detriment of those not in the community. Buying American is another type of marketing that is often used in consumer goods, especially fashion. I personally like the idea of buying American as it carries connotations of better quality, better labor practices, etc. However, at the same time I realize that I am supporting someone who is already fairly well off (a factory work in Maine, in this case), and not spending my money on a different country whose workers are in more need of employment and financial security. You could argue that most companies that create their goods in these types of countries use exploitative labor practices and thus should not be supported, but instead of activism and pressuring companies to adopt better labor practices, the marketing speak of buy local/buy american is choosing to strengthen local and regional economies while leaving lesser developed countries to fend for themselves in our globalized economic system. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The idea of "Buy local" or "Buy American" is primarily grounded in selfishness. Recently there has been a shift from the industrial globalized system of goods (food, handmade items, clothing, etc) to more alternative systems like farmers markets, local businesses, and "buying American" (or whatever country the person lives in). However, this seems to be primarily based on selfishness. The idea is that by keeping money in the local economy, that the surrounding region will become more economically strong as increased local spending increases local jobs and profits for businesses (and then taxes for municipalities or the country). However, this seems to be a selfish type of logic that prioritizes the well-being of people in the community over the 'otherized' "non-community, non-nation citizen" Instead of a customer supporting a farm in a developing country, they are instead supporting their local organic farmer. While I'm not trying to say that local organic farmers should not have a successful business, the marketing and ideology of "buying local" is often employed to strengthen those already in power, to the detriment of those not in the community. Buying American is another type of marketing that is often used in consumer goods, especially fashion. I personally like the idea of buying American as it carries connotations of better quality, better labor practices, etc. However, at the same time I realize that I am supporting someone who is already fairly well off (a factory work in Maine, in this case), and not spending my money on a different country whose workers are in more need of employment and financial security. You could argue that most companies that create their goods in these types of countries use exploitative labor practices and thus should not be supported, but instead of activism and pressuring companies to adopt better labor practices, the marketing speak of buy local/buy american is choosing to strengthen local and regional economies while leaving lesser developed countries to fend for themselves in our globalized economic system.

t3_2rxwvl

CMV Qui-Gon Jinn is actual a pretty amoral dude.

Using mindcontrol to make someone to accept foreign currency they don't want to accept is evil, right? I'm skimming through a fanedit of the Phantom Menace to see if it fixes everything I don't like about the original and the bit where Qui-Gon tries to mindbend Watto seems blatantly unmoral. The jedi is basically trying to rob the guy. Is there some way he's not being a huge jerk here? What would change my view: - an argument that Watto wouldn't have been getting ripped off if Qui-Gon had been successful - argument that Qui-Gon had no choice but to rip Watto off - hard to do since he ends up getting the part through other means, also he didn't even check if he had any other options than mindcontrol to get what he wanted before attempting it. His default plan was to just mindcontrol the person to get what he wanted at the other guy's expense. - argument that Watto is worthy of getting ripped off - best bet, I mean he owns slaves I guess? But Qui-Gon doesn't seem like he cares about that at all - in fact, what the hell, why aren't the jedi against slavery? Why I want my view changed: I want to like the movie, so it'd be better not to think of a main character as a moral-less scammer who doesn't care about child-slaves. Also if he's a horrible person what does that say about the jedi in general?

CMV Qui-Gon Jinn is actual a pretty amoral dude. Using mindcontrol to make someone to accept foreign currency they don't want to accept is evil, right? I'm skimming through a fanedit of the Phantom Menace to see if it fixes everything I don't like about the original and the bit where Qui-Gon tries to mindbend Watto seems blatantly unmoral. The jedi is basically trying to rob the guy. Is there some way he's not being a huge jerk here? What would change my view: - an argument that Watto wouldn't have been getting ripped off if Qui-Gon had been successful - argument that Qui-Gon had no choice but to rip Watto off - hard to do since he ends up getting the part through other means, also he didn't even check if he had any other options than mindcontrol to get what he wanted before attempting it. His default plan was to just mindcontrol the person to get what he wanted at the other guy's expense. - argument that Watto is worthy of getting ripped off - best bet, I mean he owns slaves I guess? But Qui-Gon doesn't seem like he cares about that at all - in fact, what the hell, why aren't the jedi against slavery? Why I want my view changed: I want to like the movie, so it'd be better not to think of a main character as a moral-less scammer who doesn't care about child-slaves. Also if he's a horrible person what does that say about the jedi in general?

t3_1eepid

I do not believe ethics and morality should be a factor in the treatment and dealings of criminals.

I have a very extreme belief that if the punishment for committing ANY crime were incredibly severe, perhaps leading to death or horrible living conditions, that crime rate would decrease and society would improve at a significantly better rate than it is as of right now. It seems to me that if instead of "If I commit this crime I will go to jail", that "If I commit this crime I will be killed" would have heavier worth

I do not believe ethics and morality should be a factor in the treatment and dealings of criminals. I have a very extreme belief that if the punishment for committing ANY crime were incredibly severe, perhaps leading to death or horrible living conditions, that crime rate would decrease and society would improve at a significantly better rate than it is as of right now. It seems to me that if instead of "If I commit this crime I will go to jail", that "If I commit this crime I will be killed" would have heavier worth

t3_5jiaad

CMV: It is a biological urge for men to protect women.

This is probably why people will still hate on a man for defending himself if a woman attacks him. Some people disagree and say it's actually social and that men's safety isn't taken into priority compared to women's. im read this post and I think I agree with it. "Men protecting women is a constant throughout every culture on earth. Unless every single society just managed to coincidentally decide on the same social paradigm, it's reasonable to believe that the urge, while socially cultivated, was originally bred from a deeper biological tendency. Also, as long as you believe in evolution, you can see the same sort of behavior in primates. The biggest, strongest male gets the harem because he can protect them and their young from outside dangers. Since the population of the species is more heavily influenced by the number of breeding females, rather than the number of breeding males, it's better for the community that the males are disposable, while the females are protected. While our species has grown beyond the need for this system, that little part of our hind-brain that tells us to protect the women is still ticking, and we create a whole slew of societal rules around it."

CMV: It is a biological urge for men to protect women. This is probably why people will still hate on a man for defending himself if a woman attacks him. Some people disagree and say it's actually social and that men's safety isn't taken into priority compared to women's. im read this post and I think I agree with it. "Men protecting women is a constant throughout every culture on earth. Unless every single society just managed to coincidentally decide on the same social paradigm, it's reasonable to believe that the urge, while socially cultivated, was originally bred from a deeper biological tendency. Also, as long as you believe in evolution, you can see the same sort of behavior in primates. The biggest, strongest male gets the harem because he can protect them and their young from outside dangers. Since the population of the species is more heavily influenced by the number of breeding females, rather than the number of breeding males, it's better for the community that the males are disposable, while the females are protected. While our species has grown beyond the need for this system, that little part of our hind-brain that tells us to protect the women is still ticking, and we create a whole slew of societal rules around it."

t3_26lh04

CMV: It is misguided to protect those 18 and over from the responsibilities and consequences of adulthood.

It seems to me that the prevailing American attitude is that it is wrong and unrealistic to expect 18-21 year olds to live adult lives. I may be mistaken here, as I have never actually been to America and my view is largely informed by discussions on Reddit, such as [this one] (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/26kv9p/im_a_former_foster_youth_who_spent_over_9_years/chs22yq). [Most countries have an age of majority of 18, whilst only 15 countries have decided upon 21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority#Countries_and_subdivisions). Most of the world's youngsters manage just fine with adult life at 18, I can't think of any plausible reason why American youth would be any different. I think allowing youngsters to remain in childhood (eg financially dependent, not responsible for running their household and life, being bailed out of sticky situations they get themselves into etc.) is harmful to both the young individual and society as a whole. The youngster fails to learn life skills, and, through an absence of challenging circumstances and general life experience, fails to develop character. This stuff can be picked up later, but it's great to have it *before* living with a spouse, moving country, or popping out a kid. Further, a sheltered life makes it difficult to appreciate what life is like. I think that this leads to a diminished level of respect for others and a lessened sense of duty to one's community. Of course I can understand the instinct to want to protect your kids for as long as possible, but I believe that it ultimately does more harm than good. _____ > *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 misguided to protect those 18 and over from the responsibilities and consequences of adulthood. It seems to me that the prevailing American attitude is that it is wrong and unrealistic to expect 18-21 year olds to live adult lives. I may be mistaken here, as I have never actually been to America and my view is largely informed by discussions on Reddit, such as [this one] (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/26kv9p/im_a_former_foster_youth_who_spent_over_9_years/chs22yq). [Most countries have an age of majority of 18, whilst only 15 countries have decided upon 21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority#Countries_and_subdivisions). Most of the world's youngsters manage just fine with adult life at 18, I can't think of any plausible reason why American youth would be any different. I think allowing youngsters to remain in childhood (eg financially dependent, not responsible for running their household and life, being bailed out of sticky situations they get themselves into etc.) is harmful to both the young individual and society as a whole. The youngster fails to learn life skills, and, through an absence of challenging circumstances and general life experience, fails to develop character. This stuff can be picked up later, but it's great to have it *before* living with a spouse, moving country, or popping out a kid. Further, a sheltered life makes it difficult to appreciate what life is like. I think that this leads to a diminished level of respect for others and a lessened sense of duty to one's community. Of course I can understand the instinct to want to protect your kids for as long as possible, but I believe that it ultimately does more harm than good.

t3_4uyd7a

CMV: Donald Trump is completely unprepared to be president, and is only full of bluster

I mean this sincerely; I have no idea why anyone would vote for Donald Trump. I do not mean this to be glib, or be sarcastic. I honestly don't get it. I want someone to make a case for Donald Trump **without talking about Hillary Clinton**, and tell me why based *only* on his beliefs why Donald Trump should be president. **He's All Talk** To me, he talks like a con man. Everything is great and magnificent and huge. All of his opponents are sad and low energy. He doesn't stand on the strength of his convictions but on the strength of his bragging. His platform is we're going to make America great again. He doesn't say *how* he's going to make it great, or why it isn't great now. It's only that we aren't winning, and he'll make us win again. Before taking a needless dig at the president, he said he ["has the best words."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UIE_MRAhEA) Because for some reason he needed to brag in that moment. **He's Not Equipped to Be President** He has shown time and again that he isn't particularly interested in being president, and that he isn't particularly familiar with what's going on. [He didn't have an idea on Brexit](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/01/3783685/trump-didnt-know-about-brexit), one of the most consequential world events of recent memory. When he did finally comment on it, he did so [on a trip to Scotland, where he promoted his gold course, and said that a country that voted 62% to Remain was "going wild" for Brexit.](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36606184) When asked about his foreign policy advisers, he said he listened to himself because he has ["a very good brain."](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/17/donald-trump-i-consult-myself-on-foreign-policy-be/) **He Lies Consistently, Casually, and Needlessly** Of all the statements PolitiFact has rated, [18% are 'Pants on Fire' and 37% are 'False.'](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) 55% of the things he says have *any* resemblance to the truth. Only 4%--[**4%**](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) of his rated statements are 'True'. As just one of a multitude of examples, [Donald says that he recommended Ohio for the GOP convention.](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/18/donald-trump/trump-says-without-proof-he-recommended-ohio-gop-c/) The only problem is that it's demonstrably false. He never said that. There's no trace he ever said that. It's super easy to point this out. But Trump says it anyway, because it picks him up ground. That's Trump's pattern--if he thinkgs something sounds good, he says it, regardless of its truth value. **He's A Gullible Conspiracy Theorist** Donald Trump has consistently said that he thinks Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination. His source? [The National Enquirer.](http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/ted-cruz-dad-lee-harvey-oswald-rafael-cruz-photos-experts/) Not to mention that Trump is the Original Birther. He said that he was [sending investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama's birth-certificate, and that "they cannot believe what they're finding."](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/trump-says-hell-reveal-interesting-things-on-obama/) Not to put to fine a point on it, but he made that up. If there ever were any investigators, which I doubt, they didn't find anything. This is another case where Trump says just whatever he thinks will gain him attention. And perhaps most damning, he's gullible. [Donald got caught up promoting a hoax video online.](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272824-trump-all-i-know-is-whats-on-the-internet) His defense? "All I know is what's on the internet." He literally just reposts things from the internet as fact without doing *any* due diligence. And his defense is that he didn't look into it? **tl;dr** In layman's terms, I hear Donald talk, and *there's no there there*. There's just someone shouting for attention, and saying whatever he thinks will get him attention. He's not a leader; he's a child. What do people see, and why do they find it attractive? What am I missing? edit: I want a case for Trump without reference to Hillary. I said that originally, but I just bolded it up top.

CMV: Donald Trump is completely unprepared to be president, and is only full of bluster. I mean this sincerely; I have no idea why anyone would vote for Donald Trump. I do not mean this to be glib, or be sarcastic. I honestly don't get it. I want someone to make a case for Donald Trump **without talking about Hillary Clinton**, and tell me why based *only* on his beliefs why Donald Trump should be president. **He's All Talk** To me, he talks like a con man. Everything is great and magnificent and huge. All of his opponents are sad and low energy. He doesn't stand on the strength of his convictions but on the strength of his bragging. His platform is we're going to make America great again. He doesn't say *how* he's going to make it great, or why it isn't great now. It's only that we aren't winning, and he'll make us win again. Before taking a needless dig at the president, he said he ["has the best words."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UIE_MRAhEA) Because for some reason he needed to brag in that moment. **He's Not Equipped to Be President** He has shown time and again that he isn't particularly interested in being president, and that he isn't particularly familiar with what's going on. [He didn't have an idea on Brexit](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/01/3783685/trump-didnt-know-about-brexit), one of the most consequential world events of recent memory. When he did finally comment on it, he did so [on a trip to Scotland, where he promoted his gold course, and said that a country that voted 62% to Remain was "going wild" for Brexit.](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36606184) When asked about his foreign policy advisers, he said he listened to himself because he has ["a very good brain."](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/17/donald-trump-i-consult-myself-on-foreign-policy-be/) **He Lies Consistently, Casually, and Needlessly** Of all the statements PolitiFact has rated, [18% are 'Pants on Fire' and 37% are 'False.'](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) 55% of the things he says have *any* resemblance to the truth. Only 4%--[**4%**](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) of his rated statements are 'True'. As just one of a multitude of examples, [Donald says that he recommended Ohio for the GOP convention.](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/18/donald-trump/trump-says-without-proof-he-recommended-ohio-gop-c/) The only problem is that it's demonstrably false. He never said that. There's no trace he ever said that. It's super easy to point this out. But Trump says it anyway, because it picks him up ground. That's Trump's pattern--if he thinkgs something sounds good, he says it, regardless of its truth value. **He's A Gullible Conspiracy Theorist** Donald Trump has consistently said that he thinks Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination. His source? [The National Enquirer.](http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/ted-cruz-dad-lee-harvey-oswald-rafael-cruz-photos-experts/) Not to mention that Trump is the Original Birther. He said that he was [sending investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama's birth-certificate, and that "they cannot believe what they're finding."](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/trump-says-hell-reveal-interesting-things-on-obama/) Not to put to fine a point on it, but he made that up. If there ever were any investigators, which I doubt, they didn't find anything. This is another case where Trump says just whatever he thinks will gain him attention. And perhaps most damning, he's gullible. [Donald got caught up promoting a hoax video online.](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272824-trump-all-i-know-is-whats-on-the-internet) His defense? "All I know is what's on the internet." He literally just reposts things from the internet as fact without doing *any* due diligence. And his defense is that he didn't look into it? **tl;dr** In layman's terms, I hear Donald talk, and *there's no there there*. There's just someone shouting for attention, and saying whatever he thinks will get him attention. He's not a leader; he's a child. What do people see, and why do they find it attractive? What am I missing? edit: I want a case for Trump without reference to Hillary. I said that originally, but I just bolded it up top.

t3_1g9x42

"African American" is a far more offensive term than "black" is. CMV

-Lots of black people have no connection to Africa at all (Jamaica, certain polynesian islands, etc) -Even if your heritage is African, nationality, race, and continental heritage are separate things (black people = African American, white people = European American?) -Not even all natives of Africa are black (Egypt) edit: the "L" in black

"African American" is a far more offensive term than "black" is. CMV. -Lots of black people have no connection to Africa at all (Jamaica, certain polynesian islands, etc) -Even if your heritage is African, nationality, race, and continental heritage are separate things (black people = African American, white people = European American?) -Not even all natives of Africa are black (Egypt) edit: the "L" in black

t3_55phex

CMV: I think that although most gays cannot change there are traumatic gays (And addicts) who can change unwanted features of their life in therapy. (As I am in the EU and it is late night soon I will have to ask a few hours until I will have the three hours spending with responding.)

I agree that it is a private matter that should not be criminalized - as it was in the past and as some fundamentalists in different Abrahamic religions still want it to be. I also agree that tofight for the liberation of gays we must stress the probable view that it is mainly genetic and it cannot be changed or "willed " (or "prayed") away. Still we do a disservice to this cause (of liberation and decriminalization) if we deny that there exist cases in which (with different therapy tools) some "traumatic gays" can heal. I call "trauma induced homosexuality" those cases who were abused in childhood for instance and hence the psychological "repetition of stress" rule makes them repeat the abusive situation. Or those who due to a cold fathering they compulsively seek closeness with vicarious daddies and that gets sexualized. The level of sexualization can be diminished and some of them prefer to marry and have children and some of them claim to manage to accept and assume their traditional manly roles. (It is a big mistake the generalize this and demand from everyone as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims - and some Jews - demand.) But it is a disservice to the cause of pro-gay leftist and mainstream organizations that they try to deny the existence of successful transition from unwanted or dystonic gay-ness into a hetero lifestyle (even if few exist or can be proven). Many cultural handicaps prompt some people to try therapies - what if I had it fine as a cute boy to accept the gay way - but I developed into a morose fat old and poor man? And what if I live in the countryside in Eastern Europe where people still believe in criminalization of gays (like in neighbouring Russia and Iran and many other countries outside the US and the West of Europe? If LGBT organizations would accept that people may be unhappy in a sex-centered life and compulsive behaviours (like addictions) can be healed in therapy - they would win lots of men who live a part of their life as non-gays but who are not antagonistic and are potential supporters of gay rights in backward parts of the world. (I beg you, before you start to label me as "enemy" and become angry - reconsider: I have lots of gay friends I lived my youth as an openly gay guy, but when I got old and sick and fat and bald and ugly and poor I discovered some tools - especially psychotherpy that healed me. I discovered some childhood abuse cases in my past - that helped me re-start my life as a family man and I am not in agreement with any "pray-away" evangelical or religious fanatic group who preach against all gays claimig they must change miraculously. I just decided to live a quiet non-controversial sexually abstinent life-style. I think such "traumatic gays" are potential allies to gays. (We are responsive to some therapies in spite of not changing the basic orientation - which may resurface in stress as it is a constituent factor preserved hormonlly in us - only the lifestyle component is skipped and some behavioral restraint is achieved). So we should be accepted together with our claims that yes, therapy may help in certain cases to a certain degree. _____ > *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 that although most gays cannot change there are traumatic gays (And addicts) who can change unwanted features of their life in therapy. (As I am in the EU and it is late night soon I will have to ask a few hours until I will have the three hours spending with responding.). I agree that it is a private matter that should not be criminalized - as it was in the past and as some fundamentalists in different Abrahamic religions still want it to be. I also agree that tofight for the liberation of gays we must stress the probable view that it is mainly genetic and it cannot be changed or "willed " (or "prayed") away. Still we do a disservice to this cause (of liberation and decriminalization) if we deny that there exist cases in which (with different therapy tools) some "traumatic gays" can heal. I call "trauma induced homosexuality" those cases who were abused in childhood for instance and hence the psychological "repetition of stress" rule makes them repeat the abusive situation. Or those who due to a cold fathering they compulsively seek closeness with vicarious daddies and that gets sexualized. The level of sexualization can be diminished and some of them prefer to marry and have children and some of them claim to manage to accept and assume their traditional manly roles. (It is a big mistake the generalize this and demand from everyone as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims - and some Jews - demand.) But it is a disservice to the cause of pro-gay leftist and mainstream organizations that they try to deny the existence of successful transition from unwanted or dystonic gay-ness into a hetero lifestyle (even if few exist or can be proven). Many cultural handicaps prompt some people to try therapies - what if I had it fine as a cute boy to accept the gay way - but I developed into a morose fat old and poor man? And what if I live in the countryside in Eastern Europe where people still believe in criminalization of gays (like in neighbouring Russia and Iran and many other countries outside the US and the West of Europe? If LGBT organizations would accept that people may be unhappy in a sex-centered life and compulsive behaviours (like addictions) can be healed in therapy - they would win lots of men who live a part of their life as non-gays but who are not antagonistic and are potential supporters of gay rights in backward parts of the world. (I beg you, before you start to label me as "enemy" and become angry - reconsider: I have lots of gay friends I lived my youth as an openly gay guy, but when I got old and sick and fat and bald and ugly and poor I discovered some tools - especially psychotherpy that healed me. I discovered some childhood abuse cases in my past - that helped me re-start my life as a family man and I am not in agreement with any "pray-away" evangelical or religious fanatic group who preach against all gays claimig they must change miraculously. I just decided to live a quiet non-controversial sexually abstinent life-style. I think such "traumatic gays" are potential allies to gays. (We are responsive to some therapies in spite of not changing the basic orientation - which may resurface in stress as it is a constituent factor preserved hormonlly in us - only the lifestyle component is skipped and some behavioral restraint is achieved). So we should be accepted together with our claims that yes, therapy may help in certain cases to a certain degree.

t3_2ns47w

CMV: Americans don't actually like turkey on Thanksgiving, but eat it out of tradition.

When will America really face the hard truth? Turkey is overrated. I don't care how "moist" your gram-gram makes it. Bake it. Fry it. It's a dry ass bird. You work on it forever in your mouth till it forms that familiar turkey paste you have to choke down every year. If we really loved turkey, there would be a successful chain of Turkey based restaurants. We don't. We keep lying to ourselves, while we fill up on everything but turkey. Leftovers? Mostly turkey. A dozen people can't eat a whole bird? I've seen less eat a whole pig! Fuck turkey! Stop the madness!

CMV: Americans don't actually like turkey on Thanksgiving, but eat it out of tradition. When will America really face the hard truth? Turkey is overrated. I don't care how "moist" your gram-gram makes it. Bake it. Fry it. It's a dry ass bird. You work on it forever in your mouth till it forms that familiar turkey paste you have to choke down every year. If we really loved turkey, there would be a successful chain of Turkey based restaurants. We don't. We keep lying to ourselves, while we fill up on everything but turkey. Leftovers? Mostly turkey. A dozen people can't eat a whole bird? I've seen less eat a whole pig! Fuck turkey! Stop the madness!

t3_23w77s

CMV: I hate anime and anything that comes with it.

I have a borderline hate of japanese things which includes anime. I have friends that live by anime, but I've never understood it. One of my friends "forced" me to watch a few episodes of *Soul Eater*, and I did not find that entertaining at all. I really did not find the style very redeeming, nor the story. I simply cannot agree with someone that anime is at all worth watching. It has no redeeming value to me. Also, the culture that comes with anime. I really don't like the people that associate with anime. The people (in my school) who are watchers of anime fall into--to simply put it--the "loser" category. Honestly, I also believe that products of japan, whether they be books, shows, cars, games, or even foods, are inferior to their Western counterparts. I will not buy a japanese car nor watch a japanese show nor play a japanese game. Edit: I guess I sound like an idiot now. Thanks for replying. I feel like I came off a little harsh, too. I'm sorry if I made anyone mad. My ignorance of a whole culture has spiraled out of control. I may have spent too much time over in /r/propaganda (joking)

CMV: I hate anime and anything that comes with it. I have a borderline hate of japanese things which includes anime. I have friends that live by anime, but I've never understood it. One of my friends "forced" me to watch a few episodes of *Soul Eater*, and I did not find that entertaining at all. I really did not find the style very redeeming, nor the story. I simply cannot agree with someone that anime is at all worth watching. It has no redeeming value to me. Also, the culture that comes with anime. I really don't like the people that associate with anime. The people (in my school) who are watchers of anime fall into--to simply put it--the "loser" category. Honestly, I also believe that products of japan, whether they be books, shows, cars, games, or even foods, are inferior to their Western counterparts. I will not buy a japanese car nor watch a japanese show nor play a japanese game. Edit: I guess I sound like an idiot now. Thanks for replying. I feel like I came off a little harsh, too. I'm sorry if I made anyone mad. My ignorance of a whole culture has spiraled out of control. I may have spent too much time over in /r/propaganda (joking)

t3_1sytfk

CMV I believe that rape victims are over sensitive and totally capable of just sucking it up and moving on.

I don't understand why they can't just accept it and move on, from From the research I have done it seems that the traumatizing bit is the complete loss of control. I have had that happen to me on several occasions, years and years of it and you don't see me bitching all the time. I think they just need to learn to accept it and stop giving a shit. Please change my view because this topic always makes my blood boil in rage at the victims for being such giant pussies. Apparently this post was not long enough last time I posted it sooooooooooo I am gonna go ahead and try to make it to 500 chars, a little bit about me and some other views you may want to change, I feel no empathy for victims only for perpetrators some people theorize that this is a result of being a badly behaved child and constantly being in trouble. Please CMV. ATTENTION EVERYONE I SEEM TO HAVE BEEN UNCLEAR, I HAVE NEVER BEEN RAPED.

CMV I believe that rape victims are over sensitive and totally capable of just sucking it up and moving on. I don't understand why they can't just accept it and move on, from From the research I have done it seems that the traumatizing bit is the complete loss of control. I have had that happen to me on several occasions, years and years of it and you don't see me bitching all the time. I think they just need to learn to accept it and stop giving a shit. Please change my view because this topic always makes my blood boil in rage at the victims for being such giant pussies. Apparently this post was not long enough last time I posted it sooooooooooo I am gonna go ahead and try to make it to 500 chars, a little bit about me and some other views you may want to change, I feel no empathy for victims only for perpetrators some people theorize that this is a result of being a badly behaved child and constantly being in trouble. Please CMV. ATTENTION EVERYONE I SEEM TO HAVE BEEN UNCLEAR, I HAVE NEVER BEEN RAPED.

t3_6b0m63

CMV:A grown adult man loving a young girl is not always wrong.

For example a 40 year old man in love with a 10 year old girl. A lot of people will say this is wrong, creepy, abusive, manipulative, accuse the man of being a pedophile, etc. I don't agree with this. That would imply that a father should not love his own daughter. I think it is very important for young children to have parents that love them. Fathers should be applauded for loving their own daughters, not be accused of being a creep or pedophile. Yes, a 40 year old man will have more life experiences, is more mature, etc. and in a position to manipulate the girl in ways she might not like, but this is making assumptions beyond mere love. You cannot assume the relationship will be manipulative, abusive, etc. You might make the argument that a young girl cannot consent to things, so the love is inherently abusive. I don't agree with this either. Going back to the example of a parent loving their own children, infants obviously cannot consent to anything, but a parent should still love their infant child. Having children and loving your own children is not always abusive. So, people of /r/changemyview, convince me that a 40 year old man who loves a 10 year old girl is creepy/pedophile. _____ > *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:A grown adult man loving a young girl is not always wrong. For example a 40 year old man in love with a 10 year old girl. A lot of people will say this is wrong, creepy, abusive, manipulative, accuse the man of being a pedophile, etc. I don't agree with this. That would imply that a father should not love his own daughter. I think it is very important for young children to have parents that love them. Fathers should be applauded for loving their own daughters, not be accused of being a creep or pedophile. Yes, a 40 year old man will have more life experiences, is more mature, etc. and in a position to manipulate the girl in ways she might not like, but this is making assumptions beyond mere love. You cannot assume the relationship will be manipulative, abusive, etc. You might make the argument that a young girl cannot consent to things, so the love is inherently abusive. I don't agree with this either. Going back to the example of a parent loving their own children, infants obviously cannot consent to anything, but a parent should still love their infant child. Having children and loving your own children is not always abusive. So, people of /r/changemyview, convince me that a 40 year old man who loves a 10 year old girl is creepy/pedophile.

t3_237vsf

CMV: Private property building codes should not exist.

Except for things affecting public goods, that is. Certain regulations make sense, concerning the surrounding area - external lighting, traffic flow, pollution, anything with a major impact on neighboring property, etc. But for everything localized to the property itself, affecting only those who are on the premises, the law should have no say. Especially for residential buildings, but even for commercial buildings. If you want to add a bedroom with no windows to your house, or a 5' tall front door under which all but midgets and children must limbo, or build a wood shop with horrid ventilation, that should be your damn business. If a restaurant wants to put 12 urinals and no shitter in their men's room - well, they're asking for some angry and bewildered customers, but it should be their right to do so. Imagine what would happen if we did get rid of these building codes. Not much would change, safety-wise. Expert builders would still publish guidelines, and those guidelines would be widely followed. Non-governmental rating agencies would arise and grow in importance, in response to the public's desire for assurance that this or that building is safe and well built. The stamp of approval from such an agency would be of high value to real estate companies, mortgage lenders, home buyers, construction firms, etc. If you did put in a 5' tall front door, when the time came to sell the house, you'd be strongly encouraged to make it standard size, to maximize the property's safety rating, and to maximize its market value. And this stamp of approval would be the default expectation for most buildings. You'd only hear about the ones with poor ratings or no ratings. Unsafe commercial buildings would make the news. The only real difference in this scenario is, *people would be free to do as they wish with their own property*. And local governments would have one less revenue stream. No more bullshit fees and fines, no more red tape. They'd have to rely on other ways of fleecing the citizenry. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Private property building codes should not exist. Except for things affecting public goods, that is. Certain regulations make sense, concerning the surrounding area - external lighting, traffic flow, pollution, anything with a major impact on neighboring property, etc. But for everything localized to the property itself, affecting only those who are on the premises, the law should have no say. Especially for residential buildings, but even for commercial buildings. If you want to add a bedroom with no windows to your house, or a 5' tall front door under which all but midgets and children must limbo, or build a wood shop with horrid ventilation, that should be your damn business. If a restaurant wants to put 12 urinals and no shitter in their men's room - well, they're asking for some angry and bewildered customers, but it should be their right to do so. Imagine what would happen if we did get rid of these building codes. Not much would change, safety-wise. Expert builders would still publish guidelines, and those guidelines would be widely followed. Non-governmental rating agencies would arise and grow in importance, in response to the public's desire for assurance that this or that building is safe and well built. The stamp of approval from such an agency would be of high value to real estate companies, mortgage lenders, home buyers, construction firms, etc. If you did put in a 5' tall front door, when the time came to sell the house, you'd be strongly encouraged to make it standard size, to maximize the property's safety rating, and to maximize its market value. And this stamp of approval would be the default expectation for most buildings. You'd only hear about the ones with poor ratings or no ratings. Unsafe commercial buildings would make the news. The only real difference in this scenario is, *people would be free to do as they wish with their own property*. And local governments would have one less revenue stream. No more bullshit fees and fines, no more red tape. They'd have to rely on other ways of fleecing the citizenry.

t3_26s3ur

CMV: Santa Claus should have a website for submitting Christmas lists

I believe that the current system of submitting paper lists to Santa Claus is inefficient and outdated. He should have a website that links to a database in the North Pole. This will have numerous benefits: 1. The database will group similar items together to allow mass-production. Right now, a team of elves has to go through each list manually and record the number of each item. However, due to the sheer amount of lists, they often forget which items they have already listed and put the same item twice. This is inefficient, because then the production elves will create several batches of the same product. In addition, elves can make mistakes when cataloging and forget to combine with the other list-checking elves. 2. On the website, people can check the language that they are sending their lists in. This will eliminate the time-consuming job of sorting by language. 3. People who don't have access to the Internet or prefer the old method can still send paper copies. The smaller amount will make post offices run more efficiently than usual around Christmas and save paper. 4. Christmas lists won't get lost in the mail. 5. There is usually a 1-2% error rate based on handwriting. (This is a lot considering how many lists Santa gets.) There is no chance of that this way. The only downside I can see is that some elves will lose their jobs. However, they can probably get new jobs in managing the technology. 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: Santa Claus should have a website for submitting Christmas lists. I believe that the current system of submitting paper lists to Santa Claus is inefficient and outdated. He should have a website that links to a database in the North Pole. This will have numerous benefits: 1. The database will group similar items together to allow mass-production. Right now, a team of elves has to go through each list manually and record the number of each item. However, due to the sheer amount of lists, they often forget which items they have already listed and put the same item twice. This is inefficient, because then the production elves will create several batches of the same product. In addition, elves can make mistakes when cataloging and forget to combine with the other list-checking elves. 2. On the website, people can check the language that they are sending their lists in. This will eliminate the time-consuming job of sorting by language. 3. People who don't have access to the Internet or prefer the old method can still send paper copies. The smaller amount will make post offices run more efficiently than usual around Christmas and save paper. 4. Christmas lists won't get lost in the mail. 5. There is usually a 1-2% error rate based on handwriting. (This is a lot considering how many lists Santa gets.) There is no chance of that this way. The only downside I can see is that some elves will lose their jobs. However, they can probably get new jobs in managing the technology. CMV!

t3_1koklb

I do not believe the multi-verse theory, CMV

I'm fascinated by the idea of the multiverse theory, but fair warning: i'm admittedly not very well educated about it. My issue with it is due to a perceived paradox with the "infinite" part of the theory. If there are infinite alternative universes, there exists a reality where I have a different job, hair color, etc. - where mundane details are changed. In order for there to be infinite universes, however, *every* possibility must be explored. No matter how odd, bizarre, or abstract, you can't exclude any possible idea. There must also exist a reality where The Force is real and the events of the Star Wars films have taken place. To exclude this possibility would contradict the "infinite" idea. There must also be a universe where hyper-intelligent elephant people ride Dinosaurs to work in enormous office buildings. Very odd indeed, but again, if you exclude the possibility, you're no longer talking about "infinite" universes. Here's where the real paradox occurs for me, and where things will get a bit abstract (sorry!). If infinite possibilities exist, there must also be a universe that has an aura effect on all other universes; An aura which negates the multiverse theory, eliminates other universes, and makes it the *only* universe. To summarize, I see a contradiction between the following statements: **"There are infinite universes"** and **"there is no universe where *X* is true"**. Does the multiverse theory address this? How do those of you who accept the theory reconcile this paradox? Edit: Upon reading some of your responses, I see that this question is fairly flawed. Probably should have been posted in r/NoStupidQuestions :p. Nevertheless, thanks for your responses!

I do not believe the multi-verse theory, CMV. I'm fascinated by the idea of the multiverse theory, but fair warning: i'm admittedly not very well educated about it. My issue with it is due to a perceived paradox with the "infinite" part of the theory. If there are infinite alternative universes, there exists a reality where I have a different job, hair color, etc. - where mundane details are changed. In order for there to be infinite universes, however, *every* possibility must be explored. No matter how odd, bizarre, or abstract, you can't exclude any possible idea. There must also exist a reality where The Force is real and the events of the Star Wars films have taken place. To exclude this possibility would contradict the "infinite" idea. There must also be a universe where hyper-intelligent elephant people ride Dinosaurs to work in enormous office buildings. Very odd indeed, but again, if you exclude the possibility, you're no longer talking about "infinite" universes. Here's where the real paradox occurs for me, and where things will get a bit abstract (sorry!). If infinite possibilities exist, there must also be a universe that has an aura effect on all other universes; An aura which negates the multiverse theory, eliminates other universes, and makes it the *only* universe. To summarize, I see a contradiction between the following statements: **"There are infinite universes"** and **"there is no universe where *X* is true"**. Does the multiverse theory address this? How do those of you who accept the theory reconcile this paradox? Edit: Upon reading some of your responses, I see that this question is fairly flawed. Probably should have been posted in r/NoStupidQuestions :p. Nevertheless, thanks for your responses!

t3_3d8yop

CMV: Anarchism could probably lead to social darwinism

I'm not an anarchist, and even if what you say changes my view about anarchism leading to social darwinism, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with anarchism. I'm not comfortable with anarchism because I feel that it will lead to less equality and those who already are in trouble will be in trouble more so. Anyway, why is anarchism not going to be negative in the long run? You can have freedom with a government. It has to be a good government, but it can still be done. A friend of mine said that people can still help each other. This is of course true but, and I don't want to be a pessimist, I'm not sure people are going to be more helpful. People will still have their conservative ideas and not want to help people in trouble even if there's no government. Another thing, what about public ownership of things like electricity? I don't know, but I assume most of this is public ownership. Won't people be without electricity? _____ > *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: Anarchism could probably lead to social darwinism. I'm not an anarchist, and even if what you say changes my view about anarchism leading to social darwinism, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with anarchism. I'm not comfortable with anarchism because I feel that it will lead to less equality and those who already are in trouble will be in trouble more so. Anyway, why is anarchism not going to be negative in the long run? You can have freedom with a government. It has to be a good government, but it can still be done. A friend of mine said that people can still help each other. This is of course true but, and I don't want to be a pessimist, I'm not sure people are going to be more helpful. People will still have their conservative ideas and not want to help people in trouble even if there's no government. Another thing, what about public ownership of things like electricity? I don't know, but I assume most of this is public ownership. Won't people be without electricity?

t3_2ovqav

CMV: Selling surplus military equipment to local police forces is not a problem.

I would agree that we should not have this much surplus military equipment, but without addressing that concern, what else is the military to do with the equipment? Is it better to lock it up in boxes or sell it to foreign countries? Wont the government be able to squash and oppress the citizenry by using this equipment? The equipment is given to local police forces though, and why would they all unite against their neighbors? I would argue the opposite: that the equipment actually better arms the common man against the federal government. The best argument against "militarization" that I've heard was in Dan Carlin's Common Sense [podcast](http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/) Ep 279. He says just the optics of it are bad. If Ferguson's black residents feel that the police are more like an occupying force than it is their neighbors protecting them, adding tanks does not dispel that notion. While I agree that this point is good, it does not have enough weight to it to justify throwing the equipment away, selling it to other countries, or leaving it in the federal governments hands. EDIT: /u/grunt08 cmv. What are the chances of getting a reply from a Marine in charge of training police forces!? Sorry to everyone else who made a similar argument, but the first hand experience was more convincing than the claims of political corruption. > *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: Selling surplus military equipment to local police forces is not a problem. I would agree that we should not have this much surplus military equipment, but without addressing that concern, what else is the military to do with the equipment? Is it better to lock it up in boxes or sell it to foreign countries? Wont the government be able to squash and oppress the citizenry by using this equipment? The equipment is given to local police forces though, and why would they all unite against their neighbors? I would argue the opposite: that the equipment actually better arms the common man against the federal government. The best argument against "militarization" that I've heard was in Dan Carlin's Common Sense [podcast](http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/) Ep 279. He says just the optics of it are bad. If Ferguson's black residents feel that the police are more like an occupying force than it is their neighbors protecting them, adding tanks does not dispel that notion. While I agree that this point is good, it does not have enough weight to it to justify throwing the equipment away, selling it to other countries, or leaving it in the federal governments hands. EDIT: /u/grunt08 cmv. What are the chances of getting a reply from a Marine in charge of training police forces!? Sorry to everyone else who made a similar argument, but the first hand experience was more convincing than the claims of political corruption. > *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_58ehrq

CMV:Voting Should be Compulsory

I recently heard an argument that voting should be compulsory in the United States. I like this idea. Some of the arguments I heard were that compulsory voting would reduce the influence of special interest groups, and that it would allow disadvantage groups to be better represented. It would also cause more people to become interested in politics because if everyone has to vote, more people will decide to be informed. In addition to these arguments, I believe that voting is a duty we have to the country like paying taxes and jury duty. Voting should be fair and compulsory voting could be the a good way to make it 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 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:Voting Should be Compulsory. I recently heard an argument that voting should be compulsory in the United States. I like this idea. Some of the arguments I heard were that compulsory voting would reduce the influence of special interest groups, and that it would allow disadvantage groups to be better represented. It would also cause more people to become interested in politics because if everyone has to vote, more people will decide to be informed. In addition to these arguments, I believe that voting is a duty we have to the country like paying taxes and jury duty. Voting should be fair and compulsory voting could be the a good way to make it so.

t3_37qr7w

CMV: There is no such thing as 'Accident Prone. There are only people who don't pay attention to what they're doing.

I’ve met quite a few people who claim to be “Accident prone”. We all know that person who is like a bull in a china shop. There is nothing deliberate about their actions. They slam doors and cabinets open, carry too many things at once, don’t look where they’re going, put things down in places they shouldn’t, and so on. They’re constantly hurting themselves or others, breaking things, denting cars etc… constant ‘oops’ and ‘why me?’ moments. I see this as a complete failure to pay attention to your surroundings. Accidents that are your fault (emphasizing ‘your fault’ here… some things are beyond your control) can always be avoided, either by properly planning, watching what you’re doing, or just thinking while you act. Sometimes accidents happen due to inexperience. Fair enough, but people should learn from their mistakes, and take precautions to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. If it does, it’s not an accident. I feel like the label “Accident Prone” is a way of avoiding blame. These people seem to just accept the ‘fact’ that accidents will happen around them, and that’s that. As if being “Accident Prone” was just something you have to accept, and cannot change. I don’t buy it. I see this as a failure to be careful. And if they’re constantly doing the same thing, it shows that they don’t care enough about themselves or other people to make an effort to stop and think about what they’re doing once in a while. EDIT: Because it seems to keep coming up, i'm not talking about people who suffer from mental of physical issues. I'm talking about people who have a careless pattern of behaviour and don't do anything to change it. CMV? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is no such thing as 'Accident Prone. There are only people who don't pay attention to what they're doing. I’ve met quite a few people who claim to be “Accident prone”. We all know that person who is like a bull in a china shop. There is nothing deliberate about their actions. They slam doors and cabinets open, carry too many things at once, don’t look where they’re going, put things down in places they shouldn’t, and so on. They’re constantly hurting themselves or others, breaking things, denting cars etc… constant ‘oops’ and ‘why me?’ moments. I see this as a complete failure to pay attention to your surroundings. Accidents that are your fault (emphasizing ‘your fault’ here… some things are beyond your control) can always be avoided, either by properly planning, watching what you’re doing, or just thinking while you act. Sometimes accidents happen due to inexperience. Fair enough, but people should learn from their mistakes, and take precautions to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. If it does, it’s not an accident. I feel like the label “Accident Prone” is a way of avoiding blame. These people seem to just accept the ‘fact’ that accidents will happen around them, and that’s that. As if being “Accident Prone” was just something you have to accept, and cannot change. I don’t buy it. I see this as a failure to be careful. And if they’re constantly doing the same thing, it shows that they don’t care enough about themselves or other people to make an effort to stop and think about what they’re doing once in a while. EDIT: Because it seems to keep coming up, i'm not talking about people who suffer from mental of physical issues. I'm talking about people who have a careless pattern of behaviour and don't do anything to change it. CMV?

t3_1zcmnd

I see Russia as the agressor and bad guy in the conflict going on in and around the Crimea right now. CMV

Only 59 percent of the Crimea's citizens are ethnic Russians and I think that is nowhere near enough to warrant this type of military action in that area, even more so because the ethnic Russians didn't even have anything to fear from Ukrain in the first place, afaik?? What Russia apparantly really wants is quick water access to the eastern Mediterranean, Balkans and Middle East. They also surrounded a Ukrainian base in trying to provoke Ukrain into giving Russia an excuse to start an outright war. In addition: >"Since 2008 Russia has been pumping money into building a new base further along the Crimean coast on its own territory at Novorossiysk, with plans to move the region's new and flagship vessels there." I can't see a blink of blame on Ukrain's side at this point. CMV.

I see Russia as the agressor and bad guy in the conflict going on in and around the Crimea right now. CMV. Only 59 percent of the Crimea's citizens are ethnic Russians and I think that is nowhere near enough to warrant this type of military action in that area, even more so because the ethnic Russians didn't even have anything to fear from Ukrain in the first place, afaik?? What Russia apparantly really wants is quick water access to the eastern Mediterranean, Balkans and Middle East. They also surrounded a Ukrainian base in trying to provoke Ukrain into giving Russia an excuse to start an outright war. In addition: >"Since 2008 Russia has been pumping money into building a new base further along the Crimean coast on its own territory at Novorossiysk, with plans to move the region's new and flagship vessels there." I can't see a blink of blame on Ukrain's side at this point. CMV.

t3_4fii72

CMV: The NHL having 14 teams in one division and 16 in the other is unfair and shouldn't have been changed.

First off, this wasn't made by some butthurt fan who's team missed the playoffs - I'm a fan of the Wings, who are in the East and made the playoffs. Anyways, the NHL recently switched things up. It used to have 15 teams in the west, 15 in the east. 8 teams in a division would make the playoffs. In 2013, the Detroit Red Wings and the Columbus Blue jackets would switch from West to East and the Winnipeg Jets would go from East to West. So now what we're left with is 14 teams in the east, 16 in the west. This makes it harder to make the playoffs in east by a significant margin. For example - Boston would have made the playoff this year if the Wings were counted as being in the west at the end of the season (and the Wings would have made it in the west, bumping Minn out). Now, it doesn't really make much sense to have Winnipeg in the eastern conference, but they were originally the Atlanta Trashers, and when they moved, they just stayed in the east. So I get why they wanted to move that team - but why move *two* western teams to the East? Columbus and Detroit are basically neck and neck as far as longitude goes, so if anything, just pick one, but *both* teams shouldn't have been moved. 14 vs 16 is making things easier in the west by a significant amount. Now I understand that the Detroit Red Wings franchise *wanted* to move to the East due to travel and whatnot, but that isn't enough of a reason to unbalance the divisions. With the new expansion coming, things should balance out, but I don't see why they did this in the first place. _____ > *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 NHL having 14 teams in one division and 16 in the other is unfair and shouldn't have been changed. First off, this wasn't made by some butthurt fan who's team missed the playoffs - I'm a fan of the Wings, who are in the East and made the playoffs. Anyways, the NHL recently switched things up. It used to have 15 teams in the west, 15 in the east. 8 teams in a division would make the playoffs. In 2013, the Detroit Red Wings and the Columbus Blue jackets would switch from West to East and the Winnipeg Jets would go from East to West. So now what we're left with is 14 teams in the east, 16 in the west. This makes it harder to make the playoffs in east by a significant margin. For example - Boston would have made the playoff this year if the Wings were counted as being in the west at the end of the season (and the Wings would have made it in the west, bumping Minn out). Now, it doesn't really make much sense to have Winnipeg in the eastern conference, but they were originally the Atlanta Trashers, and when they moved, they just stayed in the east. So I get why they wanted to move that team - but why move *two* western teams to the East? Columbus and Detroit are basically neck and neck as far as longitude goes, so if anything, just pick one, but *both* teams shouldn't have been moved. 14 vs 16 is making things easier in the west by a significant amount. Now I understand that the Detroit Red Wings franchise *wanted* to move to the East due to travel and whatnot, but that isn't enough of a reason to unbalance the divisions. With the new expansion coming, things should balance out, but I don't see why they did this in the first place.

t3_5o6nkb

CMV: Analysis gender of roles in movies without looking at the violence distribution is a flawed and dishonest analysis.

Many prominent critics of the distribution of roles and lines in movies criticise that women have fewer roles and less speech than men. [Such as this](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/women-only-said-27-of-the-words-in-2016s-biggest-movies-955cb480c3c4#.ejwtseeal) However, a significant factor being ignored is the genre of the movies. I count 5 Action movies, 1 Fantasy, and 4 Animated features in the top ten grossing films. Notably: No drama, romance, comedy, tragedy, or art films. This doesn't surprise me, as movie production is fiscally motivated to produce and reap sure rewards. The problem with the presented analysis is that such popular genres have much higher levels of violence, and given our current societies intolerance of violence towards woman, but tolerance of violence towards men, this necessitates more male roles, and thus, more male speech. An honest analysis of the movies presented would conclude that, on a role per role basis, 6 of the 10 movies had equal or greater proportion of the lines being delivered by women. A deeper analysis of violence incidences per character correlated with gender of cast and of lines spoken would likely find that more equally cast movies exist, however, they are in other genres. Said genres are less popular, and gross less money. There is nothing disparaging to be said for the movie makers, they are giving the audience what they want: Action films and other violent genres, where by social convention, the majority of violent incidents must happen to men. The filmmakers are giving the minority female castings an equal or greater proportion of the dialog, and there is nothing that needs to change. Past the public's taste for violence, but that's a different topic. **Edit:** Because two people have so far failed to even read the linked article throughly, I'll give you the image. [Here](http://imgur.com/a/KSEfR). Notice how Rogue One, Suicide Squad, Zootopia and Finding Dory have a greater proportion of the words being spoken by women than the proportion of roles being played by women. This means that there are more male roles, but each of them speaks less on average. Per Role, the women speak more. Fantastical Beasts and Batman vs Superman have balanced words / role across the genders.

CMV: Analysis gender of roles in movies without looking at the violence distribution is a flawed and dishonest analysis. Many prominent critics of the distribution of roles and lines in movies criticise that women have fewer roles and less speech than men. [Such as this](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/women-only-said-27-of-the-words-in-2016s-biggest-movies-955cb480c3c4#.ejwtseeal) However, a significant factor being ignored is the genre of the movies. I count 5 Action movies, 1 Fantasy, and 4 Animated features in the top ten grossing films. Notably: No drama, romance, comedy, tragedy, or art films. This doesn't surprise me, as movie production is fiscally motivated to produce and reap sure rewards. The problem with the presented analysis is that such popular genres have much higher levels of violence, and given our current societies intolerance of violence towards woman, but tolerance of violence towards men, this necessitates more male roles, and thus, more male speech. An honest analysis of the movies presented would conclude that, on a role per role basis, 6 of the 10 movies had equal or greater proportion of the lines being delivered by women. A deeper analysis of violence incidences per character correlated with gender of cast and of lines spoken would likely find that more equally cast movies exist, however, they are in other genres. Said genres are less popular, and gross less money. There is nothing disparaging to be said for the movie makers, they are giving the audience what they want: Action films and other violent genres, where by social convention, the majority of violent incidents must happen to men. The filmmakers are giving the minority female castings an equal or greater proportion of the dialog, and there is nothing that needs to change. Past the public's taste for violence, but that's a different topic. **Edit:** Because two people have so far failed to even read the linked article throughly, I'll give you the image. [Here](http://imgur.com/a/KSEfR). Notice how Rogue One, Suicide Squad, Zootopia and Finding Dory have a greater proportion of the words being spoken by women than the proportion of roles being played by women. This means that there are more male roles, but each of them speaks less on average. Per Role, the women speak more. Fantastical Beasts and Batman vs Superman have balanced words / role across the genders.

t3_1s5e0v

I'd like to say I don't believe in slut shaming, but I don't agree in slut pride. CMV

In a recent conversation that had veered towards sex, I commented that I was not interested in hearing an acquaintance always updating me on their sex life. Said acquaintancewould bring up who they had slept with at least once in (literally) every conversation I'd had with them or been involved with with them. When asked about why I was bothered by the conversation, I merely responded that I didn't believe a person should define themself by their sex life, and that it really was starting to become a tired and boring topic. The person proceeded to label me as a slut-shamer, and expected an apology. I don't think what I did in that conversation could really be considered slut-shaming, but I'll admit I could be wrong. Obviously, I realise there's no moral high ground in saying what a person should and should not decide to express themselves as, but is disagreeing with the idea of flashing slut status the same as slut-shaming?

I'd like to say I don't believe in slut shaming, but I don't agree in slut pride. CMV. In a recent conversation that had veered towards sex, I commented that I was not interested in hearing an acquaintance always updating me on their sex life. Said acquaintancewould bring up who they had slept with at least once in (literally) every conversation I'd had with them or been involved with with them. When asked about why I was bothered by the conversation, I merely responded that I didn't believe a person should define themself by their sex life, and that it really was starting to become a tired and boring topic. The person proceeded to label me as a slut-shamer, and expected an apology. I don't think what I did in that conversation could really be considered slut-shaming, but I'll admit I could be wrong. Obviously, I realise there's no moral high ground in saying what a person should and should not decide to express themselves as, but is disagreeing with the idea of flashing slut status the same as slut-shaming?

t3_66x637

CMV: People who use this year's US Presidential Election as an example for why the electoral college should be abolished don't make any sense.

EDIT-- *ive been super tired all day but ill get back to yall tomorrow with actual put-together rebuttals, i'll try to get to everyone but super sorry if i forget!!* Preface: I'm a female who lives in a blue state, and I do not support Donald Trump and most of his policies. I do think that #NotMyPresident is a bit silly, but it's not my business what anyone else stands for. That's not what I'm talking about today. That being said, no matter who won this election, the electoral college is NOT to blame. From my understanding, the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent mob rule. Hypothetically, the people voting in the electoral college are more educated than the general public, which is why they're given the power to vote differently than the public tells them to, because they are supposed to have a better understanding of politics and long-term consequences. Naturally, the electoral college votes can't represent the people's opinions to an exact number, because there are millions of people's votes that need to be condensed to a much lower number of electoral college votes. In the case of the recent election, the popular vote was very close in Hilary's favor, but the electoral vote was very close in Trump's favor. That's just a natural consequence of the system. If Donald Trump's presidency was a bad enough idea that the educated men and women voting in the electoral college would have voted the other way, then they would've done it. The fact that they didn't says something about how Donald Trump's political ideologies are, no matter how the public views it, not alarmingly different from most republicans, and by extension, the republicans who voted in the electoral college. In my opinion, the electoral college should be reformed so that votes can be split in a state to more accurately represent the ratio of votes in that state (like a few states do already). Not only would this help to fix the problems that Californian Republicans and Texan Democrats face, but it could help give smaller parties more of an equal chance in the electoral vote as well. Completely abolishing the electoral college would completely get rid of the "avoiding mob rule" part, which is very dangerous, because we can't always trust the common people to be educated, and even then, even generally-educated people can be manipulated very easily by someone who has TRULY radical ideals. Donald Trump is not a raging radical, therefore the electoral college voted the way they were "supposed to", effectively doing their job. *edit: changed "popular" to "popular vote"* _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People who use this year's US Presidential Election as an example for why the electoral college should be abolished don't make any sense. EDIT-- *ive been super tired all day but ill get back to yall tomorrow with actual put-together rebuttals, i'll try to get to everyone but super sorry if i forget!!* Preface: I'm a female who lives in a blue state, and I do not support Donald Trump and most of his policies. I do think that #NotMyPresident is a bit silly, but it's not my business what anyone else stands for. That's not what I'm talking about today. That being said, no matter who won this election, the electoral college is NOT to blame. From my understanding, the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent mob rule. Hypothetically, the people voting in the electoral college are more educated than the general public, which is why they're given the power to vote differently than the public tells them to, because they are supposed to have a better understanding of politics and long-term consequences. Naturally, the electoral college votes can't represent the people's opinions to an exact number, because there are millions of people's votes that need to be condensed to a much lower number of electoral college votes. In the case of the recent election, the popular vote was very close in Hilary's favor, but the electoral vote was very close in Trump's favor. That's just a natural consequence of the system. If Donald Trump's presidency was a bad enough idea that the educated men and women voting in the electoral college would have voted the other way, then they would've done it. The fact that they didn't says something about how Donald Trump's political ideologies are, no matter how the public views it, not alarmingly different from most republicans, and by extension, the republicans who voted in the electoral college. In my opinion, the electoral college should be reformed so that votes can be split in a state to more accurately represent the ratio of votes in that state (like a few states do already). Not only would this help to fix the problems that Californian Republicans and Texan Democrats face, but it could help give smaller parties more of an equal chance in the electoral vote as well. Completely abolishing the electoral college would completely get rid of the "avoiding mob rule" part, which is very dangerous, because we can't always trust the common people to be educated, and even then, even generally-educated people can be manipulated very easily by someone who has TRULY radical ideals. Donald Trump is not a raging radical, therefore the electoral college voted the way they were "supposed to", effectively doing their job. *edit: changed "popular" to "popular vote"*

t3_1e9smc

I believe that if you stand close to microwaves the waves can be harmful. CMV.

I know microwaves obviously use microwaves and are not on the opposite side of the spectrum with X-ray and gamma, etc. I have heard other people say that it doing so does not harm, but no one provides proof. If what they say is true, please CMV. Thanks

I believe that if you stand close to microwaves the waves can be harmful. CMV. I know microwaves obviously use microwaves and are not on the opposite side of the spectrum with X-ray and gamma, etc. I have heard other people say that it doing so does not harm, but no one provides proof. If what they say is true, please CMV. Thanks

t3_4dszqa

CMV: Gaming console exclusives are overall beneficial

People complain a lot about console exclusives, and I understand where a lot of the criticism comes from. Nobody likes having to buy two consoles to play everything, but I think that one benefit we get from them is that it helps cultivate a community for each console, which makes engaging with other players that much more fun. PS4 & Wii have some fantastic, A+ exclusives, and I think that's one of the exciting parts of joining a community. I don't see it as anti-consumer by any means, but I'm open to having that perspective change _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Gaming console exclusives are overall beneficial. People complain a lot about console exclusives, and I understand where a lot of the criticism comes from. Nobody likes having to buy two consoles to play everything, but I think that one benefit we get from them is that it helps cultivate a community for each console, which makes engaging with other players that much more fun. PS4 & Wii have some fantastic, A+ exclusives, and I think that's one of the exciting parts of joining a community. I don't see it as anti-consumer by any means, but I'm open to having that perspective change

t3_2254y0

CMV: I believe that nobody should say I shouldn't follow TRP because "my life experiences aren't valid"

Hi, I'm a 18 year old freshman in college. Over the years, every romantic relationship that I've tried to have has ended with me being used and dumped after a free meal, or me being strung along by the girl. I'm not looking for sympathy, I understand that the common denominator in all of them was me, so I was the problem. Recently, I found TRP. Why was I unsuccessful? It wasn't my social standing or appearance, it was my personality. It was partially due to me being a doormat and also due to me being "needy". I'd say outside of TRP, general consensus would agree. I put women on a pedestal. Now on to the meaty stuff. Every girl that I was romantically interested in has manipulated me. "They're just high school girls, wait until college." Well, I'm here now, and the girls are still the same. One of them expected me to buy her dinner at a fancy restaurant, another wanted me to do her project for her... etc. In finding TRP, I came to realize that all my experiences had another common element: the women wanted to use me for what I had to offer in the same way that I, as all other guys, wanted sex. Post-TRP, I just delete her number and walk away. Feminists and other people in my life all preach that "I've only dealt with manipulative women". Well, what are the odds that if most women are nice and caring that I've had the luck to meet none of the nice and caring ones. I believe that given my experiences, I should be able to assume that women are manipulative until they prove themselves otherwise. I should assume that when she goes out with the girls, she's going to fuck other guys, because that's happened regularly. If you take the girls I've dealt with (of all races and socioeconomic classes) and apply them as a sample group, it implies that all women are bad. I'd like to say that I have a horrible sample group. Out of the 25~ girls I've dealt with though, more than half cheated, most used me for some level of homework help, and one strung me along for a few years. This was all after I made my romantic intentions clear to them, I was like a free meal ticket. And before you say they are horrible people generally, they were all very nice people outside of relationships. One was student government president of our high school. You could argue that you've dealt with plenty of women who aren't manipulative in your life, but the key is that you aren't me. And your life experiences shouldn't affect my philosophy, because I will never be you, or live life as you. CMV **EDIT: thanks for all the input guys. I'm still wary of my interactions, but I won't be as brutal as to assume from the beginning that all women are manipulative. However, I will still take any evidence of manipulating in future relationships and run with that accordingly.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that nobody should say I shouldn't follow TRP because "my life experiences aren't valid". Hi, I'm a 18 year old freshman in college. Over the years, every romantic relationship that I've tried to have has ended with me being used and dumped after a free meal, or me being strung along by the girl. I'm not looking for sympathy, I understand that the common denominator in all of them was me, so I was the problem. Recently, I found TRP. Why was I unsuccessful? It wasn't my social standing or appearance, it was my personality. It was partially due to me being a doormat and also due to me being "needy". I'd say outside of TRP, general consensus would agree. I put women on a pedestal. Now on to the meaty stuff. Every girl that I was romantically interested in has manipulated me. "They're just high school girls, wait until college." Well, I'm here now, and the girls are still the same. One of them expected me to buy her dinner at a fancy restaurant, another wanted me to do her project for her... etc. In finding TRP, I came to realize that all my experiences had another common element: the women wanted to use me for what I had to offer in the same way that I, as all other guys, wanted sex. Post-TRP, I just delete her number and walk away. Feminists and other people in my life all preach that "I've only dealt with manipulative women". Well, what are the odds that if most women are nice and caring that I've had the luck to meet none of the nice and caring ones. I believe that given my experiences, I should be able to assume that women are manipulative until they prove themselves otherwise. I should assume that when she goes out with the girls, she's going to fuck other guys, because that's happened regularly. If you take the girls I've dealt with (of all races and socioeconomic classes) and apply them as a sample group, it implies that all women are bad. I'd like to say that I have a horrible sample group. Out of the 25~ girls I've dealt with though, more than half cheated, most used me for some level of homework help, and one strung me along for a few years. This was all after I made my romantic intentions clear to them, I was like a free meal ticket. And before you say they are horrible people generally, they were all very nice people outside of relationships. One was student government president of our high school. You could argue that you've dealt with plenty of women who aren't manipulative in your life, but the key is that you aren't me. And your life experiences shouldn't affect my philosophy, because I will never be you, or live life as you. CMV **EDIT: thanks for all the input guys. I'm still wary of my interactions, but I won't be as brutal as to assume from the beginning that all women are manipulative. However, I will still take any evidence of manipulating in future relationships and run with that accordingly.**

t3_1hsifl

I believe Kickstarter (or some evolved version of it) will soon replace the Stock Market CMV

The stock market was invented as a way to find rapid investment for an expanding brick & mortar company and to find people who could directly benefit off such an investment. This has evolved into an insanely large global enterprise that is completely unsustainable and filled with middle men who have no direct interest in the actual party and profit hugely while mostly bankrupting the investor and the companies themselves. The companies of tomorrow will directly reach out to the consumer and expand organically without finding the necessity to actually be responsible to a bunch of stock market rules or trends. I believe this change will also be a good thing. Change my view. EDIT: I mean an evolved system in a way that it completely eliminated the middle man, while keeping the investment bit intact. The stock market enables the middleman to make all the money currently - and you're forced to be one yourself if you are to participate in any way. That's what I want from the change See this for example http://sub.garrytan.com/delayed-ipos-equals-96-percent-of-americans-dont-have-access-to-wealth-creation-of-investing-in-the-fastest-growing-companies

I believe Kickstarter (or some evolved version of it) will soon replace the Stock Market CMV. The stock market was invented as a way to find rapid investment for an expanding brick & mortar company and to find people who could directly benefit off such an investment. This has evolved into an insanely large global enterprise that is completely unsustainable and filled with middle men who have no direct interest in the actual party and profit hugely while mostly bankrupting the investor and the companies themselves. The companies of tomorrow will directly reach out to the consumer and expand organically without finding the necessity to actually be responsible to a bunch of stock market rules or trends. I believe this change will also be a good thing. Change my view. EDIT: I mean an evolved system in a way that it completely eliminated the middle man, while keeping the investment bit intact. The stock market enables the middleman to make all the money currently - and you're forced to be one yourself if you are to participate in any way. That's what I want from the change See this for example http://sub.garrytan.com/delayed-ipos-equals-96-percent-of-americans-dont-have-access-to-wealth-creation-of-investing-in-the-fastest-growing-companies

t3_3ehswy

CMV: Scott Cawthon (creator of the extremely popular Five Nights at Freddy's video game series) deserves his success.

Cawthon had a struggling past with his career. He was near breaking point; creating Christian education video games designed for young children, as well as a few religiously unrelated but equally unsuccessful projects. One person in particular called upon one of his characters as being resemblant to an animatronic, which was what inspired Cawthon to begin with the Five Nights at Freddy's series. Cawthon decided to give game development a final chance, thinking that he wasn't talented enough to continue with that career choice. He gave himself two options: either make a sequel to his earlier game The Desolate Hope, or make an entirely new game based on what was said about animatronics. Of course, we all know how that turned out. Due to the series' success, Cawthon has made plenty of money and has been accused multiple times of "milking" the series for that money. The fourth and apparent final instalment in the series has just been released, and Scott is no doubt going to be just as successful with this game as he has been with the past games in the series. So, why should I feel differently towards Scott and his success with the Five Nights at Freddy's series? Why should I feel that he's milking the series and deserves much less than what he has? I'm open to change!

CMV: Scott Cawthon (creator of the extremely popular Five Nights at Freddy's video game series) deserves his success. Cawthon had a struggling past with his career. He was near breaking point; creating Christian education video games designed for young children, as well as a few religiously unrelated but equally unsuccessful projects. One person in particular called upon one of his characters as being resemblant to an animatronic, which was what inspired Cawthon to begin with the Five Nights at Freddy's series. Cawthon decided to give game development a final chance, thinking that he wasn't talented enough to continue with that career choice. He gave himself two options: either make a sequel to his earlier game The Desolate Hope, or make an entirely new game based on what was said about animatronics. Of course, we all know how that turned out. Due to the series' success, Cawthon has made plenty of money and has been accused multiple times of "milking" the series for that money. The fourth and apparent final instalment in the series has just been released, and Scott is no doubt going to be just as successful with this game as he has been with the past games in the series. So, why should I feel differently towards Scott and his success with the Five Nights at Freddy's series? Why should I feel that he's milking the series and deserves much less than what he has? I'm open to change!

t3_3gjo51

CMV: Pocahontas was wrong about cutting down sycamore trees in relation to knowing their height.

This CMV is about the self consistency of the statement in "Colors of the wind" not necessarily whether in reality cutting down a sycamore tree makes sense. In the song, there are two principle lines which relate to the knowability of the height of a sycamore tree. First, Pocahontas asks "How high can the sycamore grow?" Second, she states that "If you cut [the sycamore tree] down, you will never know." The second line seems straightforward enough, if you cut it down it might keep growing and you will not know its ultimate potential height. However, the statement is problematic because it assumes that if you do not cut down the sycamore tree, then you could eventually know how high a sycamore tree can grow. If this assumption is not made, then there is really know point to the statement in the context of the song because all it is saying now is that whatever you do you can never know how high the sycamore tree can grow. If whatever you do relating to the sycamore tree is futile, then not cutting it down doesn't serve the purpose she is proposing. If you can know the height that the sycamore tree can grow if you don't cut it down, then at that point you can cut it down and still know how high it can grow. Thus, the assumptions that Pocahontas puts forth are self-contradictory and at least one must be incorrect. To change my view, you must either prove that Pocahontas is not making the assumptions that I say she is making or that these premises are not inherently contradictory. _____ > *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: Pocahontas was wrong about cutting down sycamore trees in relation to knowing their height. This CMV is about the self consistency of the statement in "Colors of the wind" not necessarily whether in reality cutting down a sycamore tree makes sense. In the song, there are two principle lines which relate to the knowability of the height of a sycamore tree. First, Pocahontas asks "How high can the sycamore grow?" Second, she states that "If you cut [the sycamore tree] down, you will never know." The second line seems straightforward enough, if you cut it down it might keep growing and you will not know its ultimate potential height. However, the statement is problematic because it assumes that if you do not cut down the sycamore tree, then you could eventually know how high a sycamore tree can grow. If this assumption is not made, then there is really know point to the statement in the context of the song because all it is saying now is that whatever you do you can never know how high the sycamore tree can grow. If whatever you do relating to the sycamore tree is futile, then not cutting it down doesn't serve the purpose she is proposing. If you can know the height that the sycamore tree can grow if you don't cut it down, then at that point you can cut it down and still know how high it can grow. Thus, the assumptions that Pocahontas puts forth are self-contradictory and at least one must be incorrect. To change my view, you must either prove that Pocahontas is not making the assumptions that I say she is making or that these premises are not inherently contradictory.

t3_3o005v

CMV: Prisoners serving life or on death row shouldn't procreate because it will be unhealthy for that child

Like the guy accused of murdering Natalie holloway has a kid while in prison. What kid growing up would not mentally feel anything negative and likely be messed up knowing their parent committed a horrible crime and may get death soon before they even come a teen. Allowing romantic relationship is one thing, but why let them have however many kids they want while never being around for them because they're locked up forever? I know some argue that prisoners end up rehabilitating worse without needs, but is the need for children that they will rarely see even necessary? Please cmv

CMV: Prisoners serving life or on death row shouldn't procreate because it will be unhealthy for that child. Like the guy accused of murdering Natalie holloway has a kid while in prison. What kid growing up would not mentally feel anything negative and likely be messed up knowing their parent committed a horrible crime and may get death soon before they even come a teen. Allowing romantic relationship is one thing, but why let them have however many kids they want while never being around for them because they're locked up forever? I know some argue that prisoners end up rehabilitating worse without needs, but is the need for children that they will rarely see even necessary? Please cmv

t3_41j4n7

CMV: As a dedicated Bernie Sanders fan who plans to vote for him, I really don't think he stands a chance at being the Democratic nominee

I'm a huge Bernie fan (contrary to what my opinion may be) and have been following him since right before he officially announced his run for presidency. I hope with all my heart that Bernie wins, but I just don't think he can do it. I highly doubt he can get the dem nom. Although, if he does, I think he stands a chance against whoever the Republican candidate is. Obviously, his biggest obstacle is Hillary, and in a world where everything seems to be going her way (lack of debates, her "winning" the debates despite polling, polls showing her losing the debates being deleted, etc etc etc) I just can't see her losing the nom. Yes, I know this was said back in 2008, but Bernie isn't getting nearly as much coverage as Obama was getting back then and isn't considered a "rockstar" like Obama was, either. TL;DR: Even as someone who supports, defends, and plans on voting for Bernie Sanders, I don't think he has a chance to win the democratic nomination. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As a dedicated Bernie Sanders fan who plans to vote for him, I really don't think he stands a chance at being the Democratic nominee. I'm a huge Bernie fan (contrary to what my opinion may be) and have been following him since right before he officially announced his run for presidency. I hope with all my heart that Bernie wins, but I just don't think he can do it. I highly doubt he can get the dem nom. Although, if he does, I think he stands a chance against whoever the Republican candidate is. Obviously, his biggest obstacle is Hillary, and in a world where everything seems to be going her way (lack of debates, her "winning" the debates despite polling, polls showing her losing the debates being deleted, etc etc etc) I just can't see her losing the nom. Yes, I know this was said back in 2008, but Bernie isn't getting nearly as much coverage as Obama was getting back then and isn't considered a "rockstar" like Obama was, either. TL;DR: Even as someone who supports, defends, and plans on voting for Bernie Sanders, I don't think he has a chance to win the democratic nomination.

t3_1dyclu

I think women are actually inferior to men. CMV.

I'm not saying that all women are inferior to any man. I'm saying that I think that statistically, picked any woman and any man, the chance of having the man more intelligent / strong / capable than the woman is more than 50% (maybe 55-60% ? This is not actual data, I'm trying to give you an insight on my view), and whenever people say that we're equal I instantly think "..Well no, not actually". I know this sounds sexist, but I never actually talked to a woman who expressed a good point in an argument, while men are usually more open minded and know their facts more. Someone please change my view, this sounds so bad. EDIT: Most of you said that my argument depends on what I consider important. This is true, so I'll try to be more specific. Are women worse than men at arguing? I talk about explaining a point, finding logical fallacies and another point of view, discovering new facts about science, physics or math. I hope my point of view is distorted, because that's what I consider important. I don't care if you're awesome at throwing a ball, running, dancing, whatever. Physics, science and math really matter to me. I have a feeling that everyone knows what I'm talking about, and we just pretend this isn't true to avoid arguing.

I think women are actually inferior to men. CMV. I'm not saying that all women are inferior to any man. I'm saying that I think that statistically, picked any woman and any man, the chance of having the man more intelligent / strong / capable than the woman is more than 50% (maybe 55-60% ? This is not actual data, I'm trying to give you an insight on my view), and whenever people say that we're equal I instantly think "..Well no, not actually". I know this sounds sexist, but I never actually talked to a woman who expressed a good point in an argument, while men are usually more open minded and know their facts more. Someone please change my view, this sounds so bad. EDIT: Most of you said that my argument depends on what I consider important. This is true, so I'll try to be more specific. Are women worse than men at arguing? I talk about explaining a point, finding logical fallacies and another point of view, discovering new facts about science, physics or math. I hope my point of view is distorted, because that's what I consider important. I don't care if you're awesome at throwing a ball, running, dancing, whatever. Physics, science and math really matter to me. I have a feeling that everyone knows what I'm talking about, and we just pretend this isn't true to avoid arguing.

t3_5xivs3

CMV: It's possible that climate change is caused by humans and we should invest heavily in green energy to fight it.

To me, arguing whether climate change is caused by humans or not seems to get us nowhere. I believe the more important question is whether it's possible that climate change is caused by humans. I believe it's possible that humans are causing global warming. As far as risk management goes, we should do everything we can to fight it. So, reddit, change my view. Tell me why it's not conceivable that humans are causing climate change, or, if you also think it's possible, why we shouldn't invest heavily in green energy to mitigate the risk and help the planet.

CMV: It's possible that climate change is caused by humans and we should invest heavily in green energy to fight it. To me, arguing whether climate change is caused by humans or not seems to get us nowhere. I believe the more important question is whether it's possible that climate change is caused by humans. I believe it's possible that humans are causing global warming. As far as risk management goes, we should do everything we can to fight it. So, reddit, change my view. Tell me why it's not conceivable that humans are causing climate change, or, if you also think it's possible, why we shouldn't invest heavily in green energy to mitigate the risk and help the planet.

t3_3awugt

CMV: The US military budget should be diverted into projects that aim to fix the world.

"Each javelin round costs about $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year, at a guy who doesn't make that in his lifetime is somehow so outrageous that it almost makes this war seem winnable" -Sebastian Junger The [US military budget](http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) for both 2011 and 2012 was around $690 billion ($690,000,000,000). This money is wasted on overpriced training, equipment and massacres for a war that is helping no-one. The "earth's 6th big extinction event" scare is doing the rounds and regardless of its scientific legitimacy, there is little doubt that the world is on a course for annihilation. However, I would argue that the world is not doomed and could be brought back to a state of balance (more or less) with the right funding in areas such as sustainable energy, global education and environmental rehabilitation. Unfortunately that funding is going towards America's collosal erection for blowing brown people up. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The US military budget should be diverted into projects that aim to fix the world. "Each javelin round costs about $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year, at a guy who doesn't make that in his lifetime is somehow so outrageous that it almost makes this war seem winnable" -Sebastian Junger The [US military budget](http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) for both 2011 and 2012 was around $690 billion ($690,000,000,000). This money is wasted on overpriced training, equipment and massacres for a war that is helping no-one. The "earth's 6th big extinction event" scare is doing the rounds and regardless of its scientific legitimacy, there is little doubt that the world is on a course for annihilation. However, I would argue that the world is not doomed and could be brought back to a state of balance (more or less) with the right funding in areas such as sustainable energy, global education and environmental rehabilitation. Unfortunately that funding is going towards America's collosal erection for blowing brown people up.