Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_22f8io

CMV: I believe most people (including myself) don't know enough about the economy and politics to debate politics.

My friends and I occasionally debate politics when we hang out and as much as I enjoy it, I don't believe there is always so much information out there that none of us can know enough to be able to be confident in what we're saying. For the record, I do have a basic idea of what I'm saying. I realize the Daily Show and Colbert Report aren't exactly hard news shows but I do watch both of those consistently, I listen to npr and economics podcasts, I read articles online that I can find to educate myself but I *still* feel like unless I'm spending hours a day researching, I have no idea what I'm talking about and shouldn't have arguing in favor of anything more complex than gay marriage (which doesn't even get debated). TL;DR - I feel like unless I spend hours a day researching politics and economics, I'm not qualified enough to have a strong political opinion and I have no right to argue for a position. Please CMV so I don't feel like an idiot. _____ > *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 most people (including myself) don't know enough about the economy and politics to debate politics. My friends and I occasionally debate politics when we hang out and as much as I enjoy it, I don't believe there is always so much information out there that none of us can know enough to be able to be confident in what we're saying. For the record, I do have a basic idea of what I'm saying. I realize the Daily Show and Colbert Report aren't exactly hard news shows but I do watch both of those consistently, I listen to npr and economics podcasts, I read articles online that I can find to educate myself but I *still* feel like unless I'm spending hours a day researching, I have no idea what I'm talking about and shouldn't have arguing in favor of anything more complex than gay marriage (which doesn't even get debated). TL;DR - I feel like unless I spend hours a day researching politics and economics, I'm not qualified enough to have a strong political opinion and I have no right to argue for a position. Please CMV so I don't feel like an idiot.

t3_3een8b

CMV: The health drawbacks are more than enough reason to outlaw Marijuana.

Should the war on drugs be eased up and should the punishment for possession be smaller? Of course. However, Marijuana slows brain function, dulls reflexes, can get you fired from jobs, can cause brain irregularities, etc. Medicinally it should be allowed, for people with seizures, PTSD, etc. But recreationally, feeling relaxed is not a good enough reason to hurt your brain. It contains carcinogens. It seems to me that stoners are using the same reasons that Tobacco smokers use, it is all feelings over facts. I understand that it woild create more revenue, but I care more about the health of people over the government's revenue.

CMV: The health drawbacks are more than enough reason to outlaw Marijuana. Should the war on drugs be eased up and should the punishment for possession be smaller? Of course. However, Marijuana slows brain function, dulls reflexes, can get you fired from jobs, can cause brain irregularities, etc. Medicinally it should be allowed, for people with seizures, PTSD, etc. But recreationally, feeling relaxed is not a good enough reason to hurt your brain. It contains carcinogens. It seems to me that stoners are using the same reasons that Tobacco smokers use, it is all feelings over facts. I understand that it woild create more revenue, but I care more about the health of people over the government's revenue.

t3_3lhxw2

CMV: The Giving Tree advances a Christian Atheistic perspective.

I recently gave an address (in a British Unitarian Church) [Link Here](http://www.lewisconnolly.com/) – in which I presented the view that The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein is advancing a Christian Atheistic perspective – namely that of Thomas JJ Altizer. In the book the self-centred boy, takes and takes from a tree that gives and gives until the tree entirely ceases to exist. This is very similar to Altizer’s perspective on God – who does not live on indefinitely but out of love chooses to cease, negated himself for the liberation of humanity. Very much like the tree that chooses to cease to exist that the boy can be happy and liberated. Hence even in the boys going the tree still gives and gives… So i'm wondering what Silverstein's philosophical perspective which underpins the Giving Tree is, Christian Atheism? _____ > *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 Giving Tree advances a Christian Atheistic perspective. I recently gave an address (in a British Unitarian Church) [Link Here](http://www.lewisconnolly.com/) – in which I presented the view that The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein is advancing a Christian Atheistic perspective – namely that of Thomas JJ Altizer. In the book the self-centred boy, takes and takes from a tree that gives and gives until the tree entirely ceases to exist. This is very similar to Altizer’s perspective on God – who does not live on indefinitely but out of love chooses to cease, negated himself for the liberation of humanity. Very much like the tree that chooses to cease to exist that the boy can be happy and liberated. Hence even in the boys going the tree still gives and gives… So i'm wondering what Silverstein's philosophical perspective which underpins the Giving Tree is, Christian Atheism?

t3_60qq6q

CMV: There's a small window in the beginning of pregnancy when it's reasonable and allowable to abort.

So my view is essentially that, "murdering a human life" as the pro-life side puts it, can be the best course of action sometimes. A pregnancy lasts from fertilization to birth, and my view is that the last day of pregnancy (the day before the mother goes into labour) is too late, but the first day of pregnancy is a completely acceptable day to pull the plug on the operation. The second and third days, are also acceptable days to pull the plug. Some people however, say that any pregnancy that begins, must be allowed to end, however it naturally would 100 000 years ago (ie, no abortion technology to change the course of events). I make up this number as an estimate. So, some people consider a zygote a "human life". I do not. I think that in using words we should try to be as precise and unambiguous as we possibly can. If I showed you a zygote and a 10 year old human, it's obvious which one has human life, and which one there would be some controversy over whether it had human life in it or not. To me, a "human life" is at least, the set of circumstances such as a family, social network, having a brain/heart/liver/etc, being able to walk around, having a taste for certain foods and music, being able to speak some language, etc. A zygote would have such a small number of those things that I really wouldn't classify it as "human life". So if you kill a zygote, you aren't taking very much from it. If you kill a human, you've taken a lot of things from them... their taste in music, their family, their eyesight, list could go on for an hour probably. If you kill a zygote, what did it *have*, that you took from it? Some chemicals and cell nutrients and some molecular structure is all I can think of, maybe you can think of more. You can argue that it's "human potential" was taken away, but being a human is *so* far off the radar of a zygote that it's irrelevant. That's like saying a guy stopping me in my car at a crosswalk as I drive to the corner store to buy a lottery ticket took away my potential of winning a million dollars. He did make me 0.001% less likely to have a shot at having 0.00001% chance of winning a large amount of money, but I wouldn't hold it against him. In the same way I suppose a zygote can't really hold it against us if we kill it. Cells die all the time. ____ I don't want this to be too long, so I'll end here. My two points, which I think give a solid reason why abortion is ok, are (1) We should have as precise words as possible for everything we have words for. I support "murdering human life" according to pro-life people but I don't support murdering people, so we clearly need some common language to avoid these ambiguous contradictions. (2) Zygotes have nothing of value to lose if we kill them, so killing them is fine. (Killing an 8 month stage fetus, by comparison, is "not fine" as I explained) _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There's a small window in the beginning of pregnancy when it's reasonable and allowable to abort. So my view is essentially that, "murdering a human life" as the pro-life side puts it, can be the best course of action sometimes. A pregnancy lasts from fertilization to birth, and my view is that the last day of pregnancy (the day before the mother goes into labour) is too late, but the first day of pregnancy is a completely acceptable day to pull the plug on the operation. The second and third days, are also acceptable days to pull the plug. Some people however, say that any pregnancy that begins, must be allowed to end, however it naturally would 100 000 years ago (ie, no abortion technology to change the course of events). I make up this number as an estimate. So, some people consider a zygote a "human life". I do not. I think that in using words we should try to be as precise and unambiguous as we possibly can. If I showed you a zygote and a 10 year old human, it's obvious which one has human life, and which one there would be some controversy over whether it had human life in it or not. To me, a "human life" is at least, the set of circumstances such as a family, social network, having a brain/heart/liver/etc, being able to walk around, having a taste for certain foods and music, being able to speak some language, etc. A zygote would have such a small number of those things that I really wouldn't classify it as "human life". So if you kill a zygote, you aren't taking very much from it. If you kill a human, you've taken a lot of things from them... their taste in music, their family, their eyesight, list could go on for an hour probably. If you kill a zygote, what did it *have*, that you took from it? Some chemicals and cell nutrients and some molecular structure is all I can think of, maybe you can think of more. You can argue that it's "human potential" was taken away, but being a human is *so* far off the radar of a zygote that it's irrelevant. That's like saying a guy stopping me in my car at a crosswalk as I drive to the corner store to buy a lottery ticket took away my potential of winning a million dollars. He did make me 0.001% less likely to have a shot at having 0.00001% chance of winning a large amount of money, but I wouldn't hold it against him. In the same way I suppose a zygote can't really hold it against us if we kill it. Cells die all the time. ____ I don't want this to be too long, so I'll end here. My two points, which I think give a solid reason why abortion is ok, are (1) We should have as precise words as possible for everything we have words for. I support "murdering human life" according to pro-life people but I don't support murdering people, so we clearly need some common language to avoid these ambiguous contradictions. (2) Zygotes have nothing of value to lose if we kill them, so killing them is fine. (Killing an 8 month stage fetus, by comparison, is "not fine" as I explained)

t3_5tmr76

CMV: If the political split in the USA erupted into a civil war, it would be hopelessly one-sided in favor of conservatives/Trump supporters

Okay, so, let me say I don't necessarily hold this view. I was in a debate with my brother and I couldn't really rebutt his points, so I thought "where can I present these points and get them rebutted?" And then it came to me: the smartest people in the world, /r/ChangeMyView. On to my actual points: I don't have any facts to back up my points, just the general feelings I have based on experience, biases and cable news. If you have facts (polls, etc) that prove my points to be invalid, please present your evidence. First, let's broadly split the USA into two groups. Group 1 ("G1") is the conservative Trump supporters and Group 2 ("G2") is the liberal anti-Trump crowd. When it comes to weaponry, it's not a contest. G1 has wayyyy more guns. Many G1 folks have more than guns. They have larger weapons, body armor, maybe even explosives and stuff. So if it's an armed conflict, G1 has it, no question. When it comes to training, G1 has people who know how to handle the guns they have, including many veterans and police officers. And even the ones who aren't formally trained are a lot of people who have spent time using guns and knives and stuff. So if it's about training, it's probably gonna go to G1. Now, let's say there is no armed conflict. Let's say the two groups just split. Like, the red states secede or whatever. When it comes to survival after the split, G1 has coal, oil, tons and tons of farm land to grow food and raise animals. That is, G1 largely controls the parts of the country where things are produced. And G2 is just the opposite. G2 is consumers. G2 eats the food, burns the oil, etc. Without G1's farmland, G2 would starve. G2 largest contributions to our country is administrative stuff. And also arts and entertainment, but if we are talking about winning a war, arts and entertainment aren't really a huge asset. G2 controls almost all of the coasts, except the Gulf coast. So I guess G2 could conduct international trade much better than G1. And this matters in a war. So I guess G2 has this one. G2 used to have factories and production, which would help in producing more bullets and guns to fight the war. G2 probably has greater technology at their disposal. But none of that matters if you're starving or have been struck my a bullet fired by a G1 weapon. So it seems to me in an all out war (which is not going to happen, I know), G1 will have all of the advantages. Please help me with this one. Cmybrother'sV.

CMV: If the political split in the USA erupted into a civil war, it would be hopelessly one-sided in favor of conservatives/Trump supporters. Okay, so, let me say I don't necessarily hold this view. I was in a debate with my brother and I couldn't really rebutt his points, so I thought "where can I present these points and get them rebutted?" And then it came to me: the smartest people in the world, /r/ChangeMyView. On to my actual points: I don't have any facts to back up my points, just the general feelings I have based on experience, biases and cable news. If you have facts (polls, etc) that prove my points to be invalid, please present your evidence. First, let's broadly split the USA into two groups. Group 1 ("G1") is the conservative Trump supporters and Group 2 ("G2") is the liberal anti-Trump crowd. When it comes to weaponry, it's not a contest. G1 has wayyyy more guns. Many G1 folks have more than guns. They have larger weapons, body armor, maybe even explosives and stuff. So if it's an armed conflict, G1 has it, no question. When it comes to training, G1 has people who know how to handle the guns they have, including many veterans and police officers. And even the ones who aren't formally trained are a lot of people who have spent time using guns and knives and stuff. So if it's about training, it's probably gonna go to G1. Now, let's say there is no armed conflict. Let's say the two groups just split. Like, the red states secede or whatever. When it comes to survival after the split, G1 has coal, oil, tons and tons of farm land to grow food and raise animals. That is, G1 largely controls the parts of the country where things are produced. And G2 is just the opposite. G2 is consumers. G2 eats the food, burns the oil, etc. Without G1's farmland, G2 would starve. G2 largest contributions to our country is administrative stuff. And also arts and entertainment, but if we are talking about winning a war, arts and entertainment aren't really a huge asset. G2 controls almost all of the coasts, except the Gulf coast. So I guess G2 could conduct international trade much better than G1. And this matters in a war. So I guess G2 has this one. G2 used to have factories and production, which would help in producing more bullets and guns to fight the war. G2 probably has greater technology at their disposal. But none of that matters if you're starving or have been struck my a bullet fired by a G1 weapon. So it seems to me in an all out war (which is not going to happen, I know), G1 will have all of the advantages. Please help me with this one. Cmybrother'sV.

t3_3c62sj

CMV: Using 'ilicit' drugs should not be illegal

For drugs like cocaine, heroin, LSD etc. Using these drugs should not be illegal. The users should be able to do whatever they want with their own body. Any harm is self-inflicted, and people should have the right to harm themselves. A person is not responsible for emotional harms others get due to their dependence on said person. Governments do not own the bodies of its citizens. Citizens do not need the government to tell them what to do, they can decide for themselves. Also, drugs like alcohol and tobacco are already legal. Additionally, selling drugs should also not be illegal, because the act of selling doesnt harm anyone. If one ought to make selling things illegal because the items could be harmful to someone, then we would have to ban pencils because i stabbed myself with a pencil in 4th grade. _____ > *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: Using 'ilicit' drugs should not be illegal. For drugs like cocaine, heroin, LSD etc. Using these drugs should not be illegal. The users should be able to do whatever they want with their own body. Any harm is self-inflicted, and people should have the right to harm themselves. A person is not responsible for emotional harms others get due to their dependence on said person. Governments do not own the bodies of its citizens. Citizens do not need the government to tell them what to do, they can decide for themselves. Also, drugs like alcohol and tobacco are already legal. Additionally, selling drugs should also not be illegal, because the act of selling doesnt harm anyone. If one ought to make selling things illegal because the items could be harmful to someone, then we would have to ban pencils because i stabbed myself with a pencil in 4th grade.

t3_4h4ztf

CMV: The Indian Removal Act wasn't genocide

**gen·o·cide** **ˈjenəˌsīd** **noun** **the *deliberate* killing of a *large* group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.** The Indian Removal Act had absolutely no intent to kill Indians at all. The Indian population was estimated from 10 million to 100 million people. Only 4000 Indians died while moving. That's a small part of the population. If you want to argue that it's a large group, then you'd also have to say 9/11 was moreso genocide because it had clear intent to kill people of a particular nation. So it lacks two large factors to call it a genocide. People seem to forget what the 1930's were like. There weren't stores along the way, there weren't doctors to treat illness, the doctors there were, were largely quacks, no one understood germ theory, and the Indians largely lived off of the land. They moved from one environment to another equal environment. It's also worth noting the settlers also had casualties when they moved out west. To change my view you have to show the the goal of the Indian Removal Act was to kill the Indians. _____ > *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 Indian Removal Act wasn't genocide. **gen·o·cide** **ˈjenəˌsīd** **noun** **the *deliberate* killing of a *large* group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.** The Indian Removal Act had absolutely no intent to kill Indians at all. The Indian population was estimated from 10 million to 100 million people. Only 4000 Indians died while moving. That's a small part of the population. If you want to argue that it's a large group, then you'd also have to say 9/11 was moreso genocide because it had clear intent to kill people of a particular nation. So it lacks two large factors to call it a genocide. People seem to forget what the 1930's were like. There weren't stores along the way, there weren't doctors to treat illness, the doctors there were, were largely quacks, no one understood germ theory, and the Indians largely lived off of the land. They moved from one environment to another equal environment. It's also worth noting the settlers also had casualties when they moved out west. To change my view you have to show the the goal of the Indian Removal Act was to kill the Indians.

t3_1g7pln

Women-only scholarships are sexist and aren't even fulfilling their purpose. CMV.

A scholarship where only men can apply would be considered sexist and create an outrage, yet the same for women is considered normal. This looks like a double-standard to me and it should be illegal. The same rules should apply for all people and not depend on their gender or race. I believe that if people have equal rights, you should be able to omit the words "woman" and "man" in laws and rules, unless there is an extremely good biological reason. For example, laws around childbirth. (Even that could eventually disappear, if we create technology that would allow men to have children without the involvement of a woman.) Anything else is sexist. Please note that I'm not claiming that the genders are equal in everything, just that the rules should be the same for them. I also think that these scholarships are **not helpful**. Imagine you halve the population into group A and B. Let's say there are 9000 people from group A interested in some academic field, but only 1000 from group B. Nobody really knows why this is so, but this doesn't concern us. They have the same distribution of intelligence and skills and all of them apply. You have enough funds to give 100 people a scholarship. What will you do? 1. You create a single scholarship that doesn't differentiate between the groups. You will select 100 most qualified people, which will be somewhere around 90 from group A and 10 from B. 2. There will be one general scholarship available to 70 people of any group. Second one will be only for people from group B, available for 30. For the first one you will select somewhere around 63 from A and 7 from B. Then select 30 best candidates from group B. In the second scenario, there will be around 27 members of group A that didn't get the stipend, yet were more qualified to get it. It decreased the average skills of those who got selected. Even worse, this could make other people notice that those extra group B members, who wouldn't be able to get it in scenario #1, make their group look on average less competent compared to those from group A, spreading the common misconception that group B is somehow less cut out to be in this academic field. Maybe group B isn't that interested in it because society makes them believe they will never be as good at it and don't belong there. And a vicious cycle is created. Instead of helping group B to get into this field, you made it less likely in the long run. (OT: I am female and I wonder if it's amoral for me to take advantage of these stipends when I consider them evil. Right now I'd say yes. I'd really appreciate if you could give me your opinion on this.) **EDIT:** To clarify, I think this whole concept of balancing out the representation of genders is flawed, sexist and counter-productive. In fields with more males, they try to balance it out with women stipends and in fields with more females, they try to do the same with male only stipends (turns out this happens too, just not so often). I don't see the need for this, neither do I think this is a good way to do it. There [are more female students](http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx) right now and this is completely irrelevant to me, same as if the graph was reversed. Rules just shouldn't have if/else conditions on gender.

Women-only scholarships are sexist and aren't even fulfilling their purpose. CMV. A scholarship where only men can apply would be considered sexist and create an outrage, yet the same for women is considered normal. This looks like a double-standard to me and it should be illegal. The same rules should apply for all people and not depend on their gender or race. I believe that if people have equal rights, you should be able to omit the words "woman" and "man" in laws and rules, unless there is an extremely good biological reason. For example, laws around childbirth. (Even that could eventually disappear, if we create technology that would allow men to have children without the involvement of a woman.) Anything else is sexist. Please note that I'm not claiming that the genders are equal in everything, just that the rules should be the same for them. I also think that these scholarships are **not helpful**. Imagine you halve the population into group A and B. Let's say there are 9000 people from group A interested in some academic field, but only 1000 from group B. Nobody really knows why this is so, but this doesn't concern us. They have the same distribution of intelligence and skills and all of them apply. You have enough funds to give 100 people a scholarship. What will you do? 1. You create a single scholarship that doesn't differentiate between the groups. You will select 100 most qualified people, which will be somewhere around 90 from group A and 10 from B. 2. There will be one general scholarship available to 70 people of any group. Second one will be only for people from group B, available for 30. For the first one you will select somewhere around 63 from A and 7 from B. Then select 30 best candidates from group B. In the second scenario, there will be around 27 members of group A that didn't get the stipend, yet were more qualified to get it. It decreased the average skills of those who got selected. Even worse, this could make other people notice that those extra group B members, who wouldn't be able to get it in scenario #1, make their group look on average less competent compared to those from group A, spreading the common misconception that group B is somehow less cut out to be in this academic field. Maybe group B isn't that interested in it because society makes them believe they will never be as good at it and don't belong there. And a vicious cycle is created. Instead of helping group B to get into this field, you made it less likely in the long run. (OT: I am female and I wonder if it's amoral for me to take advantage of these stipends when I consider them evil. Right now I'd say yes. I'd really appreciate if you could give me your opinion on this.) **EDIT:** To clarify, I think this whole concept of balancing out the representation of genders is flawed, sexist and counter-productive. In fields with more males, they try to balance it out with women stipends and in fields with more females, they try to do the same with male only stipends (turns out this happens too, just not so often). I don't see the need for this, neither do I think this is a good way to do it. There [are more female students](http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/gender-gap-in-education.aspx) right now and this is completely irrelevant to me, same as if the graph was reversed. Rules just shouldn't have if/else conditions on gender.

t3_22z88g

CMV: Judging activities based on productivity or benefit to society gives you a very dull outlook on life.

This is inspired by the post currently on the front page about watching professional sports, but I see a lot of posts around here with the same spirit. I don't understand why every activity must be thrown into a utilitarian calculus, and I fail to see what the end of these activities is if all of them are subject to this treatment. Consider your day jobs. You do those to sustain yourselves, and (ideally) build up funds to sustain yourselves through times when you aren't doing exactly that (retirement). Your day job is desirable because it enables you to enjoy things that you aren't considering on a utility level. On the other end of this your hobbies (hopefully) hurt nothing, and you have no moral obligation to shy away from them because someone else decides you could be using that time to serve whatever interests they happen to consider more valuable. To suggest otherwise would mean the productive work of life is both the means and the end, that you work to sustain yourself to do more work for some abstract societal benefit. If sports and arts and the like are not "productive" in this strict sense and are considered immoral for it, the enjoyment of life is taken out, and you really are just a cog in a machine whose only end is its self-preservation. I would hate to live in a world in which we are all obligated to work for the benefit of this abstract utilitarian calculus until we die. EDIT: Something I forgot to mention: a lot of the posts that inspired this one also seem to eschew certain activities in favor of others (e.g. Don't watch reality TV, read a book). Is value not subjective? If I enjoy watching college football more than I enjoy reading Dickens, I'm going to watch college football, as it creates more happiness for me. The line of thinking in such posts seems arrogant to me, enforcing on others your idea of happiness or productivity because, of course, you somehow know it better. _____ > *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: Judging activities based on productivity or benefit to society gives you a very dull outlook on life. This is inspired by the post currently on the front page about watching professional sports, but I see a lot of posts around here with the same spirit. I don't understand why every activity must be thrown into a utilitarian calculus, and I fail to see what the end of these activities is if all of them are subject to this treatment. Consider your day jobs. You do those to sustain yourselves, and (ideally) build up funds to sustain yourselves through times when you aren't doing exactly that (retirement). Your day job is desirable because it enables you to enjoy things that you aren't considering on a utility level. On the other end of this your hobbies (hopefully) hurt nothing, and you have no moral obligation to shy away from them because someone else decides you could be using that time to serve whatever interests they happen to consider more valuable. To suggest otherwise would mean the productive work of life is both the means and the end, that you work to sustain yourself to do more work for some abstract societal benefit. If sports and arts and the like are not "productive" in this strict sense and are considered immoral for it, the enjoyment of life is taken out, and you really are just a cog in a machine whose only end is its self-preservation. I would hate to live in a world in which we are all obligated to work for the benefit of this abstract utilitarian calculus until we die. EDIT: Something I forgot to mention: a lot of the posts that inspired this one also seem to eschew certain activities in favor of others (e.g. Don't watch reality TV, read a book). Is value not subjective? If I enjoy watching college football more than I enjoy reading Dickens, I'm going to watch college football, as it creates more happiness for me. The line of thinking in such posts seems arrogant to me, enforcing on others your idea of happiness or productivity because, of course, you somehow know it better.

t3_2c6tao

CMV: Electronic cigarettes are not harmful or invasive. I should be able to smoke it wherever I want.

To ban something that a crowd doesn't like seems really silly. There are no well-evidenced health effects even for the user, but even if there were, it would be no ones business what people are doing to their own bodies. One of my best friends has made a ton of progress *quitting* smoking because of electronic cigarettes. There's very little smell, no obnoxious residue like smoking, and no real reason to ban them other than to alienate a portion of users. Are we really that eager to collectivize and control individuals' behaviour? This would seem to set a really scary precedent. Going outside may be the most courteous thing, but we don't really ban rudeness in any of a thousand other forms.

CMV: Electronic cigarettes are not harmful or invasive. I should be able to smoke it wherever I want. To ban something that a crowd doesn't like seems really silly. There are no well-evidenced health effects even for the user, but even if there were, it would be no ones business what people are doing to their own bodies. One of my best friends has made a ton of progress *quitting* smoking because of electronic cigarettes. There's very little smell, no obnoxious residue like smoking, and no real reason to ban them other than to alienate a portion of users. Are we really that eager to collectivize and control individuals' behaviour? This would seem to set a really scary precedent. Going outside may be the most courteous thing, but we don't really ban rudeness in any of a thousand other forms.

t3_6yng4i

CMV: Russian intervention didn't actually help Donald Trump win the election

At the end of the day, actual individuals with their own thoughts and opinions believed that Donald Trump was a better candidate than Hillary. People talk about the Russian's advertising campaign, but political advertising is hardly a new phenomenon. What's different here? That the Russians bankrolled ads on Facebook? Also, why do people forget that Trump completely trounced Republican candidates in the run-up to the election. Were the Russian's behind that too? The reality is that Donald Trump -- through his endless stream of crazy soundbites and opinions -- should have been tossed aside months ago. But nothing he said seemed to stop his momentum. He called out John McCain for getting captured and that didn't slow him down, and people all of a sudden are acting like he only got elected because of mysterious Russian intervention. Let's be real: for whatever reason, millions of Americans were drawn to Donald Trump and didn't need to be swayed by FB articles. The idea that someone would have otherwise voted for Hillary but for Russian political ads seems to be absolutely ridiculous.

CMV: Russian intervention didn't actually help Donald Trump win the election. At the end of the day, actual individuals with their own thoughts and opinions believed that Donald Trump was a better candidate than Hillary. People talk about the Russian's advertising campaign, but political advertising is hardly a new phenomenon. What's different here? That the Russians bankrolled ads on Facebook? Also, why do people forget that Trump completely trounced Republican candidates in the run-up to the election. Were the Russian's behind that too? The reality is that Donald Trump -- through his endless stream of crazy soundbites and opinions -- should have been tossed aside months ago. But nothing he said seemed to stop his momentum. He called out John McCain for getting captured and that didn't slow him down, and people all of a sudden are acting like he only got elected because of mysterious Russian intervention. Let's be real: for whatever reason, millions of Americans were drawn to Donald Trump and didn't need to be swayed by FB articles. The idea that someone would have otherwise voted for Hillary but for Russian political ads seems to be absolutely ridiculous.

t3_1ufpng

I think that children of divorced parents make a bad female partner in life. CMV.

I think that when a girl has a broken family, especially no dad or step dad, their values of a family is not as strong as one that was brought up with a dad and mom. I feel like they will always have some sort of hatred towards men because their dad left. I feel like they try to become too independent and feminist. They don't become a partner that shares 50/50 of relationships and look at men as more of a way to get stuff for free or paid for. I also feel like they purposely set the standards too high in their male partner so that they will almost never be met and they always have something to complain about & have a way out of things. Please reddit, change my view.

I think that children of divorced parents make a bad female partner in life. CMV. I think that when a girl has a broken family, especially no dad or step dad, their values of a family is not as strong as one that was brought up with a dad and mom. I feel like they will always have some sort of hatred towards men because their dad left. I feel like they try to become too independent and feminist. They don't become a partner that shares 50/50 of relationships and look at men as more of a way to get stuff for free or paid for. I also feel like they purposely set the standards too high in their male partner so that they will almost never be met and they always have something to complain about & have a way out of things. Please reddit, change my view.

t3_22apfm

CMV: I consider safe shelter , nutritious food, and quality education and healthcare universal human rights.

**While I am not an advocate of equality of outcome, I do believe that there should be equality of opportunity.** This means that I believe harder work merits more money to spend on frivolities like fancy gadgets, exclusive vacations and surpassingly excellent food, drink, and housing, but that any two people – regardless of who their parents are or where they were born – ought to have the same chance to access these benefits if they work equally hard. **I consider the rights I have outlined in this post’s title necessary for equality of opportunity to exist.** I do *not* suggest that any of these things should be mandatory, only *readily available* for those who are interested. Here’s why: * Living in an unsafe environment presents a serious distraction towards which an individual must divide a portion of their attention. This means that a given quantity of effort one person exerts focusing solely on their goals will have greater rewards than the *same quantity* of effort will elicit for another person who must allocate part of their energy towards simply staying alive. * Without access to nutritious food, an individual is at an immediate disadvantage: their brain development and physical health will be stunted, which serves to limit the rewards that hard work is capable of accomplishing. Also, in large part because of the lack of affordability of nutritious food ["people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity"](http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full) which can cause a variety of diseases and other medical problems which all take energy and other resources away from attempts to be successful. * Unevenly distributed educational opportunities also prevent the same amount of energy from producing the same rewards. Every field requires knowledge that we are not born with. Education ought to maintain a balance between unlocking each individual’s unique passion, challenging them with thoughts from other fields which can provide ammunition for the synthesis necessary to be innovative and successful in their main field, and installing the basic literacy in a variety of subjects that is necessary for constructive participation in society. * Given that the alternative to universal healthcare seems to be a choice for some between blowing their savings to get treatment and simply living untreated, both the medical problems which are systemic (like those caused by obesity) and the medical problems which are the product of random chance are going to more significantly impact people born into poverty, limiting their ability to see the same rewards for the same amount of effort. _____ > *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 consider safe shelter , nutritious food, and quality education and healthcare universal human rights. **While I am not an advocate of equality of outcome, I do believe that there should be equality of opportunity.** This means that I believe harder work merits more money to spend on frivolities like fancy gadgets, exclusive vacations and surpassingly excellent food, drink, and housing, but that any two people – regardless of who their parents are or where they were born – ought to have the same chance to access these benefits if they work equally hard. **I consider the rights I have outlined in this post’s title necessary for equality of opportunity to exist.** I do *not* suggest that any of these things should be mandatory, only *readily available* for those who are interested. Here’s why: * Living in an unsafe environment presents a serious distraction towards which an individual must divide a portion of their attention. This means that a given quantity of effort one person exerts focusing solely on their goals will have greater rewards than the *same quantity* of effort will elicit for another person who must allocate part of their energy towards simply staying alive. * Without access to nutritious food, an individual is at an immediate disadvantage: their brain development and physical health will be stunted, which serves to limit the rewards that hard work is capable of accomplishing. Also, in large part because of the lack of affordability of nutritious food ["people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity"](http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full) which can cause a variety of diseases and other medical problems which all take energy and other resources away from attempts to be successful. * Unevenly distributed educational opportunities also prevent the same amount of energy from producing the same rewards. Every field requires knowledge that we are not born with. Education ought to maintain a balance between unlocking each individual’s unique passion, challenging them with thoughts from other fields which can provide ammunition for the synthesis necessary to be innovative and successful in their main field, and installing the basic literacy in a variety of subjects that is necessary for constructive participation in society. * Given that the alternative to universal healthcare seems to be a choice for some between blowing their savings to get treatment and simply living untreated, both the medical problems which are systemic (like those caused by obesity) and the medical problems which are the product of random chance are going to more significantly impact people born into poverty, limiting their ability to see the same rewards for the same amount of effort.

t3_6b9ue7

CMV: wearing a gem on your forehead isn't necessarily cultural appropriation.

Many would argue that it's appropriating Hindu culture and that for a person not of that culture to wear something similar to their bindi is wrong. However, I feel that something so small and simple with no attempted relation to Hinduism could be its own stylistic thing. I get when women wear bindis AND dress up in boho and ethnic clothing especially with accessories that depict Hindu deities or hamsa icons, but those are more detailed and specific things linked to the culture that couldn't really have possibly cropped up elsewhere in the world with no Hindu influence. And I mean gem like a stylistic stick on or piercing, not the red dot, as the red dot is a little more directly linked. Thoughts? Also apologies if I am getting cultured mixed in my explanation.

CMV: wearing a gem on your forehead isn't necessarily cultural appropriation. Many would argue that it's appropriating Hindu culture and that for a person not of that culture to wear something similar to their bindi is wrong. However, I feel that something so small and simple with no attempted relation to Hinduism could be its own stylistic thing. I get when women wear bindis AND dress up in boho and ethnic clothing especially with accessories that depict Hindu deities or hamsa icons, but those are more detailed and specific things linked to the culture that couldn't really have possibly cropped up elsewhere in the world with no Hindu influence. And I mean gem like a stylistic stick on or piercing, not the red dot, as the red dot is a little more directly linked. Thoughts? Also apologies if I am getting cultured mixed in my explanation.

t3_2piljm

CMV: If a woman doesn't change her last name when she gets married (in the U.S.), that doesn't necessarily mean she made "the choice" not to change her name.

Upon marriage, women used to be forced to lose their maiden last name and take on their new husband's last name. In modern day, it isn't forced; it's a choice. Men have that choice too, though as of 2013, [92% of married women took their husband's last name](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/changing-your-last-name_n_3073125.html), and no statistics exist for how many men took their wives' last names - presumably because the number is incalculably low. Also at this time, it's apparent that my post is hetero-normative about straight people only. So people now say "it's a woman's choice if she changes her name or not." I'm a woman who will not be changing my name, and people tell me that I've made the choice not to change my name. Here is where my CMV comes in. I did *not* make the choice not to change my name when I get married. Rather, that has never been an option for me. I've never so much as given the tiniest bit of consideration to the idea of changing my name; it has always been a give-in to me that I would never do such a thing. I haven't gone through my life with the expectation that I would one day make a decision about keeping my last name or changing it; I've gone through life thinking that my name is my name - full stop. My marital status has nothing to do with it. In short - I've gone through life thinking how a man thinks about it. To the men out there: do you feel that you've made the *choice* not to change your last name, or do you feel that such a decision has never even crossed your mind, and it isn't a "choice" to keep your last name but rather just the default of your existence? Do you know what I"m saying here? That's how I feel. Yet people insist that no, I'm making *a choice* not to change my last name. I say it isn't a choice for me. It *is* a choice for other women (and men) who are truly debating between keeping or changing their last names; but for those of us who have never even considered it, it isn't a choice for us. **TL;DR: I'm keeping my own last name when I get married. This isn't a choice. It's just me not doing anything. CMV that this is actually my "choice."** The only way I can imagine that someone would CMV is by convince me that all married men also make "a choice" to keep their own last names. The foundation of my argument is that men don't make "a choice," and thus some women who would never consider changing their name also don't make "a choice." _____ > *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 a woman doesn't change her last name when she gets married (in the U.S.), that doesn't necessarily mean she made "the choice" not to change her name. Upon marriage, women used to be forced to lose their maiden last name and take on their new husband's last name. In modern day, it isn't forced; it's a choice. Men have that choice too, though as of 2013, [92% of married women took their husband's last name](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/changing-your-last-name_n_3073125.html), and no statistics exist for how many men took their wives' last names - presumably because the number is incalculably low. Also at this time, it's apparent that my post is hetero-normative about straight people only. So people now say "it's a woman's choice if she changes her name or not." I'm a woman who will not be changing my name, and people tell me that I've made the choice not to change my name. Here is where my CMV comes in. I did *not* make the choice not to change my name when I get married. Rather, that has never been an option for me. I've never so much as given the tiniest bit of consideration to the idea of changing my name; it has always been a give-in to me that I would never do such a thing. I haven't gone through my life with the expectation that I would one day make a decision about keeping my last name or changing it; I've gone through life thinking that my name is my name - full stop. My marital status has nothing to do with it. In short - I've gone through life thinking how a man thinks about it. To the men out there: do you feel that you've made the *choice* not to change your last name, or do you feel that such a decision has never even crossed your mind, and it isn't a "choice" to keep your last name but rather just the default of your existence? Do you know what I"m saying here? That's how I feel. Yet people insist that no, I'm making *a choice* not to change my last name. I say it isn't a choice for me. It *is* a choice for other women (and men) who are truly debating between keeping or changing their last names; but for those of us who have never even considered it, it isn't a choice for us. **TL;DR: I'm keeping my own last name when I get married. This isn't a choice. It's just me not doing anything. CMV that this is actually my "choice."** The only way I can imagine that someone would CMV is by convince me that all married men also make "a choice" to keep their own last names. The foundation of my argument is that men don't make "a choice," and thus some women who would never consider changing their name also don't make "a choice."

t3_58wqyq

CMV: Guys and girls should always split the bill on the first date. If one person has less disposable income, then the bill split should be proportionate to incomes.

**ignore the part about proportionate income splitting thing** Right now, if you take a look at our dating culture, guys usually have to *pay* for a girl's time. This leads to inflated and unreal expectations on the girl's (and guy's) side, with heavy monetary influence and devalues intrinsic character. Guys shouldn't have to *pay* for a girl's time. By splitting the bill, women won't feel obligated to "put out" afterwards (or like they owe the guy something) and men won't feel like they were "used" for a free dinner/date or disappointed when nothing more happens. This will also put a stop to people using dates as a means to get free things. Both people can stay true to their feelings and intentions, and have less chances of getting hurt, upset, or let down. ~~If an activity or restaurant is too expensive for one person, then the bill should just be divided up proportional to each person's income.~~ Ignore this part and the part about proportionate incomes, I'm stupid.

CMV: Guys and girls should always split the bill on the first date. If one person has less disposable income, then the bill split should be proportionate to incomes. **ignore the part about proportionate income splitting thing** Right now, if you take a look at our dating culture, guys usually have to *pay* for a girl's time. This leads to inflated and unreal expectations on the girl's (and guy's) side, with heavy monetary influence and devalues intrinsic character. Guys shouldn't have to *pay* for a girl's time. By splitting the bill, women won't feel obligated to "put out" afterwards (or like they owe the guy something) and men won't feel like they were "used" for a free dinner/date or disappointed when nothing more happens. This will also put a stop to people using dates as a means to get free things. Both people can stay true to their feelings and intentions, and have less chances of getting hurt, upset, or let down. ~~If an activity or restaurant is too expensive for one person, then the bill should just be divided up proportional to each person's income.~~ Ignore this part and the part about proportionate incomes, I'm stupid.

t3_1qg0e1

CMV Malcolm X was detrimental to the civil rights movement.

The reading I have done on him seams to lead me to believe that he actually negatively impacted the movement. The first thing it seams is he split the movement. Supporters were not sure whether to side with him or MLK. They had vastly different beliefs. Another thing he did was preach violence which could contributed more people to oppose the movement and increase their prejudice. I'm absolutely no expert but, it seamed he was a radical and had very unrealistic ideas such as splitting the country. Because of these things I feel like he caused more harm then good to the movement.

CMV Malcolm X was detrimental to the civil rights movement. The reading I have done on him seams to lead me to believe that he actually negatively impacted the movement. The first thing it seams is he split the movement. Supporters were not sure whether to side with him or MLK. They had vastly different beliefs. Another thing he did was preach violence which could contributed more people to oppose the movement and increase their prejudice. I'm absolutely no expert but, it seamed he was a radical and had very unrealistic ideas such as splitting the country. Because of these things I feel like he caused more harm then good to the movement.

t3_1lbx9i

I believe that LGBT kids who who take their parents money for post secondary education when they know they would not be getting anything if their parents knew they were LGBT are stealing. Please CMV.

Obligatory I'm not an LGBT hater comment here: I will support anything and everything for your right to be treated the same under the law. But I believe this is not a legal matter but a gift and a personal matter between family. I have been hearing for a few years now that collage kids who are out should not tell their families until after they graduate, if they rely on them for financial support. Especially if that support would be taken away if their parents were to find out they are LGBT. This has always bothered me since I see that support as a gift, and whatever rules parents put on their money is their business. If the child knowingly breaks any of these rules the parents should be informed, so that the ones giving the money are aware and can take any action they feel is necessary. If one of the rules attached to this support is that you must be straight and the child is not. The child not informing the parents is pretty much stealing. And even stealing from the closed minded is stealing. I don't believe that these kinds of parents should in any way hinder their child from getting any other kind of financial support that might be required, but what they do with their money is nobodies business. EDIT: I do not think this should be legally viewed as theft in any way, but morally this leaves with a feeling of theft or at least something akin to it. EDIT 2: Serious big thanks to all of you for helping me work through all this my view has been changed. In particular I would like to thank: /u/user1492 - for just talking with me about where I stand. /u/lonelyfriend - for showing me that a gift with conditions is not a gift at all. /u/ralph-j - for pointing out that rules and our respect for them. /u/unsettlingideologies - for pointing out this is also a safety issue.

I believe that LGBT kids who who take their parents money for post secondary education when they know they would not be getting anything if their parents knew they were LGBT are stealing. Please CMV. Obligatory I'm not an LGBT hater comment here: I will support anything and everything for your right to be treated the same under the law. But I believe this is not a legal matter but a gift and a personal matter between family. I have been hearing for a few years now that collage kids who are out should not tell their families until after they graduate, if they rely on them for financial support. Especially if that support would be taken away if their parents were to find out they are LGBT. This has always bothered me since I see that support as a gift, and whatever rules parents put on their money is their business. If the child knowingly breaks any of these rules the parents should be informed, so that the ones giving the money are aware and can take any action they feel is necessary. If one of the rules attached to this support is that you must be straight and the child is not. The child not informing the parents is pretty much stealing. And even stealing from the closed minded is stealing. I don't believe that these kinds of parents should in any way hinder their child from getting any other kind of financial support that might be required, but what they do with their money is nobodies business. EDIT: I do not think this should be legally viewed as theft in any way, but morally this leaves with a feeling of theft or at least something akin to it. EDIT 2: Serious big thanks to all of you for helping me work through all this my view has been changed. In particular I would like to thank: /u/user1492 - for just talking with me about where I stand. /u/lonelyfriend - for showing me that a gift with conditions is not a gift at all. /u/ralph-j - for pointing out that rules and our respect for them. /u/unsettlingideologies - for pointing out this is also a safety issue.

t3_3jxmlf

CMV: Those who enforce the war on drugs are just as guilty as the politicians who wrote the laws.

The war on drugs is a fucked up thing. In the U.S. today, [38%](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx) of people have tried marijuana, an illegal act. It would be very fucked up if we jailed 38% of Americans. The thing is, I don't even need to convince you people of this; At this time, [a majority of Americans believe](https://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/new-pew-poll-confirms-americans-ready-end-war-drugs) that people should not be prosecuted for possession of marijuana and other drugs. However, laws take time to change, and despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe the war on drugs has been lost, the systems put in place to incarcerate those who commit nonviolent crimes live on, and the people working in those systems often feel they can usurp responsibility with the phrase "I'm just doing my job." My argument is that every single person who enforces the war on drugs is guilty for putting those people in prison. Unnecessary, but here's a personal example: a girl I know is an RA at my college. She told me that RAs must immediately report marijuana use at the risk of losing their jobs. When I asked "would you really report someone for using marijuana though? With no warning?" she responded by saying that she would because she needs her job to pay the room & board for college. When I asked her if she thinks it is right that people can serve years in prison for something as harmless (and popular! 38%!) as rolling up a dewbie in their dorm room, however dumb it is to smoke in a college dorm, she quickly agreed that marijuana should be at the very least decriminalized. But what she fails to understand is that this difference in her view on marijuana and her hypothetical course of action should she catch someone smoking marijuana makes her morals mean nothing! She is the reason that that dumb fuck who is smoking in his dorm room is going to jail! For a nonviolent thing he decided to do! When I responded with this argument, she seemed very confused (she is always the type to do what she is told, and seemed very surprised that she perked my criticism for saying that she would do her job). tl;dr: If you are not morally against people being incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes, and yet you aid in the incarceration of those individuals with the mantra "I'm just doing my job," then you are just as bad a person as someone who gets paid to put innocent people in a cage for multiple years (and is OK with that), and it is a disgusting thing that you are doing. 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: Those who enforce the war on drugs are just as guilty as the politicians who wrote the laws. The war on drugs is a fucked up thing. In the U.S. today, [38%](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx) of people have tried marijuana, an illegal act. It would be very fucked up if we jailed 38% of Americans. The thing is, I don't even need to convince you people of this; At this time, [a majority of Americans believe](https://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/new-pew-poll-confirms-americans-ready-end-war-drugs) that people should not be prosecuted for possession of marijuana and other drugs. However, laws take time to change, and despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe the war on drugs has been lost, the systems put in place to incarcerate those who commit nonviolent crimes live on, and the people working in those systems often feel they can usurp responsibility with the phrase "I'm just doing my job." My argument is that every single person who enforces the war on drugs is guilty for putting those people in prison. Unnecessary, but here's a personal example: a girl I know is an RA at my college. She told me that RAs must immediately report marijuana use at the risk of losing their jobs. When I asked "would you really report someone for using marijuana though? With no warning?" she responded by saying that she would because she needs her job to pay the room & board for college. When I asked her if she thinks it is right that people can serve years in prison for something as harmless (and popular! 38%!) as rolling up a dewbie in their dorm room, however dumb it is to smoke in a college dorm, she quickly agreed that marijuana should be at the very least decriminalized. But what she fails to understand is that this difference in her view on marijuana and her hypothetical course of action should she catch someone smoking marijuana makes her morals mean nothing! She is the reason that that dumb fuck who is smoking in his dorm room is going to jail! For a nonviolent thing he decided to do! When I responded with this argument, she seemed very confused (she is always the type to do what she is told, and seemed very surprised that she perked my criticism for saying that she would do her job). tl;dr: If you are not morally against people being incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes, and yet you aid in the incarceration of those individuals with the mantra "I'm just doing my job," then you are just as bad a person as someone who gets paid to put innocent people in a cage for multiple years (and is OK with that), and it is a disgusting thing that you are doing. CMV.

t3_2vf15h

CMV: Men who are together with rape victims are in a state of submission by the rapist who have "dominated" "their" women.

I really want you to change my view on this, I really do. It's a fucked up thing to feel but it's not so much an opinion than a feeling and I'm just being honest about a psychology that I think many share one way or another. So as a starter of course it bothers most men that "their" women(there'e a problem right there, in possesion) have been with other men. However in this day and age people fuck a lot and you probably won't find a virgin. It's just something we have to accept and live with, and we shoud, women should be able to fuck around as much as men. But because of men's nature this is a problem for them since domination and the very nature of penetration is deeply rooted in us. Now on rape; men who rape have an inferiority complex and that's a main issue for them raping. Controlling and exerting power over their victims. But here's the first question, do rapist feel they're exerting power over men who are currently or will in time be with their victim? I think so, especially in degenerative third world cultures and religions which has a macho, maledominated foundation. In all of this I can't help to feel that if "your" women were raped you were dominated and always will be, by the rapist as long as you are with that women. He took what was "yours" and she has had him penetrating her and ultimately dominated her and therefor dominates you. I somewhat feel I have something over a man that is with a women I've fucked(consentually). I'm not an asshole so I don't in any way apply this to assert my position over him but still, it's there and I think he feels it too. Now is all this only because I am insecure and I myself has an inferiority complex? Rapists are the weakest men that exist but does that also make me an exceptionally weakminded man? I must add that rape is for me the most horrible thing but I think I feel that way more because of this view I've laid out here then for the horrors the women are put through, then and for a long time. I hope this doesn't just become a bashing of how immature and primitive I am but a discussion of this psycholoy and how to grow and rise above it instead of reducing us men of what makes us men, as the feminist would have us do. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Men who are together with rape victims are in a state of submission by the rapist who have "dominated" "their" women. I really want you to change my view on this, I really do. It's a fucked up thing to feel but it's not so much an opinion than a feeling and I'm just being honest about a psychology that I think many share one way or another. So as a starter of course it bothers most men that "their" women(there'e a problem right there, in possesion) have been with other men. However in this day and age people fuck a lot and you probably won't find a virgin. It's just something we have to accept and live with, and we shoud, women should be able to fuck around as much as men. But because of men's nature this is a problem for them since domination and the very nature of penetration is deeply rooted in us. Now on rape; men who rape have an inferiority complex and that's a main issue for them raping. Controlling and exerting power over their victims. But here's the first question, do rapist feel they're exerting power over men who are currently or will in time be with their victim? I think so, especially in degenerative third world cultures and religions which has a macho, maledominated foundation. In all of this I can't help to feel that if "your" women were raped you were dominated and always will be, by the rapist as long as you are with that women. He took what was "yours" and she has had him penetrating her and ultimately dominated her and therefor dominates you. I somewhat feel I have something over a man that is with a women I've fucked(consentually). I'm not an asshole so I don't in any way apply this to assert my position over him but still, it's there and I think he feels it too. Now is all this only because I am insecure and I myself has an inferiority complex? Rapists are the weakest men that exist but does that also make me an exceptionally weakminded man? I must add that rape is for me the most horrible thing but I think I feel that way more because of this view I've laid out here then for the horrors the women are put through, then and for a long time. I hope this doesn't just become a bashing of how immature and primitive I am but a discussion of this psycholoy and how to grow and rise above it instead of reducing us men of what makes us men, as the feminist would have us do.

t3_3d26wz

CMV: Government officials have very little control over economic growth and political candidates are either bluffing or stupid when they say they will "grow the economy."

There are a few things presidents, congressional representatives and senators can do to influence the growth or shrinkage of the economy. Some politicians claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy, others claim that increased government spending (while keeping taxation the same) simulates the economy, but there is no consensus on this point, among economists or politicians. Deficit spending stimulates the economy, but we are already deficit spending, and the national debt is already rather large, so we can't do that forever. Low interest rates stimulate the economy, but elected officials have no direct influence over interest rates -- the Federal Reserve Board does that, and interest rates are already very, very low. New export markets also help, but the U.S. is already committed to several ambitious international trade agreements. Investor confidence helps, a little, maybe, sometimes, but the U.S. stock market is already overpriced. Beyond that, most economic growth comes from increases in productivity, and consumer confidence. Elected officials have no control over these. If you vote for a candidate who promises to "create jobs" or "grow the economy," you're either voting for a liar or a fool. Change my view! Edit: I'm speaking of the U.S. economy, not the global economy, and I'm speaking of political candidates who might run for office in the near future, not the distant future or the past. _____ > *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: Government officials have very little control over economic growth and political candidates are either bluffing or stupid when they say they will "grow the economy.". There are a few things presidents, congressional representatives and senators can do to influence the growth or shrinkage of the economy. Some politicians claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy, others claim that increased government spending (while keeping taxation the same) simulates the economy, but there is no consensus on this point, among economists or politicians. Deficit spending stimulates the economy, but we are already deficit spending, and the national debt is already rather large, so we can't do that forever. Low interest rates stimulate the economy, but elected officials have no direct influence over interest rates -- the Federal Reserve Board does that, and interest rates are already very, very low. New export markets also help, but the U.S. is already committed to several ambitious international trade agreements. Investor confidence helps, a little, maybe, sometimes, but the U.S. stock market is already overpriced. Beyond that, most economic growth comes from increases in productivity, and consumer confidence. Elected officials have no control over these. If you vote for a candidate who promises to "create jobs" or "grow the economy," you're either voting for a liar or a fool. Change my view! Edit: I'm speaking of the U.S. economy, not the global economy, and I'm speaking of political candidates who might run for office in the near future, not the distant future or the past.

t3_1sgs1k

I see the Atheist jokes more elitist than anything, please CMV.

The main view I want changed is that these jokes do not help anything and are just as stupid as the comments they are meant to mock. So, as I constantly read Reddit I find myself getting more and more annoyed at the constant Atheist absurdity as everyone else. However, the response is no better than any other typical response. The whole bravetheist, fedora, and other wholly unfunny jokes just start an unending carousel of frustrating bullshit. I get that the circlejerk of religious hate can get annoying and to the point where the reddit Atheists are no better than the absurd fundamentalists they claim to hate, but I mean come on.... is the never ending flood of "oh wow so brave" and "so euphoric" comments any better? They seem more-or-less like hackneyed dialogues that do nothing in terms of rebutting people. But all those comments scream to me is pure elitism. They add nothing to the conversation, they just as unnervingly broad-brushing as the comments they mean to mock, and they are simply cringe-inducing. I have been trying so hard to just simply avoid discussions of religion that I knew were going to be one-sided whether in terms of Atheists or "wow so brave" morons (excuse me for that but I was particularly upset at the thread I was reading.) But even then most threads that have nothing to do with religion cannot help but go to the same damn tired joke of euphoria and fedoras as if being mad at religious people being broad-brushed similarly makes it okay to do the same. I believe these jokes are akin to someone buying a glass house and then going out to buy a bunch of rocks. Or better yet, the brave, euphoric assholes are teapots and the "Atheists" that annoy them ever so much are kettles. Both of them help nothing and even if that isn't the point it still doesn't stop it from getting to a level of broad-brushing insanity. And maybe I am biased because frankly I don't care one way or the other I am not an Atheist, but then again I could care less about Christianity or any religion. And to be quite frank I just wish people could all just realize that we are trying to be decent human beings and we could band together to shun the assholes; fundies, bigots, atheist assholes, murderers, rapists, etc. etc. I mean jeez it really shouldn't be that hard to recognize everyone just wants to live their lives Christian, Muslim, Atheist or whatever. I get that maybe that is not the point, and maybe I simply don't get it, which is why I need my view changed. Maybe I am acting pretentious and stupid, if so, please tell me because I do not wish to upset anyone I just do not simply get how the previously mentioned comments are funny let alone necessary.

I see the Atheist jokes more elitist than anything, please CMV. The main view I want changed is that these jokes do not help anything and are just as stupid as the comments they are meant to mock. So, as I constantly read Reddit I find myself getting more and more annoyed at the constant Atheist absurdity as everyone else. However, the response is no better than any other typical response. The whole bravetheist, fedora, and other wholly unfunny jokes just start an unending carousel of frustrating bullshit. I get that the circlejerk of religious hate can get annoying and to the point where the reddit Atheists are no better than the absurd fundamentalists they claim to hate, but I mean come on.... is the never ending flood of "oh wow so brave" and "so euphoric" comments any better? They seem more-or-less like hackneyed dialogues that do nothing in terms of rebutting people. But all those comments scream to me is pure elitism. They add nothing to the conversation, they just as unnervingly broad-brushing as the comments they mean to mock, and they are simply cringe-inducing. I have been trying so hard to just simply avoid discussions of religion that I knew were going to be one-sided whether in terms of Atheists or "wow so brave" morons (excuse me for that but I was particularly upset at the thread I was reading.) But even then most threads that have nothing to do with religion cannot help but go to the same damn tired joke of euphoria and fedoras as if being mad at religious people being broad-brushed similarly makes it okay to do the same. I believe these jokes are akin to someone buying a glass house and then going out to buy a bunch of rocks. Or better yet, the brave, euphoric assholes are teapots and the "Atheists" that annoy them ever so much are kettles. Both of them help nothing and even if that isn't the point it still doesn't stop it from getting to a level of broad-brushing insanity. And maybe I am biased because frankly I don't care one way or the other I am not an Atheist, but then again I could care less about Christianity or any religion. And to be quite frank I just wish people could all just realize that we are trying to be decent human beings and we could band together to shun the assholes; fundies, bigots, atheist assholes, murderers, rapists, etc. etc. I mean jeez it really shouldn't be that hard to recognize everyone just wants to live their lives Christian, Muslim, Atheist or whatever. I get that maybe that is not the point, and maybe I simply don't get it, which is why I need my view changed. Maybe I am acting pretentious and stupid, if so, please tell me because I do not wish to upset anyone I just do not simply get how the previously mentioned comments are funny let alone necessary.

t3_3hwmik

CMV: There simply isn't a better option than going to college/uni. after high school

This is only for the US.....I know this isn't necessarily the case for other countries. OK so lets look at all the options (at least that I can think of) which you can do after high school besides of going to college. If there is anything else please feel free to share. Straight to work- Ok....where could you possibly work that is a steady reliable job which will make you a lot of money in the future? I'm sure these jobs do exist, but you must admit they are hard to find and are a rarity. Many more of those jobs do exist IF you have a college degree. Military- Not everyone can do it (like me personally... I want to but medically can't bc asthma). This is a solid way to go, but not better than college...not everyone can do it, and there is a risk factor when going into it. Trade school- It seems that going to trade school narrows your career choice. If you are unsure on what you want to do when you get out of highschool, why would you decide to focus on only one job? Getting a college degree gives you a wide variety of jobs to choose from..... trade school narrows your scope for what seems like (for the most part) rather undesirable jobs. This doesn't mean trade school is bad.... it just means that for the vast majority of students who aren't 100% sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18, college seems like a much more flexible choice. Starting a business- Most high school grads have no idea what they are doing in this area... obviously there are very success stories in this, but if I were to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, I would have no idea what to do. It seems that you are better off getting a business (or something in that area) degree. Now look, obviously college isn't perfect. A LOT of college grads don't get jobs. But it seems that these are the people that get their majors in a bad area (like journalism, English, history, etc.) and also go to a bad college. It's not supposed to be a sure thing... you have to work in high school that way you can go to a better college, and work in college that way you can have good grades! All of these options I listed are doable... but for me (and most people), who still aren't completely independent and have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, college seems like the sure choice. Then there is the cost aspect of it. I get that college isn't always affordable, but that's a separate issue..... it doesn't mean that going to college itself is bad. Also, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue my sister chose to go to UTD over UPenn for this very reason, it seems that most people buried in student loans chose to go to a super expensive school.... there's plenty of cheaper ones out there which, assuming you worked hard in high school, give out scholarships. College isn't a sure thing and that's why people are complaining about it. You can't expect it to be and then insult it when its not. YOU have to take advantage of it. And if you do it can be very beneficial EDIT: Thanks for the posts everyone! Ultimately I apologize for the wording of this question, as I feel I over generalized. What I decided is that, yes, for the vast majority of people college is best. But... that doesn't make it the better option in that plenty more people (especially those who cannot afford college) are better off using one of the other options I previously listed above.

CMV: There simply isn't a better option than going to college/uni. after high school. This is only for the US.....I know this isn't necessarily the case for other countries. OK so lets look at all the options (at least that I can think of) which you can do after high school besides of going to college. If there is anything else please feel free to share. Straight to work- Ok....where could you possibly work that is a steady reliable job which will make you a lot of money in the future? I'm sure these jobs do exist, but you must admit they are hard to find and are a rarity. Many more of those jobs do exist IF you have a college degree. Military- Not everyone can do it (like me personally... I want to but medically can't bc asthma). This is a solid way to go, but not better than college...not everyone can do it, and there is a risk factor when going into it. Trade school- It seems that going to trade school narrows your career choice. If you are unsure on what you want to do when you get out of highschool, why would you decide to focus on only one job? Getting a college degree gives you a wide variety of jobs to choose from..... trade school narrows your scope for what seems like (for the most part) rather undesirable jobs. This doesn't mean trade school is bad.... it just means that for the vast majority of students who aren't 100% sure on what career they want to do when they turn 18, college seems like a much more flexible choice. Starting a business- Most high school grads have no idea what they are doing in this area... obviously there are very success stories in this, but if I were to go out and start a business next year when I graduate, I would have no idea what to do. It seems that you are better off getting a business (or something in that area) degree. Now look, obviously college isn't perfect. A LOT of college grads don't get jobs. But it seems that these are the people that get their majors in a bad area (like journalism, English, history, etc.) and also go to a bad college. It's not supposed to be a sure thing... you have to work in high school that way you can go to a better college, and work in college that way you can have good grades! All of these options I listed are doable... but for me (and most people), who still aren't completely independent and have no idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, college seems like the sure choice. Then there is the cost aspect of it. I get that college isn't always affordable, but that's a separate issue..... it doesn't mean that going to college itself is bad. Also, and I am not saying that this isn't an issue my sister chose to go to UTD over UPenn for this very reason, it seems that most people buried in student loans chose to go to a super expensive school.... there's plenty of cheaper ones out there which, assuming you worked hard in high school, give out scholarships. College isn't a sure thing and that's why people are complaining about it. You can't expect it to be and then insult it when its not. YOU have to take advantage of it. And if you do it can be very beneficial EDIT: Thanks for the posts everyone! Ultimately I apologize for the wording of this question, as I feel I over generalized. What I decided is that, yes, for the vast majority of people college is best. But... that doesn't make it the better option in that plenty more people (especially those who cannot afford college) are better off using one of the other options I previously listed above.

t3_1ynfa3

I believe that anybody should be able to change their legal sex for any reason. CMV.

As in, you just go down to the DMV or any government office, say "I want to change my sex to fe/male" and then they change your records and issue you a new ID. No specific requirements. My reasons for this are two-fold: 1. To require jumping through any kind of hoop is discrimination against transgender people. Why? Because cisgender people don't have to jump through any hoops. Take a trans woman and a cis woman. The trans woman has to jump through a number of hoops (notes to doctors, proof that she's living as a woman, required hormone treatments, possibly surgery) before she can be legally recognized as her preferred gender. But the cis woman gets to be recognized by her preferred gender right from the get go. Giving something to one group without any requirements, while requiring another group to jump through hoops, is discrimination. 2. It acts as a check on legal sexism. This one is a little more abstract, but it goes something like this: if anyone feels that the opposite sex is legally favoured, then they can freely change their legal status to that sex, until enough people do so that nobody is jealous of the other sex anymore, either because it becomes too crowded and relatively less desirable or because everyone who wants what that sex legally has has already obtained it by switching. It's sort of like a homeostasis of equality. Change my view.

I believe that anybody should be able to change their legal sex for any reason. CMV. As in, you just go down to the DMV or any government office, say "I want to change my sex to fe/male" and then they change your records and issue you a new ID. No specific requirements. My reasons for this are two-fold: 1. To require jumping through any kind of hoop is discrimination against transgender people. Why? Because cisgender people don't have to jump through any hoops. Take a trans woman and a cis woman. The trans woman has to jump through a number of hoops (notes to doctors, proof that she's living as a woman, required hormone treatments, possibly surgery) before she can be legally recognized as her preferred gender. But the cis woman gets to be recognized by her preferred gender right from the get go. Giving something to one group without any requirements, while requiring another group to jump through hoops, is discrimination. 2. It acts as a check on legal sexism. This one is a little more abstract, but it goes something like this: if anyone feels that the opposite sex is legally favoured, then they can freely change their legal status to that sex, until enough people do so that nobody is jealous of the other sex anymore, either because it becomes too crowded and relatively less desirable or because everyone who wants what that sex legally has has already obtained it by switching. It's sort of like a homeostasis of equality. Change my view.

t3_69zg30

CMV: Gender-based separation for anything that doesn't involve direct anatomical differences is a bad idea in modern society and shouldn't be used.

Before I go more in-depth, I want to make a couple of things clear: 1. When I say "things that involve anatomical differences", that includes sports teams among people who have gone through puberty as well as things like bathrooms. I don't really think the bathrooms should be separated either, but that's a different discussion. 2. This means I personally feel that groups like Boy Scouts or all-boys/all-girls schools are dumb and should change their policies. This does not mean I think the government should force them to change, I don't believe that. A lot of parts of society, especially for children, needlessly center on separation of boys and girls for no real sensible reason. In my opinion, there isn't really a purpose to any of this, be it Boy Scouts not including girls, gender-separated schools, or even just the concept of "male bonding" or "girl talk". I feel that doing this kind of intentional gender-separation not only doesn't do anything good, but it creates more gender-based tension as boys and girls learn to view themselves as familiar and the other gender as foreign. Even when I was a little kid, I never really understood this, and it upset me a lot then. Most of my friends were girls and I felt like I was kind of being forced to interact with boys I wasn't friends with. Overall, I just think these types of organizations are pointless and detrimental, especially when children are involved.

CMV: Gender-based separation for anything that doesn't involve direct anatomical differences is a bad idea in modern society and shouldn't be used. Before I go more in-depth, I want to make a couple of things clear: 1. When I say "things that involve anatomical differences", that includes sports teams among people who have gone through puberty as well as things like bathrooms. I don't really think the bathrooms should be separated either, but that's a different discussion. 2. This means I personally feel that groups like Boy Scouts or all-boys/all-girls schools are dumb and should change their policies. This does not mean I think the government should force them to change, I don't believe that. A lot of parts of society, especially for children, needlessly center on separation of boys and girls for no real sensible reason. In my opinion, there isn't really a purpose to any of this, be it Boy Scouts not including girls, gender-separated schools, or even just the concept of "male bonding" or "girl talk". I feel that doing this kind of intentional gender-separation not only doesn't do anything good, but it creates more gender-based tension as boys and girls learn to view themselves as familiar and the other gender as foreign. Even when I was a little kid, I never really understood this, and it upset me a lot then. Most of my friends were girls and I felt like I was kind of being forced to interact with boys I wasn't friends with. Overall, I just think these types of organizations are pointless and detrimental, especially when children are involved.

t3_3f2ny8

CMV: Hunters who hunt for pleasure are no worse than anyone who eats meat (I am not a vegetarian)

With the big witch hunt going on for the hunter who killed Cecil the lion, people are in an uproar over this guy because he likes to hunt animals for pleasure. Morally, I don't see this as any different from anyone who eats meat. Nobody needs to eat meat and it isn't healthier, it's something people do just for pleasure. Even though you aren't doing the act yourself, by eating meat you are contributing to far greater suffering than a hunter ever could, with the horrible conditions throughout modern livestock through far greater numbers of animals. Just because you aren't pulling the trigger doesn't remove the responsibility, you are still causing the exploitation and death of hundreds of animals. Again, I do eat meat, but I'm just pointing out that these two situations are moral equivalents.

CMV: Hunters who hunt for pleasure are no worse than anyone who eats meat (I am not a vegetarian). With the big witch hunt going on for the hunter who killed Cecil the lion, people are in an uproar over this guy because he likes to hunt animals for pleasure. Morally, I don't see this as any different from anyone who eats meat. Nobody needs to eat meat and it isn't healthier, it's something people do just for pleasure. Even though you aren't doing the act yourself, by eating meat you are contributing to far greater suffering than a hunter ever could, with the horrible conditions throughout modern livestock through far greater numbers of animals. Just because you aren't pulling the trigger doesn't remove the responsibility, you are still causing the exploitation and death of hundreds of animals. Again, I do eat meat, but I'm just pointing out that these two situations are moral equivalents.

t3_1wfgur

Reddit's voting system discourages dissent CMV

I think that most users of this site abuse the voting system. Most people vote up for agreement and down for dissent, when it is actually supposed to be used for weeding out offtopic discussion and posts which do not contribute to the discussion. This dissuades users with unpopular opinions from posting. Besides that, this is especially true for new user, since if they're posts are unpopular and downvoted, they have to wait ten minutes to reply because people do not agree with their posts. Ultimately, most people do not care about the rules, and will vote based on agreement, and this usually results in an echo chamber.

Reddit's voting system discourages dissent CMV. I think that most users of this site abuse the voting system. Most people vote up for agreement and down for dissent, when it is actually supposed to be used for weeding out offtopic discussion and posts which do not contribute to the discussion. This dissuades users with unpopular opinions from posting. Besides that, this is especially true for new user, since if they're posts are unpopular and downvoted, they have to wait ten minutes to reply because people do not agree with their posts. Ultimately, most people do not care about the rules, and will vote based on agreement, and this usually results in an echo chamber.

t3_2013vq

I Believe That Country Such As Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland That Have a Draft For Men Only Are Unequivocally Sexist. CMV

Shockingly to most Americans, there is still a draft in several European countries. While Norway has expanded mandatory service to both sexes, some of the aforementioned countries continue to draft only men. This clearly stems not from a belief that women are unequal, as Denmark has a female PM, and these are some of the countries that are starting to put quotas, requiring businesses to have a certain number of women in power. There are no possible explanations that I can think of for this, so I'm coming to you guys. Could someone explain to me how this makes sense/ is fair? / TLDR: The fact that men are still required to serve and women aren't makes these countries discriminatory against gender and therefore sexist. CMV. Edit: Sadly this is getting posted at like 6:30 in the morning for most of these countries, but hopefully this'll get to them anyways.

I Believe That Country Such As Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland That Have a Draft For Men Only Are Unequivocally Sexist. CMV. Shockingly to most Americans, there is still a draft in several European countries. While Norway has expanded mandatory service to both sexes, some of the aforementioned countries continue to draft only men. This clearly stems not from a belief that women are unequal, as Denmark has a female PM, and these are some of the countries that are starting to put quotas, requiring businesses to have a certain number of women in power. There are no possible explanations that I can think of for this, so I'm coming to you guys. Could someone explain to me how this makes sense/ is fair? / TLDR: The fact that men are still required to serve and women aren't makes these countries discriminatory against gender and therefore sexist. CMV. Edit: Sadly this is getting posted at like 6:30 in the morning for most of these countries, but hopefully this'll get to them anyways.

t3_1g8m4o

I believe personalities are built around parent's influences, and NOT other people's. CMV

The whole argument that parents give about how their kids are being influenced by their friends is easily debatable. I, for one, have chosen my friends around how my parents raised me. I see social groups as parenting styles in a way. We meet our friends that have been raised similar to us. For example, bad kids have either been ignored or have no real rules, so exploring is easy. Strictly raised kids are always after their parents approval, so staying out of trouble is #1 objective for them. I had this realization while listening to a prison inmate telling me about how she had followed in her mother's foot steps, and her son has followed her. She explained the same thing to me saying, "If only I were able to give my son a better life, or at least hide this one, so that he had no default track to follow. He could build new roads instead of using the dirt one. It's harsh, I haven't seen him in 10 years."

I believe personalities are built around parent's influences, and NOT other people's. CMV. The whole argument that parents give about how their kids are being influenced by their friends is easily debatable. I, for one, have chosen my friends around how my parents raised me. I see social groups as parenting styles in a way. We meet our friends that have been raised similar to us. For example, bad kids have either been ignored or have no real rules, so exploring is easy. Strictly raised kids are always after their parents approval, so staying out of trouble is #1 objective for them. I had this realization while listening to a prison inmate telling me about how she had followed in her mother's foot steps, and her son has followed her. She explained the same thing to me saying, "If only I were able to give my son a better life, or at least hide this one, so that he had no default track to follow. He could build new roads instead of using the dirt one. It's harsh, I haven't seen him in 10 years."

t3_3cdmnl

CMV: Commercial video games should be required to employ an addictiveness rating system.

A lot of video games are essentially commercial skinner boxes, designed to keep people playing and forking over money not because they're getting any real satisfaction out of it, but simply because they can't bring themselves to stop. I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that video games can be a legitimate addiction and that many developers are banking on it. The most obvious examples are MMOs and mobile games like Candy Crush, but the same techniques are being employed to various degrees in every genre. If people understand the nature of these games and choose to play them anyway, that's fine. I think informed adults have every right to risk getting themselves addicted to something if they so choose, but ***they have to be informed.*** Game developers know what they're doing, and I don't think they should be allowed to hide it from their customers. _____ > *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: Commercial video games should be required to employ an addictiveness rating system. A lot of video games are essentially commercial skinner boxes, designed to keep people playing and forking over money not because they're getting any real satisfaction out of it, but simply because they can't bring themselves to stop. I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that video games can be a legitimate addiction and that many developers are banking on it. The most obvious examples are MMOs and mobile games like Candy Crush, but the same techniques are being employed to various degrees in every genre. If people understand the nature of these games and choose to play them anyway, that's fine. I think informed adults have every right to risk getting themselves addicted to something if they so choose, but ***they have to be informed.*** Game developers know what they're doing, and I don't think they should be allowed to hide it from their customers.

t3_29pvv5

CMV: Student Loans aren't as bad as people make them out to be.

I'm about to go into college from a decent University and plan on Co-Majoring Finance and International Business. I'm thinking of taking out about $10,000-$20,000 over the next 4 years but I see no serious problem in that. Once I graduate from Uni(With no kids or anything to hold me back hopefully), I'm expecting to make anywhere between $40,000-$60,000 a year. Assuming the the former, and paying anywhere from $500-$1000 a month. I should be done paying it off within 1-2 years. I'm not planning on making any large purchases my first few years out of college such as a Car or a New home. (I'm thinking a reasonably priced apartment with maybe a bro or 2). I feel like as long as you play your cards right(not getting a chick pregnant or getting yourself into any additional debt), It shouldn't be that big of a deal. _____ > *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: Student Loans aren't as bad as people make them out to be. I'm about to go into college from a decent University and plan on Co-Majoring Finance and International Business. I'm thinking of taking out about $10,000-$20,000 over the next 4 years but I see no serious problem in that. Once I graduate from Uni(With no kids or anything to hold me back hopefully), I'm expecting to make anywhere between $40,000-$60,000 a year. Assuming the the former, and paying anywhere from $500-$1000 a month. I should be done paying it off within 1-2 years. I'm not planning on making any large purchases my first few years out of college such as a Car or a New home. (I'm thinking a reasonably priced apartment with maybe a bro or 2). I feel like as long as you play your cards right(not getting a chick pregnant or getting yourself into any additional debt), It shouldn't be that big of a deal.

t3_2sjru2

CMV: I believe that trigger warnings are unhealthy, and institutions shouldn't tailor their content around them

Edit: I evidently haven't thought this through very much, and my argument is criticising the wrong group of people. I think the bulk of my argument is a knee-jerk reaction to Tumblr-folk who misuse the term "trigger" to mean being offended or not happy about a trivial thing. I recognise that this is clearly not the same thing as a genuine trigger, for someone who has been through PTSD or suffered a genuine trauma. If people are unclear on terms, a "trigger warning" is a quick notice given before a speech, video, body of text etc., warning the audience that its content may trigger certain traumatic memories. For example, if a video talks about rape, it might have a trigger warning so that victims of rape can avoid it if they want to avoid painful recollections. I don't think this is healthy, and should not be encouraged as a practice. The victim of a trauma is always, eventually, going to come across stimuli that might be "triggering", it's not the responsibility of society to avoid giving those stimuli. They might end up studying rape in psychology, or law, or ethics, or a variety of classes. Should the professor start his class with "By the way, today we're going to be talking about rape, and if anyone's uncomfortable with that, you're welcome to stay out of the class"? No; there are potentially infinite possible things that could trigger a person, and a professor shouldn't be expected to account for all of them. Some considerations. Firstly, if the lecturer was showing something that would reasonably upset a lot of people (violence, abuse, suicide etc,) then yes, please put a notice at the start of a class. Secondly, I think the professor in this situation should be accommodating, and if a student specifically approaches or emails him about content they find uncomfortable, then the professor ought to make accommodations within reason. But, it's not the professor's job to foresee any possible triggering content - picture the sort of people you find on /r/TumblrInAction who are triggered by trees. I'm being silly, of course, but some people can't tolerate things that most people are perfectly okay with, and when that's the case, the person shouldn't *expect* teachers, friends and family to accommodate for them. And if a psychology student came up to the professor in the scenario and told him she found the Millgram experiment disturbing and didn't want to see any content relating to it, then the professor is entitled to raise eyebrows as to why the student is taking the class. I've perhaps not worded the argument very coherently, so, **tl;dr**, people with triggers shouldn't expect people to accommodate their behaviour, and should learn to deal with those stimuli. _____ > *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 trigger warnings are unhealthy, and institutions shouldn't tailor their content around them. Edit: I evidently haven't thought this through very much, and my argument is criticising the wrong group of people. I think the bulk of my argument is a knee-jerk reaction to Tumblr-folk who misuse the term "trigger" to mean being offended or not happy about a trivial thing. I recognise that this is clearly not the same thing as a genuine trigger, for someone who has been through PTSD or suffered a genuine trauma. If people are unclear on terms, a "trigger warning" is a quick notice given before a speech, video, body of text etc., warning the audience that its content may trigger certain traumatic memories. For example, if a video talks about rape, it might have a trigger warning so that victims of rape can avoid it if they want to avoid painful recollections. I don't think this is healthy, and should not be encouraged as a practice. The victim of a trauma is always, eventually, going to come across stimuli that might be "triggering", it's not the responsibility of society to avoid giving those stimuli. They might end up studying rape in psychology, or law, or ethics, or a variety of classes. Should the professor start his class with "By the way, today we're going to be talking about rape, and if anyone's uncomfortable with that, you're welcome to stay out of the class"? No; there are potentially infinite possible things that could trigger a person, and a professor shouldn't be expected to account for all of them. Some considerations. Firstly, if the lecturer was showing something that would reasonably upset a lot of people (violence, abuse, suicide etc,) then yes, please put a notice at the start of a class. Secondly, I think the professor in this situation should be accommodating, and if a student specifically approaches or emails him about content they find uncomfortable, then the professor ought to make accommodations within reason. But, it's not the professor's job to foresee any possible triggering content - picture the sort of people you find on /r/TumblrInAction who are triggered by trees. I'm being silly, of course, but some people can't tolerate things that most people are perfectly okay with, and when that's the case, the person shouldn't *expect* teachers, friends and family to accommodate for them. And if a psychology student came up to the professor in the scenario and told him she found the Millgram experiment disturbing and didn't want to see any content relating to it, then the professor is entitled to raise eyebrows as to why the student is taking the class. I've perhaps not worded the argument very coherently, so, **tl;dr**, people with triggers shouldn't expect people to accommodate their behaviour, and should learn to deal with those stimuli.

t3_566n59

CMV: The NFA should be stripped, and the machine gun registry should be opened.

On the reopening of the machine gun registry, I think strict rules should still surround them. Perhaps tacking on a tax stamp like current NFA items require, license to possess, require approval from a CLEO, and requiring registration. Suppressors are hearing protection devices, and guns are still loud as thunder with them. They are useless without a gun and should be sold the exact same as ammo. What separates a handgun and SBR/SBS is very minor, and there are several cases where people would confuse them for one another. They should be handled the same way as handguns. These regulations being in place only affect the citizens that follow them. If a criminal has a real desire for a full auto gun or a suppressor, they can make one easily as it is or get around it. Plans for a DIY suppressor are readily available on the internet, and a trigger switch (basically a rotating lever that hits the trigger) can dump a magazine in seconds. The NFA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act The law that closed the machine gun registry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Also, remember the downvote button isn't a "I disagree" button.

CMV: The NFA should be stripped, and the machine gun registry should be opened. On the reopening of the machine gun registry, I think strict rules should still surround them. Perhaps tacking on a tax stamp like current NFA items require, license to possess, require approval from a CLEO, and requiring registration. Suppressors are hearing protection devices, and guns are still loud as thunder with them. They are useless without a gun and should be sold the exact same as ammo. What separates a handgun and SBR/SBS is very minor, and there are several cases where people would confuse them for one another. They should be handled the same way as handguns. These regulations being in place only affect the citizens that follow them. If a criminal has a real desire for a full auto gun or a suppressor, they can make one easily as it is or get around it. Plans for a DIY suppressor are readily available on the internet, and a trigger switch (basically a rotating lever that hits the trigger) can dump a magazine in seconds. The NFA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act The law that closed the machine gun registry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Also, remember the downvote button isn't a "I disagree" button.

t3_2bqdam

CMV: I think the debt snowball method of paying down debt is better than any other method

A debt snowball is when you pay your debts off in order of smallest to largest, ignoring interest rates. **Advantages** * It is psychologically beneficial. Paying off a $1,000 credit card eliminates an entire monthly payment, whereas paying $1,000 off a car just makes progress on paper. Sure your next bill will say you owe $7,000 instead of $8,000, but nothing has changed in your monthly expenses -- psychologically it feels like wasted money. * When you pay off a debt, the amount you were paying towards it each month is an instant raise to yourself. If you pay off a loan that was $100/month, you suddenly have $100/month extra to budget with. * Paying off a small debt instantly "adds" to your emergency fund. Your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund. * It wipes small debts out completely. If you stop paying off debts for whatever reason, you still have immediate benefits from your efforts because you've eliminated a few monthly payments. If a financial issue like a disability or long term unemployment comes up, you won't rack up interest and late fees on a debt that doesn't exist. * Eliminating the number of payments you have makes it easier to keep track of them and not miss any or incur late fees. It's also psychologically better to have fewer debts you owe. I'm aware that mathematically it is cheapest to pay it off in the order of highest to lowest interest, but I think that the benefits I listed out are worth paying a little extra interest 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: I think the debt snowball method of paying down debt is better than any other method. A debt snowball is when you pay your debts off in order of smallest to largest, ignoring interest rates. **Advantages** * It is psychologically beneficial. Paying off a $1,000 credit card eliminates an entire monthly payment, whereas paying $1,000 off a car just makes progress on paper. Sure your next bill will say you owe $7,000 instead of $8,000, but nothing has changed in your monthly expenses -- psychologically it feels like wasted money. * When you pay off a debt, the amount you were paying towards it each month is an instant raise to yourself. If you pay off a loan that was $100/month, you suddenly have $100/month extra to budget with. * Paying off a small debt instantly "adds" to your emergency fund. Your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund. * It wipes small debts out completely. If you stop paying off debts for whatever reason, you still have immediate benefits from your efforts because you've eliminated a few monthly payments. If a financial issue like a disability or long term unemployment comes up, you won't rack up interest and late fees on a debt that doesn't exist. * Eliminating the number of payments you have makes it easier to keep track of them and not miss any or incur late fees. It's also psychologically better to have fewer debts you owe. I'm aware that mathematically it is cheapest to pay it off in the order of highest to lowest interest, but I think that the benefits I listed out are worth paying a little extra interest for.

t3_72e8hs

CMV: College is the only way I can make a GREAT living

I've been hearing a whole lot of talk from entrepreneurs and such about how we should drop out of college and there are better ways to make money. However, I can't help but feel like it's a scam— and a scam is how some of them make their money. Is there really any truth to this? I'm going to college to become a doctor despite my dreams of doing music and having other aspirations. Honestly, I would LOVE to believe in this, but I'm not certain that dropping out of college and pursuing this other stuff would be optimal— you know? I'm kinda introverted as well. Thanks. I need some hard evidence.

CMV: College is the only way I can make a GREAT living. I've been hearing a whole lot of talk from entrepreneurs and such about how we should drop out of college and there are better ways to make money. However, I can't help but feel like it's a scam— and a scam is how some of them make their money. Is there really any truth to this? I'm going to college to become a doctor despite my dreams of doing music and having other aspirations. Honestly, I would LOVE to believe in this, but I'm not certain that dropping out of college and pursuing this other stuff would be optimal— you know? I'm kinda introverted as well. Thanks. I need some hard evidence.

t3_1nospc

I believe that a single payer health care system is inherently flawed, CMV.

I will start by being honest that it's very possible that I haven't been thoroughly educated on this subject. Living in the States, I also have little firsthand experience with single payer systems. That said, I know there are often very long wait times for "nonessential procedures." Having worked in the medical field in the past, I know that what medicine deems elective or "nonessential" can often times be pretty essential to us as patients. Wikipedia uses examples like mastectomies, kidney donations, and hernia surgery, but the list goes on. I think long wait times for these types of procedures is not only dangerous, but unnecessary and yet it seems to be very common in single payer systems. Additionally, it seems to me that your choice in which kind of procedure you get seems relatively out of your control. If you want medical treatment, it seems to be almost entirely up to the doctor to choose which type of procedure you undergo. I think those types of decisions should be left to the patient. Just as an example of what I mean, I had a friend who lived in Canada for several years and she broke her leg while she was over there and she was pretty much forced into getting screws and some other metal she really didn't want put into her leg because she didn't really have a choice for how to get it taken care of. She spoke with a doctor here in America a few years later who said it would have been a lot less invasive (but equally effective) to have just casted it and let the leg set. Maybe that experience is atypical, but if not, that seems like a pretty crappy way to determine procedures. I also want to say (so that I don't get attacked) that I don't disagree with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the US, I think it's a step in the right direction, and I wish everyone could have affordable health care coverage. But I think that a single payer system is a step too far. EDIT: I don't think the system the US has in place right now is better that a single payer system. I agree that it is worse. So showing me how terrible my country's current system is unnecessary. I already agree. But I do think what the system will be after the ACA will be better than a single payer system.

I believe that a single payer health care system is inherently flawed, CMV. I will start by being honest that it's very possible that I haven't been thoroughly educated on this subject. Living in the States, I also have little firsthand experience with single payer systems. That said, I know there are often very long wait times for "nonessential procedures." Having worked in the medical field in the past, I know that what medicine deems elective or "nonessential" can often times be pretty essential to us as patients. Wikipedia uses examples like mastectomies, kidney donations, and hernia surgery, but the list goes on. I think long wait times for these types of procedures is not only dangerous, but unnecessary and yet it seems to be very common in single payer systems. Additionally, it seems to me that your choice in which kind of procedure you get seems relatively out of your control. If you want medical treatment, it seems to be almost entirely up to the doctor to choose which type of procedure you undergo. I think those types of decisions should be left to the patient. Just as an example of what I mean, I had a friend who lived in Canada for several years and she broke her leg while she was over there and she was pretty much forced into getting screws and some other metal she really didn't want put into her leg because she didn't really have a choice for how to get it taken care of. She spoke with a doctor here in America a few years later who said it would have been a lot less invasive (but equally effective) to have just casted it and let the leg set. Maybe that experience is atypical, but if not, that seems like a pretty crappy way to determine procedures. I also want to say (so that I don't get attacked) that I don't disagree with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the US, I think it's a step in the right direction, and I wish everyone could have affordable health care coverage. But I think that a single payer system is a step too far. EDIT: I don't think the system the US has in place right now is better that a single payer system. I agree that it is worse. So showing me how terrible my country's current system is unnecessary. I already agree. But I do think what the system will be after the ACA will be better than a single payer system.

t3_1tr0ku

Laws that legalize preferential treatment or protections are themselves discriminatory and are only beneficial to politically popular movements, while degrading the quality of life for less popular disenfranchised groups that also deserve then the same treatment, short, ugly and the stupid CMV

* Laws that legalize preferential treatment are themselves discriminatory. (Definition #2 - "Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." You are recognizing that one class of people are different than another, and are treated differently) * Life is inherently unfair * Certain groups are politically popular, while others are not * Popular groups obtain special treatment * Unpopular groups then lose competitive advantage Other points of relevance * Height is another common form of discrimination in job markets. It is said that every inch of someone's height adds $789 per year to their salary. http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspx * People who are considered unattractive make 10-15% less than their attractive counterpart. (the next study found the penalty to be 24%) http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9516.html * People who are attractive make anywhere from 15% to many multiples more depending on job type and relevance to that job. http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/AustralianBeauty.pdf * People who are unintelligent make vastly less than intelligent people do. Intelligence is a large part born trait. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html#.UrxtQLSC4aU Of course you are now forced to claim that you do in fact support these efforts because otherwise you a practicing preferential discrimination. **Why is it okay to offer preferential treatment to someone that is a black male, yet deny preferential treatment to an ugly female?** **Why is it okay to offer preferential treatment to a gay female, yet deny preferential treatment to a short male?** So now you add * Level of attractiveness * Height To your protected class definitions, since no one has control over their height or general level of attractiveness (everyone has the same access to dress & general makeup) But now you're in a really sticky situation. **Why is it okay that you offer preferential treatment to someone who is a woman, and yet deny preferential treatment to someone who is born an intellectually inferior male?** Certainly a WOMAN is entitled to make 100% of the wage a man makes, then why is a DULLARD who was born with the same lack of control over their destiny not entitled to make the same wage if they were born to at least average intelligence (correcting for environmental effects) ? Now you must either subsidize them by forcing employers to hire them at average intelligence rates (which is unlikely for a side for you to pick) or be forced to either admit "life is inherently unfair" or that yes you should distribute a portion of taxes to them for them to have as income, free to do with whatever they want. People who are taller than average or considered more attractive than average would need to pay a penalty. Or you'd have to make it discriminatory to pay someone a higher rate to someone that is taller or attractive (and ignore the fact that discrimination occurs anyways or fight a perpetual war against reality). Similarly you'd also need to put in place discriminatory hiring policies that ensure the distribution of tall to short candidates in jobs is roughly equal based on natural distribution, and the same with attractiveness. The same thing that lawyers and enforcement branches do with race and gender. Otherwise you're for selective preferential treatment, and not actually against discrimination. Which you could counter "I only want to protect against discrimination, I shouldn't be denied a job because I'm gay or black." Why should you be denied a job because you're ugly? "No one would deny someone a job because they're short" Sure, but then why are you fighting for equal wages for women? It doesn't have to just be about denying jobs. Certainly you don't support equal wages for women but not for people who are short. Analyzing this deeper it should be obvious that life is inherently unfair and trying to legislate morality is ridiculous.

Laws that legalize preferential treatment or protections are themselves discriminatory and are only beneficial to politically popular movements, while degrading the quality of life for less popular disenfranchised groups that also deserve then the same treatment, short, ugly and the stupid CMV. * Laws that legalize preferential treatment are themselves discriminatory. (Definition #2 - "Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." You are recognizing that one class of people are different than another, and are treated differently) * Life is inherently unfair * Certain groups are politically popular, while others are not * Popular groups obtain special treatment * Unpopular groups then lose competitive advantage Other points of relevance * Height is another common form of discrimination in job markets. It is said that every inch of someone's height adds $789 per year to their salary. http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspx * People who are considered unattractive make 10-15% less than their attractive counterpart. (the next study found the penalty to be 24%) http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9516.html * People who are attractive make anywhere from 15% to many multiples more depending on job type and relevance to that job. http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/AustralianBeauty.pdf * People who are unintelligent make vastly less than intelligent people do. Intelligence is a large part born trait. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html#.UrxtQLSC4aU Of course you are now forced to claim that you do in fact support these efforts because otherwise you a practicing preferential discrimination. **Why is it okay to offer preferential treatment to someone that is a black male, yet deny preferential treatment to an ugly female?** **Why is it okay to offer preferential treatment to a gay female, yet deny preferential treatment to a short male?** So now you add * Level of attractiveness * Height To your protected class definitions, since no one has control over their height or general level of attractiveness (everyone has the same access to dress & general makeup) But now you're in a really sticky situation. **Why is it okay that you offer preferential treatment to someone who is a woman, and yet deny preferential treatment to someone who is born an intellectually inferior male?** Certainly a WOMAN is entitled to make 100% of the wage a man makes, then why is a DULLARD who was born with the same lack of control over their destiny not entitled to make the same wage if they were born to at least average intelligence (correcting for environmental effects) ? Now you must either subsidize them by forcing employers to hire them at average intelligence rates (which is unlikely for a side for you to pick) or be forced to either admit "life is inherently unfair" or that yes you should distribute a portion of taxes to them for them to have as income, free to do with whatever they want. People who are taller than average or considered more attractive than average would need to pay a penalty. Or you'd have to make it discriminatory to pay someone a higher rate to someone that is taller or attractive (and ignore the fact that discrimination occurs anyways or fight a perpetual war against reality). Similarly you'd also need to put in place discriminatory hiring policies that ensure the distribution of tall to short candidates in jobs is roughly equal based on natural distribution, and the same with attractiveness. The same thing that lawyers and enforcement branches do with race and gender. Otherwise you're for selective preferential treatment, and not actually against discrimination. Which you could counter "I only want to protect against discrimination, I shouldn't be denied a job because I'm gay or black." Why should you be denied a job because you're ugly? "No one would deny someone a job because they're short" Sure, but then why are you fighting for equal wages for women? It doesn't have to just be about denying jobs. Certainly you don't support equal wages for women but not for people who are short. Analyzing this deeper it should be obvious that life is inherently unfair and trying to legislate morality is ridiculous.

t3_5n8p6q

CMV: I want to post revenge p0rn of my last ex-girlfriend.

She was a 10/10. She is pretty, young and hot. I thought I found my soulmate. I loved her more than anyone else. She started to live with me. During all this time she told me how hard she wanted to have a family. Because of this we had unprotected sex during months... one day she decided to move back to her parent's for stupid reasons... days later she told me she was pregnat... days later she aborted. I have not children and having one was my ultimate dream because I loved her very much. Like one month later she posted a pic of her with her newboyfriend... she is a gold-digger I did not want to realize that but she is. I have pics of her and I want to revenge... I want to posted them and doxxing her... to avoid other people go throug I went. Please tell me why I am 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: I want to post revenge p0rn of my last ex-girlfriend. She was a 10/10. She is pretty, young and hot. I thought I found my soulmate. I loved her more than anyone else. She started to live with me. During all this time she told me how hard she wanted to have a family. Because of this we had unprotected sex during months... one day she decided to move back to her parent's for stupid reasons... days later she told me she was pregnat... days later she aborted. I have not children and having one was my ultimate dream because I loved her very much. Like one month later she posted a pic of her with her newboyfriend... she is a gold-digger I did not want to realize that but she is. I have pics of her and I want to revenge... I want to posted them and doxxing her... to avoid other people go throug I went. Please tell me why I am wrong.

t3_1tz5ur

I believe transexuality is a mental disorder. CMV.

There is significant proof that homosexuals have an evolutionary purpose: to act as parents to those who do not have any (for whatever reason). I believe that and accept that as sufficient evidence as to why we have homosexuals when it may seem that homosexuality is "different" and "not normal." However, I have yet to find any evidence to suggest why transexuals are a part of our society. They want to be a different sex (i.e. something they just aren't). How is wanting to be the opposite sex normal? It's just like saying that you want to be an animal or a chair. It's just not normal. I heard the homosexuality as an evolutionary tool from my psychology teacher a while ago. Unfortunately, I cannot find a source.

I believe transexuality is a mental disorder. CMV. There is significant proof that homosexuals have an evolutionary purpose: to act as parents to those who do not have any (for whatever reason). I believe that and accept that as sufficient evidence as to why we have homosexuals when it may seem that homosexuality is "different" and "not normal." However, I have yet to find any evidence to suggest why transexuals are a part of our society. They want to be a different sex (i.e. something they just aren't). How is wanting to be the opposite sex normal? It's just like saying that you want to be an animal or a chair. It's just not normal. I heard the homosexuality as an evolutionary tool from my psychology teacher a while ago. Unfortunately, I cannot find a source.

t3_1ux2z2

I think that the introduction of goal-line technology in Soccer is unecessary and against the spirit of the game. CMV

Football has got along perfectly well for the first 150 years without the use of technology. So what has changed? The first thing is obviously that the technology exists now. But more fundamentally than that there is more money in the game and that is what is driving the clamour for change. The corinthian spirit is dead. The view that you could just accept the slings and arrows of referee's decisions, with the certainty that though your toast fell face down today it will be different next week, is dead. The difference these days is that there is too much money riding on the results and it's that rather than fairness that is driving this. However that is not my main objection. My main concern is that goal-line technology is the thin end of the wedge. And now that s allowed it is a matter of time before offside decisions, whether a foul was in the penalty area and even, ultimately, diving will become subject to video review. An example of this could be seen recently in a Man City v Liverpool game where Raheem Sterling was incorrectly called offside. The thread was filled with people calling for technology. Pandora's box has been openned. When I have watched American sports such as Baseball and American Football what has frustrated me has been the slow, monotonous progress of genuinely exciting games. I fear for football becoming just as stop start. My final objection is that this will ultimately deprive us of one of the finest joys of being a football fan. Namely nursing a grievance for years over a ludicrous cock up by an official.

I think that the introduction of goal-line technology in Soccer is unecessary and against the spirit of the game. CMV. Football has got along perfectly well for the first 150 years without the use of technology. So what has changed? The first thing is obviously that the technology exists now. But more fundamentally than that there is more money in the game and that is what is driving the clamour for change. The corinthian spirit is dead. The view that you could just accept the slings and arrows of referee's decisions, with the certainty that though your toast fell face down today it will be different next week, is dead. The difference these days is that there is too much money riding on the results and it's that rather than fairness that is driving this. However that is not my main objection. My main concern is that goal-line technology is the thin end of the wedge. And now that s allowed it is a matter of time before offside decisions, whether a foul was in the penalty area and even, ultimately, diving will become subject to video review. An example of this could be seen recently in a Man City v Liverpool game where Raheem Sterling was incorrectly called offside. The thread was filled with people calling for technology. Pandora's box has been openned. When I have watched American sports such as Baseball and American Football what has frustrated me has been the slow, monotonous progress of genuinely exciting games. I fear for football becoming just as stop start. My final objection is that this will ultimately deprive us of one of the finest joys of being a football fan. Namely nursing a grievance for years over a ludicrous cock up by an official.

t3_2ioqp4

CMV: BIS is the unattractive step cousin of the business degrees.

Quick explanation; my college requires you do two years of "pre-business" and then apply towards a major in the field of study you want to get your degree in. I have to apply for my field by this Sunday, and I'm unsure which major I'm interested in. My counselor asked if I had any interest in BIS, and for whatever reason I have this idea that BIS is a field where overweight lazy nerds go to die, with no room for growth or potential. I fairly positive this is incorrect, but I think it's mostly due to misinformation, or more likely, not enough information about it. Can anyone please help me CMV and see the pretty and beneficial side to BIS?

CMV: BIS is the unattractive step cousin of the business degrees. Quick explanation; my college requires you do two years of "pre-business" and then apply towards a major in the field of study you want to get your degree in. I have to apply for my field by this Sunday, and I'm unsure which major I'm interested in. My counselor asked if I had any interest in BIS, and for whatever reason I have this idea that BIS is a field where overweight lazy nerds go to die, with no room for growth or potential. I fairly positive this is incorrect, but I think it's mostly due to misinformation, or more likely, not enough information about it. Can anyone please help me CMV and see the pretty and beneficial side to BIS?

t3_36we30

CMV: Lying about your beliefs when that means saving your life and allies does not necessarily indicate lack of courage but is the only logical thing to do

Many people say that they would rather die than "betray" their beliefs and throughout the history in many wars, revolutions or even in the middle ages etc people have been sentenced to death because they refused to dismiss their political/religious views oficially, even if that does not mean that they actually change them. However I think that since one is more valuable and useful alive than dead, if lying means getting away with it it is not immoral. On the contrary, if someone is caught then next time they will be more cautious and they might be able to continue what they were doing before their arrest (selling information, working against an oppressive government etc.). However, if they are asked to cooperate with the enemy, death is the more appropriate and moral choice. What do you think? What would you do if you got caught and were required to make a choice like this? Edit: grammar Update: It seems that when one's death becomes known and actually has an impact on other people, dying is the best option. I am still not convinced though that the death of an "insignificant" and unknown person would offer anything but pain for their family and thus they should lie. Update 2: The conclusion is that as in most matters the answer depends on the 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: Lying about your beliefs when that means saving your life and allies does not necessarily indicate lack of courage but is the only logical thing to do. Many people say that they would rather die than "betray" their beliefs and throughout the history in many wars, revolutions or even in the middle ages etc people have been sentenced to death because they refused to dismiss their political/religious views oficially, even if that does not mean that they actually change them. However I think that since one is more valuable and useful alive than dead, if lying means getting away with it it is not immoral. On the contrary, if someone is caught then next time they will be more cautious and they might be able to continue what they were doing before their arrest (selling information, working against an oppressive government etc.). However, if they are asked to cooperate with the enemy, death is the more appropriate and moral choice. What do you think? What would you do if you got caught and were required to make a choice like this? Edit: grammar Update: It seems that when one's death becomes known and actually has an impact on other people, dying is the best option. I am still not convinced though that the death of an "insignificant" and unknown person would offer anything but pain for their family and thus they should lie. Update 2: The conclusion is that as in most matters the answer depends on the 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!*

t3_3d9kf3

CMV: Capitalism is moral and fair for everyone

I have a friend who's a commie and he's stopped arguing with me. His main point is that it doesn't make sense to be able to own things you don't use. Wheres the line, though? You don't use all the stuff in your apt at the same time, perhaps like a self made millionaire doesn't live in all of their houses at the same time, or use all their businesses or property at the same time. You may say self made millionaires are a myth, but on relatable scale everyone risks their past cash/energy when you trade, its only a difference of mental work and pressure levels with big numbers. Open markets and individual property rights are what develop nations, as evidenced by the increase of mental workforces and decrease of labor workforces. Under my definition of capitalism, there is a small state which exists solely to protect the rights of individuals, their intellectual property and all other non-conflicting individual rights (free speech, free association, etc). People who are physically unable to work can be taken care of by their families, thanks to all that sweet wealth pouring down from innovation and free trade.

CMV: Capitalism is moral and fair for everyone. I have a friend who's a commie and he's stopped arguing with me. His main point is that it doesn't make sense to be able to own things you don't use. Wheres the line, though? You don't use all the stuff in your apt at the same time, perhaps like a self made millionaire doesn't live in all of their houses at the same time, or use all their businesses or property at the same time. You may say self made millionaires are a myth, but on relatable scale everyone risks their past cash/energy when you trade, its only a difference of mental work and pressure levels with big numbers. Open markets and individual property rights are what develop nations, as evidenced by the increase of mental workforces and decrease of labor workforces. Under my definition of capitalism, there is a small state which exists solely to protect the rights of individuals, their intellectual property and all other non-conflicting individual rights (free speech, free association, etc). People who are physically unable to work can be taken care of by their families, thanks to all that sweet wealth pouring down from innovation and free trade.

t3_3tztsy

CMV: Soldiers who have had a direct hand in civilian maimings/deaths deserve chronic PTSD/nightmares after the fact.

I had an acquaintance return from Afghanistan recently, and they seem mentally plagued by the amounts of fucked up shit they saw. What I don't think I was prepared for was hearing about the things that they *did* there. I heard enough that I found myself completely unsympathetic to their obvious PTSD-esque mental scarring. Granted, some of these awful acts seemed like genuine mistakes, but they did describe how they felt like they didn't care/were desensitized at the time about the damage they inflicted on other humans. The guilt I know they now feel hurts them a lot, but I feel like they deserve it. The damage they inflicted on others is permanent, and it seems that PTSD is a punishment that fits the crime, so to speak. It's worth noting that I'm also slightly biased because of my cultural link to the region (born and raised in a culture in close proximity), so that is part of why this is my knee jerk reaction. I'm interested in hearing opposite views to this, and am wondering if someone can change my view.

CMV: Soldiers who have had a direct hand in civilian maimings/deaths deserve chronic PTSD/nightmares after the fact. I had an acquaintance return from Afghanistan recently, and they seem mentally plagued by the amounts of fucked up shit they saw. What I don't think I was prepared for was hearing about the things that they *did* there. I heard enough that I found myself completely unsympathetic to their obvious PTSD-esque mental scarring. Granted, some of these awful acts seemed like genuine mistakes, but they did describe how they felt like they didn't care/were desensitized at the time about the damage they inflicted on other humans. The guilt I know they now feel hurts them a lot, but I feel like they deserve it. The damage they inflicted on others is permanent, and it seems that PTSD is a punishment that fits the crime, so to speak. It's worth noting that I'm also slightly biased because of my cultural link to the region (born and raised in a culture in close proximity), so that is part of why this is my knee jerk reaction. I'm interested in hearing opposite views to this, and am wondering if someone can change my view.

t3_5t2ntv

CMV: The United States cannot survive the level of division we are seeing today.

I feel like in the last ten years or so, America has become more and more divided. People are less willing to talk to each other about our political differences, and seem totally uninterested in finding where we might agree. I am not innocent in this. Until just a few minutes ago I had a very anti-Trump username. I began feeling bad about it because I'm looking around and seeing the anger on both sides, and getting worried. I am personally still angry, and still want to see President Trump fail, but I am at the point now where I don't see how our country survives when the average citizens hate each other as much as we do. So many Democrats, myself included, hate anyone who voted for Trump. So many Trump supporters hate anyone who dares to question him. We seem to disagree on fundamental principles, not just policies. Please, try to convince me that the country will survive this, hopefully without resorting to violence. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The United States cannot survive the level of division we are seeing today. I feel like in the last ten years or so, America has become more and more divided. People are less willing to talk to each other about our political differences, and seem totally uninterested in finding where we might agree. I am not innocent in this. Until just a few minutes ago I had a very anti-Trump username. I began feeling bad about it because I'm looking around and seeing the anger on both sides, and getting worried. I am personally still angry, and still want to see President Trump fail, but I am at the point now where I don't see how our country survives when the average citizens hate each other as much as we do. So many Democrats, myself included, hate anyone who voted for Trump. So many Trump supporters hate anyone who dares to question him. We seem to disagree on fundamental principles, not just policies. Please, try to convince me that the country will survive this, hopefully without resorting to violence.

t3_24xf2r

CMV: I don't understand why anyone would drink 2% milk.

Whole milk, my dairy drink of choice, is by far the tastiest milk, though it has a lot of calories and fat that I can understand some people would want to avoid. Skim milk also makes sense to me because, even though it doesn't taste nearly as good as whole milk, it's got about half the calories and none of the fat. But choosing 2% over whole milk makes no sense in my mind. The calorie difference is there but it's not very significant, and the taste difference is huge! How does one justify that? You might as well go all the way health-wise when you're already sacrificing that much flavor. I talked to a friend about this and he brought up the point that some people were raised on 2%. I think that's just sickening. The parents shouldn't even have that in the house, and if they do, they should also be getting whole milk for their kids. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't understand why anyone would drink 2% milk. Whole milk, my dairy drink of choice, is by far the tastiest milk, though it has a lot of calories and fat that I can understand some people would want to avoid. Skim milk also makes sense to me because, even though it doesn't taste nearly as good as whole milk, it's got about half the calories and none of the fat. But choosing 2% over whole milk makes no sense in my mind. The calorie difference is there but it's not very significant, and the taste difference is huge! How does one justify that? You might as well go all the way health-wise when you're already sacrificing that much flavor. I talked to a friend about this and he brought up the point that some people were raised on 2%. I think that's just sickening. The parents shouldn't even have that in the house, and if they do, they should also be getting whole milk for their kids.

t3_4g4u00

CMV: "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston is a mediocre novel

It's considered a classic, and lauded by critics, but its popularity confounds me. I understand the message it's making, and its documenting what life is like for African-Americans in the South in the 1930s is pretty novel, but the book itself is shoddy in all aspects. The symbolism was either incredibly trite, like the birds/bees metaphor, or outright stupid, like the dog on the cow's back during the flood. The story itself is poorly-paced and uninteresting, and the dialect is so disruptive that I had to skim through it in every instance. I don't have something against dialect in general - in Huckleberry Finn it's done quite well - but here it was a challenge to read and made it a lot less enjoyable. Perhaps it's way better if you can relate to it in someway, and I totally understand that - I just don't see anything of real literary merit in the book. Even the metaphorical language placed here and there was disruptive to the point that I had to read it another one or two times. Despite all this, it's considered one of the greatest novels of the past century by Time and countless others. I'm sure there's something I'm missing, and so if you love the book or simply enjoyed it then I'd really appreciate some insight here. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston is a mediocre novel. It's considered a classic, and lauded by critics, but its popularity confounds me. I understand the message it's making, and its documenting what life is like for African-Americans in the South in the 1930s is pretty novel, but the book itself is shoddy in all aspects. The symbolism was either incredibly trite, like the birds/bees metaphor, or outright stupid, like the dog on the cow's back during the flood. The story itself is poorly-paced and uninteresting, and the dialect is so disruptive that I had to skim through it in every instance. I don't have something against dialect in general - in Huckleberry Finn it's done quite well - but here it was a challenge to read and made it a lot less enjoyable. Perhaps it's way better if you can relate to it in someway, and I totally understand that - I just don't see anything of real literary merit in the book. Even the metaphorical language placed here and there was disruptive to the point that I had to read it another one or two times. Despite all this, it's considered one of the greatest novels of the past century by Time and countless others. I'm sure there's something I'm missing, and so if you love the book or simply enjoyed it then I'd really appreciate some insight here.

t3_440dzw

CMV: Critical Race Theory unnecessarily redefines the term “racism”.

rac·ism noun: racism 1 the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prej·u·dice noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices 1 1. 
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."English prejudice against foreigners" The word “racism” as I see it, is an umbrella term for anything that fits within the above definition. “Institutionalized racism” would therefore be under the umbrella of “racism”. To redefine the umbrella term “racism” as prejudice + the power to enforce said prejudice, is counter productive in communication. Critical Race Theory (CRT) does indeed deviate from the principles of colorblindness but that is not my point of contention. If one needed to describe the racism that has been built into the fundamental structure of things, then institutionalized racism serves the purpose. If one wants to describe prejudice + power, then instead of redefining lay term “racism” one ought to develop a new or compounded term to serve that specific purpose. When focusing in on specifics one ought to be specific not less. I do understand that the terms “racism” and “prejudice” are not sophisticated enough to describe everything that must necessarily be discussed. Lets look at an example to illustrate that. “A black man has experienced racism from white people his whole life. He does not believe that white people or black people are superior to one another, but he does indeed bear mistrust and anger towards white people as a whole due to his life experiences. “ Clearly the terms “prejudiced” or “racist” do not describe the above example. This certainly calls for a new word or combination of words. Instead of doing that, however, what I am seeing is the redefinition of the umbrella term. This has caused no small amount of confusion and argument in the efforts of CRT scholars in their attempts to generate a race-conscious society. If the goal of CRT scholars and the groups that use this theory is to generate race-consciousness and move away from the prior ideals of colorblindness, then crystal clear communication is essential. I have personally witnessed close friends arguing over what the word “racist” means, when what they could have been discussing might have been issues of race-consciousness and ways of furthering that goal at large and in ones daily life. Passive oppression should be confronted with clear terms and parameters, and it is counter productive to try and redefine a very general term when more specific terms can accurately described what you are trying to communicate. I have also seen an additional negative impact as well. I have seen people using the CRT definition of racism to claim that they can not possibly be “racist” (as they were black and not part of the white majority who hold prejudice + power). While based on their newfound definition, this was true, to their audience they sounded entirely mad. Furthermore if one does redefine the term “racist”, what term are they inserting in its place? If racism no longer means racism, the term prejudice can not be shoehorned into its place. You still need to invent a new word or combination of words to fill that void. The word “racist” in its non-CRT definition is still useful in a great many situations and can not merely be abandoned. Essentially we either need to use “racism” as an umbrella term and have more specific definitions within it, or if we are to redefine “racism”, we need to invent a new word to take its place. Either way we still have the same problem of needing a new word. So, there is my view. Am I wrong? If so, please change my view or show me what I am missing in my understanding. A great deal of people follow CRT concepts, and I like the CRT concepts for the most part. It is this unnecessary redefinition that throws me.

CMV: Critical Race Theory unnecessarily redefines the term “racism”. rac·ism noun: racism 1 the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prej·u·dice noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices 1 1. 
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."English prejudice against foreigners" The word “racism” as I see it, is an umbrella term for anything that fits within the above definition. “Institutionalized racism” would therefore be under the umbrella of “racism”. To redefine the umbrella term “racism” as prejudice + the power to enforce said prejudice, is counter productive in communication. Critical Race Theory (CRT) does indeed deviate from the principles of colorblindness but that is not my point of contention. If one needed to describe the racism that has been built into the fundamental structure of things, then institutionalized racism serves the purpose. If one wants to describe prejudice + power, then instead of redefining lay term “racism” one ought to develop a new or compounded term to serve that specific purpose. When focusing in on specifics one ought to be specific not less. I do understand that the terms “racism” and “prejudice” are not sophisticated enough to describe everything that must necessarily be discussed. Lets look at an example to illustrate that. “A black man has experienced racism from white people his whole life. He does not believe that white people or black people are superior to one another, but he does indeed bear mistrust and anger towards white people as a whole due to his life experiences. “ Clearly the terms “prejudiced” or “racist” do not describe the above example. This certainly calls for a new word or combination of words. Instead of doing that, however, what I am seeing is the redefinition of the umbrella term. This has caused no small amount of confusion and argument in the efforts of CRT scholars in their attempts to generate a race-conscious society. If the goal of CRT scholars and the groups that use this theory is to generate race-consciousness and move away from the prior ideals of colorblindness, then crystal clear communication is essential. I have personally witnessed close friends arguing over what the word “racist” means, when what they could have been discussing might have been issues of race-consciousness and ways of furthering that goal at large and in ones daily life. Passive oppression should be confronted with clear terms and parameters, and it is counter productive to try and redefine a very general term when more specific terms can accurately described what you are trying to communicate. I have also seen an additional negative impact as well. I have seen people using the CRT definition of racism to claim that they can not possibly be “racist” (as they were black and not part of the white majority who hold prejudice + power). While based on their newfound definition, this was true, to their audience they sounded entirely mad. Furthermore if one does redefine the term “racist”, what term are they inserting in its place? If racism no longer means racism, the term prejudice can not be shoehorned into its place. You still need to invent a new word or combination of words to fill that void. The word “racist” in its non-CRT definition is still useful in a great many situations and can not merely be abandoned. Essentially we either need to use “racism” as an umbrella term and have more specific definitions within it, or if we are to redefine “racism”, we need to invent a new word to take its place. Either way we still have the same problem of needing a new word. So, there is my view. Am I wrong? If so, please change my view or show me what I am missing in my understanding. A great deal of people follow CRT concepts, and I like the CRT concepts for the most part. It is this unnecessary redefinition that throws me.

t3_1vjjjf

We are in our most natural state as children. It is the job of educators, parents, governments, and other authority figures to beat the shit out of your inner child, so they can turn you into a mindless zombie who acts out some absurd idea of "this is what an adult is supposed to do." CMV.

Why are children so joyful and carefree, while adults are often such miserable sacks of anxiety, depression, or some other form of psychosis? I believe that decades of learned repression are responsible. It all starts in the classroom with "Sit down Johnny, stop throwing that pencil at Suzy!" But after being told over and over that acting on your desires is unacceptable, you need to shut up and do your work, you learn to repress those desires. "Yes, yes, I do really want to do this work. I want to get this A." In a sense, you learn to create in your mind a little teacher that is yelling at you to stop being an immature brat and instead be "responsible." "Growing up" is the process of fully identifying with that little teacher you've created, so that you do the "responsible" thing without the need for an actual teacher threatening to send you to the Principle's office. Your conception of what it means to be an adult is not purely determined by teachers and parents either - this is bigger than that. It's also your culture (or subculture): how as a man/woman you are "supposed" to behave, or what is cool/uncool, for example. I believe that kind of pressure is equally (or more) powerful, and it also serves to repress your natural childlike state. We could say that in addition to the little teacher you created in your mind, you create an equivalent figure for the group of peers you're trying to fit into, and it yells at you whenever you do something uncool. Ground between these two rocks, authority and peer pressure, I believe that little is left of your inner child by age 20 or so. Its kind of still there, but it's been badly abused, shoved into the basement and chained to the wall. Many people have forgotten its even there. They're too busy trying to act out some script that was given to them, that really has nothing to do with who they truly are. Who doesn't want to be accepted? If anything, that's the only part of the inner child still left intact: this desperate desire to fit in. No one represses that desire, because it is so essential for being a zombie. Yes, you have to learn how to be responsible and how to interact with your peers. You have to learn how to function in the adult world. But is functioning living? I'd argue that you can only truly live by being in touch with your authentic desires, by stubbornly insisting on your right to be a child - that is, to be a natural development of the person you were when you were a child. This is probably one of the most difficult things you can attempt - a zombified adult insists that everyone around him be a zombie as well, so most likely you will have to go around pretending you are a zombie too most of the time. The only way to make this bearable is if you find some non-zombie companions, around whom you are free to be your true, 100% self around. I welcome any challenge to my viewpoint.

We are in our most natural state as children. It is the job of educators, parents, governments, and other authority figures to beat the shit out of your inner child, so they can turn you into a mindless zombie who acts out some absurd idea of "this is what an adult is supposed to do." CMV. Why are children so joyful and carefree, while adults are often such miserable sacks of anxiety, depression, or some other form of psychosis? I believe that decades of learned repression are responsible. It all starts in the classroom with "Sit down Johnny, stop throwing that pencil at Suzy!" But after being told over and over that acting on your desires is unacceptable, you need to shut up and do your work, you learn to repress those desires. "Yes, yes, I do really want to do this work. I want to get this A." In a sense, you learn to create in your mind a little teacher that is yelling at you to stop being an immature brat and instead be "responsible." "Growing up" is the process of fully identifying with that little teacher you've created, so that you do the "responsible" thing without the need for an actual teacher threatening to send you to the Principle's office. Your conception of what it means to be an adult is not purely determined by teachers and parents either - this is bigger than that. It's also your culture (or subculture): how as a man/woman you are "supposed" to behave, or what is cool/uncool, for example. I believe that kind of pressure is equally (or more) powerful, and it also serves to repress your natural childlike state. We could say that in addition to the little teacher you created in your mind, you create an equivalent figure for the group of peers you're trying to fit into, and it yells at you whenever you do something uncool. Ground between these two rocks, authority and peer pressure, I believe that little is left of your inner child by age 20 or so. Its kind of still there, but it's been badly abused, shoved into the basement and chained to the wall. Many people have forgotten its even there. They're too busy trying to act out some script that was given to them, that really has nothing to do with who they truly are. Who doesn't want to be accepted? If anything, that's the only part of the inner child still left intact: this desperate desire to fit in. No one represses that desire, because it is so essential for being a zombie. Yes, you have to learn how to be responsible and how to interact with your peers. You have to learn how to function in the adult world. But is functioning living? I'd argue that you can only truly live by being in touch with your authentic desires, by stubbornly insisting on your right to be a child - that is, to be a natural development of the person you were when you were a child. This is probably one of the most difficult things you can attempt - a zombified adult insists that everyone around him be a zombie as well, so most likely you will have to go around pretending you are a zombie too most of the time. The only way to make this bearable is if you find some non-zombie companions, around whom you are free to be your true, 100% self around. I welcome any challenge to my viewpoint.

t3_5strfi

CMV: Videogames are always bad for humans overall

Videogames provide no net positive for players. They do not train the player with any transferable or useful skills for the rest of life. They waste away the player's body. Their stable and predictable, guaranteed (if not timely) reward systems are hyper addictive. They are a waste of a human's money inside our culture. They exist solely to eat our time and give us useless,brief happy feelings that ultimately leave us more unhappy inside. They have not to date explored any ideas or sparked any conversations in society that have provided a positive benefit to our culture or lives. Any education of real world concepts inside of games is quickly forgotten or remembered by only a tiny populace of the playing community. Videogames are a waste of time. _____ And that's why I make them! > *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: Videogames are always bad for humans overall. Videogames provide no net positive for players. They do not train the player with any transferable or useful skills for the rest of life. They waste away the player's body. Their stable and predictable, guaranteed (if not timely) reward systems are hyper addictive. They are a waste of a human's money inside our culture. They exist solely to eat our time and give us useless,brief happy feelings that ultimately leave us more unhappy inside. They have not to date explored any ideas or sparked any conversations in society that have provided a positive benefit to our culture or lives. Any education of real world concepts inside of games is quickly forgotten or remembered by only a tiny populace of the playing community. Videogames are a waste of time. _____ And that's why I make them! > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_35avrw

CMV: As a grad student, I'll be rolling in the dough

Background: I am finishing up my undergraduate career and plan to attend graduate school next year. I have been offered a finical package, and sure it's not much (24k) but it covers the basics (health, tuition) and I have a fair bit going in my pocket after taxes and savings. **My expenses** | Name | Amount | |:--:|:--:| | Housing | -5k | | Food | -5.2k | | Salary | +24k | | Taxes | -3.6k | | Savings | -5k | | **Net** | 8.8k | *Taken care of:* Health, tuition. To me, a poor college kid, that's a ton. That's like a ton, and I don't have any other debts (like college loans) to worry about. I know grad students are not portrayed as being loaded; help me change my view! *EDIT:* Thanks for the responses! I have enough to live off in my current state but if something big (kids, new computer, new skis) comes up that'll be a little trickier. _____ > *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 grad student, I'll be rolling in the dough. Background: I am finishing up my undergraduate career and plan to attend graduate school next year. I have been offered a finical package, and sure it's not much (24k) but it covers the basics (health, tuition) and I have a fair bit going in my pocket after taxes and savings. **My expenses** | Name | Amount | |:--:|:--:| | Housing | -5k | | Food | -5.2k | | Salary | +24k | | Taxes | -3.6k | | Savings | -5k | | **Net** | 8.8k | *Taken care of:* Health, tuition. To me, a poor college kid, that's a ton. That's like a ton, and I don't have any other debts (like college loans) to worry about. I know grad students are not portrayed as being loaded; help me change my view! *EDIT:* Thanks for the responses! I have enough to live off in my current state but if something big (kids, new computer, new skis) comes up that'll be a little trickier.

t3_1rvwym

CMV: i see taxation as theft

so my line of reasoning goes something like this: if theft is the taking of ones property without their consent and taxes are collected without the consent of the taxed individual then isn't taxation theft? I consider property rights of individuals a given so if you have a dispute with that then you will likely have to change my view on that as well before an argument constructed on some system other than property rights will be able to change my view at this time i am only concerned with whether taxation is theft or not and not whether X could happen with/without taxation (e.g. without taxes who will build the roads?)

CMV: i see taxation as theft. so my line of reasoning goes something like this: if theft is the taking of ones property without their consent and taxes are collected without the consent of the taxed individual then isn't taxation theft? I consider property rights of individuals a given so if you have a dispute with that then you will likely have to change my view on that as well before an argument constructed on some system other than property rights will be able to change my view at this time i am only concerned with whether taxation is theft or not and not whether X could happen with/without taxation (e.g. without taxes who will build the roads?)

t3_1cb87a

I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV

I think prohibiting legal firearm ownership for felons is just making the problem worse. It helps encourage a subculture where felons don't feel welcomed back into the mainstream community and have more of an incentive to continue a cycle of crime. If they've paid their debt to society, shouldn't we be trying everything to assimilate them to law abiding citizens with full rights?

I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV. I think prohibiting legal firearm ownership for felons is just making the problem worse. It helps encourage a subculture where felons don't feel welcomed back into the mainstream community and have more of an incentive to continue a cycle of crime. If they've paid their debt to society, shouldn't we be trying everything to assimilate them to law abiding citizens with full rights?

t3_53k344

CMV: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is the greatest western film ever made.

I'll start right off the bat with stating that the main purpose of this thread isn't intended to be "let's shit on The Good the Bad and The Ugly", it's to present other westerns that are possibly superior to it. The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly has it all. It's got three great leading actors. Clint Eastwood is an absolute badass, and at his very best in the film as Blondie. Eli Wallach similarly gives the performance of his career as Tuco, a character that is humorous, that you can't help but like even though he is a disgraceful human being. Lee Van Cleef is always excellent, and as Angel Eyes he presents a character who just wants to make money, and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The story is riveting throughout the nearly 3 hour runtime, a true epic of cinema. The civil war backdrop works so well with the race to the treasure in the foreground. The final standoff might be the greatest standoff of all time, this one is tricky for me because I really love the standoff from For A Few Dollars More (so much emotion in that one!). I saved what might be the strongest element for last: THE SOUNDTRACK. Oh my goodness! So good! Even if you haven't seen the film, you have heard the soundtrack, and associate it with the western genre. My man Ennio Morricone knows how to score a film, I'll tell you what.

CMV: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is the greatest western film ever made. I'll start right off the bat with stating that the main purpose of this thread isn't intended to be "let's shit on The Good the Bad and The Ugly", it's to present other westerns that are possibly superior to it. The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly has it all. It's got three great leading actors. Clint Eastwood is an absolute badass, and at his very best in the film as Blondie. Eli Wallach similarly gives the performance of his career as Tuco, a character that is humorous, that you can't help but like even though he is a disgraceful human being. Lee Van Cleef is always excellent, and as Angel Eyes he presents a character who just wants to make money, and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The story is riveting throughout the nearly 3 hour runtime, a true epic of cinema. The civil war backdrop works so well with the race to the treasure in the foreground. The final standoff might be the greatest standoff of all time, this one is tricky for me because I really love the standoff from For A Few Dollars More (so much emotion in that one!). I saved what might be the strongest element for last: THE SOUNDTRACK. Oh my goodness! So good! Even if you haven't seen the film, you have heard the soundtrack, and associate it with the western genre. My man Ennio Morricone knows how to score a film, I'll tell you what.

t3_6nqqhc

CMV: Above all, Hillary Clinton lost the election because of Hillary Clinton herself

Political strategists have been trying to figure out what factors led to Hillary Clinton's loss ever since the election. Liberals tend to point towards the Russia hacks and Podesta emails whereas conservatives say it was because Trump was a man of the people and whatnot. I disagree with both, I think that the main reason Hillary Clinton lost was because Hillary Clinton was simply a weak candidate. Regardless of who the Republicans nominated, I'm positive that Clinton would've lost. Here are my 3 main points on why Hillary lost. **1. She had no real message.** Most average voters who aren't too involved in politics could not name one of Clinton's policies. Maybe a vague "equality" or something like that, but other candidates had easy to grasp policies that they drilled into your head. Everyone knows Trump wants to build a wall or that Bernie wants free college. **2. She had no charisma.** Successful politicians like Obama and even Bill Clinton are very charismatic people. Donald Trump aswell knows how to talk to his supporters. Hillary Clinton for the whole election always came off as robotic and just saying what she thought she needed to. **3. She's had a turbulent past.** This is probably the most obvious. Everyone can name at least a couple Clinton scandals. The email scandal, Benghazi, and need I get into the conspiracies about Clinton related deaths? In general, Hillary Clinton had all the traits of the loser in a presidential race. If someone asked you, "Would you elect a politician with no charisma, message, and is plagued with scandals?", I'm sure you would say no if you're a reasonable person. I'm not saying other factors like the DNC hacks, Podesta emails, etc weren't factors, but if none of my main points were true, I'm sure Hillary would've won by a comfortable margin. EDIT: **4. Bad strategy.** A lot of you pointed out that she did win the popular vote and thus it wasn't her fault. I still do think it was her fault she lost the electoral college vote. She didn't put enough focus in key defensive swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. She targeted states she didn't need to win so she could extend the reach of the Democratic Party in those states. She should've stuck to mainly defending Obama states so it is still her fault

CMV: Above all, Hillary Clinton lost the election because of Hillary Clinton herself. Political strategists have been trying to figure out what factors led to Hillary Clinton's loss ever since the election. Liberals tend to point towards the Russia hacks and Podesta emails whereas conservatives say it was because Trump was a man of the people and whatnot. I disagree with both, I think that the main reason Hillary Clinton lost was because Hillary Clinton was simply a weak candidate. Regardless of who the Republicans nominated, I'm positive that Clinton would've lost. Here are my 3 main points on why Hillary lost. **1. She had no real message.** Most average voters who aren't too involved in politics could not name one of Clinton's policies. Maybe a vague "equality" or something like that, but other candidates had easy to grasp policies that they drilled into your head. Everyone knows Trump wants to build a wall or that Bernie wants free college. **2. She had no charisma.** Successful politicians like Obama and even Bill Clinton are very charismatic people. Donald Trump aswell knows how to talk to his supporters. Hillary Clinton for the whole election always came off as robotic and just saying what she thought she needed to. **3. She's had a turbulent past.** This is probably the most obvious. Everyone can name at least a couple Clinton scandals. The email scandal, Benghazi, and need I get into the conspiracies about Clinton related deaths? In general, Hillary Clinton had all the traits of the loser in a presidential race. If someone asked you, "Would you elect a politician with no charisma, message, and is plagued with scandals?", I'm sure you would say no if you're a reasonable person. I'm not saying other factors like the DNC hacks, Podesta emails, etc weren't factors, but if none of my main points were true, I'm sure Hillary would've won by a comfortable margin. EDIT: **4. Bad strategy.** A lot of you pointed out that she did win the popular vote and thus it wasn't her fault. I still do think it was her fault she lost the electoral college vote. She didn't put enough focus in key defensive swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. She targeted states she didn't need to win so she could extend the reach of the Democratic Party in those states. She should've stuck to mainly defending Obama states so it is still her fault

t3_1bcsje

I don't think parents should lie to their kids about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc. CMV!

My parents told me they were real, and I had fun with it and wasn't filled with feelings of betrayal or anything when I found out the truth. Still, I'm not sure you can morally justify lying to your kids about something like that for years and years for the sake of them having more fun. What are your thoughts?

I don't think parents should lie to their kids about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc. CMV!. My parents told me they were real, and I had fun with it and wasn't filled with feelings of betrayal or anything when I found out the truth. Still, I'm not sure you can morally justify lying to your kids about something like that for years and years for the sake of them having more fun. What are your thoughts?

t3_59w03e

CMV: if you think testing a legislative idea at the state level is sufficient, it is outlandish to disavow legislative ideas tested at the national level in other countries

One of the things that frustrates me the most when I talk to Republicans is their argument for states' rights. They always say, "States function as an experimental testing ground for ideas. If they work, we can implement them on a larger scale, and we can do away with the ideas that fail." But when I ask why we can't model legislation after things that most European countries do, they generally respond, "Those countries are too small- the ideas will never scale up to the size of the US." While I understand that European nations operate in a vastly different economic climate than our own, why is it so outlandish to consider their ideas as valid on our national level? Shouldn't they be given more weight than an idea that worked in one state or a few states? I feel like it's just a convenient excuse to avoid conceding that higher taxes don't destroy the economic well-being of a nation. Edit: got busy at work, I'll try to respond to everyone soon! Good discussion so far Edit #2: back in action

CMV: if you think testing a legislative idea at the state level is sufficient, it is outlandish to disavow legislative ideas tested at the national level in other countries. One of the things that frustrates me the most when I talk to Republicans is their argument for states' rights. They always say, "States function as an experimental testing ground for ideas. If they work, we can implement them on a larger scale, and we can do away with the ideas that fail." But when I ask why we can't model legislation after things that most European countries do, they generally respond, "Those countries are too small- the ideas will never scale up to the size of the US." While I understand that European nations operate in a vastly different economic climate than our own, why is it so outlandish to consider their ideas as valid on our national level? Shouldn't they be given more weight than an idea that worked in one state or a few states? I feel like it's just a convenient excuse to avoid conceding that higher taxes don't destroy the economic well-being of a nation. Edit: got busy at work, I'll try to respond to everyone soon! Good discussion so far Edit #2: back in action

t3_3tgl2n

CMV: Governments and the media should not release the identifications of the terrorists they capture and/or kill.

I love reading that these guys are going down. But if it means the "organizations" have to scramble a bit more after the fact, I'd just as soon not know their names or locations. I think it would be wise to release generic info, like "Three terrorists were killed last night," without releasing any more deails. If the identifications remain a mystery, terrorist organizations won't know for certain if a leader is missing or awol, and they won't know if there's a new void to fill, thereby leaving their "organization" a little less stable and organized.

CMV: Governments and the media should not release the identifications of the terrorists they capture and/or kill. I love reading that these guys are going down. But if it means the "organizations" have to scramble a bit more after the fact, I'd just as soon not know their names or locations. I think it would be wise to release generic info, like "Three terrorists were killed last night," without releasing any more deails. If the identifications remain a mystery, terrorist organizations won't know for certain if a leader is missing or awol, and they won't know if there's a new void to fill, thereby leaving their "organization" a little less stable and organized.

t3_1thhob

CMV that there are no stupid questions

I don't think that there are stupid questions, because in my opinion a question itself needs intelligence. The intelligence to accept that other individuals in a society may have a completely different point of view than yourself. Scientists have taught some monkeys sign language. They were able to understand questions and answer them, but they were never seen asking questions. There are even questions which sound ridiculous at first, but are some of the complexest philosophical problems like for example: "Do you see the color, we both call green, the same way I see it?" So reddit change my view.

CMV that there are no stupid questions. I don't think that there are stupid questions, because in my opinion a question itself needs intelligence. The intelligence to accept that other individuals in a society may have a completely different point of view than yourself. Scientists have taught some monkeys sign language. They were able to understand questions and answer them, but they were never seen asking questions. There are even questions which sound ridiculous at first, but are some of the complexest philosophical problems like for example: "Do you see the color, we both call green, the same way I see it?" So reddit change my view.

t3_6e7gwf

CMV:change my view: the west is facing an existential crisis: the tumor that lodged in the GOP and birthed Trump

My feeling is that the movement which has been growing in the West and has taken control of the Republican Party in the US has created an existential threat to the West (to the Western Enlightenment I guess) that is as great as any since the fall of the Soviet Union. The course of world politics in my life has been a pushback against the totalitarianism of communism and towards representative governments. The US has been a driver of this movement in the world. Now, the US is working more closely with totalitarian regimes, showing more sympathy for tyrants than for countries that ostensibly share our core values of human rights and freedoms. I think this is an outgrowth of the anti-science, anti-global view and regressive elements in US society that have essentially captured the direction of the GOP. This has left the US with one functioning political party and one party that resembles a denialist movement pushing magical thinking in response to real world problems ('tax cuts for the rich will save us! There is no climate Change!'). This is an entirely anti-enlightenment position and since it has emerged, apparently organically inside the body of the country that has helped lead the world towards a more egalitarian and just existance this represents a crisis point. The damage of the next 4 years is going to be substantial and the US will have lost the confidence of the world to be able to adhere to a sane and west looking course. I am probably over-reacting - I'd really love to hear arguments that I am. _____ > *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:change my view: the west is facing an existential crisis: the tumor that lodged in the GOP and birthed Trump. My feeling is that the movement which has been growing in the West and has taken control of the Republican Party in the US has created an existential threat to the West (to the Western Enlightenment I guess) that is as great as any since the fall of the Soviet Union. The course of world politics in my life has been a pushback against the totalitarianism of communism and towards representative governments. The US has been a driver of this movement in the world. Now, the US is working more closely with totalitarian regimes, showing more sympathy for tyrants than for countries that ostensibly share our core values of human rights and freedoms. I think this is an outgrowth of the anti-science, anti-global view and regressive elements in US society that have essentially captured the direction of the GOP. This has left the US with one functioning political party and one party that resembles a denialist movement pushing magical thinking in response to real world problems ('tax cuts for the rich will save us! There is no climate Change!'). This is an entirely anti-enlightenment position and since it has emerged, apparently organically inside the body of the country that has helped lead the world towards a more egalitarian and just existance this represents a crisis point. The damage of the next 4 years is going to be substantial and the US will have lost the confidence of the world to be able to adhere to a sane and west looking course. I am probably over-reacting - I'd really love to hear arguments that I am.

t3_6uelu3

CMV: Being apolitical is not a form of privilege.

Being apolitical is a voiced opinion just like any other political position. It is the position opposite of politics. The notion that it is a privileged position is incorrect on its face. Just like any other political position it carries advantages and disadvantages. One of those advantages, is that a person does not have to be political and subdue their life with politics. Conversely, taking a side comes with benefits like taxation for specific groups of people, be it big business the poor or minority groups or otherwise. If I am in a position where I don't feel the need to further the rights for any of my political interests nor do I feel the need to further the rights of others being apolitical is a legitimate non-privileged position. This is largely because an altruistic vote does not exist. Choosing not to be compelled by guilt or patriotism is not a privilege it is a concession awarded by the position in the same way a person wants to pass health care or any other policy. The notion that it is privileged is flawed, because it presupposes that a person should *have* to advocate for others, when nobody who votes ever actually does that people only ever vote for their own interests which means a privileged political position cannot exist. > *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: Being apolitical is not a form of privilege. Being apolitical is a voiced opinion just like any other political position. It is the position opposite of politics. The notion that it is a privileged position is incorrect on its face. Just like any other political position it carries advantages and disadvantages. One of those advantages, is that a person does not have to be political and subdue their life with politics. Conversely, taking a side comes with benefits like taxation for specific groups of people, be it big business the poor or minority groups or otherwise. If I am in a position where I don't feel the need to further the rights for any of my political interests nor do I feel the need to further the rights of others being apolitical is a legitimate non-privileged position. This is largely because an altruistic vote does not exist. Choosing not to be compelled by guilt or patriotism is not a privilege it is a concession awarded by the position in the same way a person wants to pass health care or any other policy. The notion that it is privileged is flawed, because it presupposes that a person should *have* to advocate for others, when nobody who votes ever actually does that people only ever vote for their own interests which means a privileged political position cannot exist. > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1f69om

I believe there should be a cap on the number of children a family can have. CMV

We as a race seem to be overpopulating the planet. Certain families have so many children that they cannot provide for them all. Resources are limited, and if we were to put a limit on how many children a family can have (like what they do in China), the quality of life for those who are born into the world would increase, especially in countries/regions where resources are scarce.

I believe there should be a cap on the number of children a family can have. CMV. We as a race seem to be overpopulating the planet. Certain families have so many children that they cannot provide for them all. Resources are limited, and if we were to put a limit on how many children a family can have (like what they do in China), the quality of life for those who are born into the world would increase, especially in countries/regions where resources are scarce.

t3_1g1u1m

I think people´s offspring should be limited and people should apply for a licence before allowed pregnancy. CMV

**On limiting the number of children for a couple of generations:** Our planet is crunching under the enormous stress that humanity inflicts. It would be better to lay off the economic growth for a bit, tough out the recess and settle down in a more modest and responsible way. Yes we will have an abundancy of old people for a while, but that's not a problem that can't be overcome, with Social Service for example (as opposed to Military Service which used to be common only a short while ago) **On the licence:** People need to apply for a licence to drive a car, to own a gun, to drink alcohol, to fish in a river, to cut down a tree, to come live in a country. Now I understand the need to regulate behavior that can impact other people's lives, so I think we should definitely regulate the behavior that can impact most strongly someone else's life: parenthood. The parent is commonly the most infulential factor for a child's world, but independent of mental & social fitness and the ability to economically sustain a child anyone can have as many kids as they like. It's obviously hard to decide who is fit to have a kid and who is not, but the least we could settle on is an obligatory child-raising seminar to educate people on proper upbringing procedures. This seminar could have an excluding test in the end to make sure people absorb the knowledge. Illegal offspring will be given up for adoption. Let's see what comes up that could CMV! Also, I'm aware of the single-child policy that China sustained, which led to some atrocious situations. However this seems mainly related to the tradition of bridal treasure and importance people attach to their lineage, two factors that should not play any significant role in western society. I'm not very big on the subject though, so please correct me. **edit** I have read every single comment, and answered as many as I could. The whole process has refined my view considerably, there has been a lot of great input, especially on the side of alternatives to bring back population growth, and insight in the actual problem. Most people seem to invalidate my argument by the lack of practical solution to execute and enforce it. But when something is practically hard, it doesn't mean that it's morally wrong. I'm seeing a lot of disagreement about exactly how much stress is put on our planet by the massive population, and about wether the population is actually going to regulate itself or if it will keep growing. Personally I am a bit shocked that there is so much denial about the harm that we do to this planet, and the potential danger that we face. But I guess, since there is no definite scientific consensus (just like with global warming), there is no definite answer. My attitude is to be on the safe side and aim for a modest unimposing humanity on the long term, while some of you seem to want to take the jolly ride and see where it ends. This makes me very sad. Finally, about the licence: a lot of people have pointed out that this also is hard to regulate. Despite the practical problems, I think it is very important to be able to protect a potential newborn against a harmful environment. Right now society values more strongly the freedom of all to have a kid, then the kid's protection. I stand by my view that society needs tools to protect newborns before the harm is done, because we have to be on the side of the innocent & defenseless and not on that of the knowing and able. Someone said: some of the most abused kids have grown up to be wonderful people. Maybe, but even if all of them grew up to be fantastic contributors to society, I wouldn't wish a damaging childhood upon anyone. Thank you for reading.

I think people´s offspring should be limited and people should apply for a licence before allowed pregnancy. CMV. **On limiting the number of children for a couple of generations:** Our planet is crunching under the enormous stress that humanity inflicts. It would be better to lay off the economic growth for a bit, tough out the recess and settle down in a more modest and responsible way. Yes we will have an abundancy of old people for a while, but that's not a problem that can't be overcome, with Social Service for example (as opposed to Military Service which used to be common only a short while ago) **On the licence:** People need to apply for a licence to drive a car, to own a gun, to drink alcohol, to fish in a river, to cut down a tree, to come live in a country. Now I understand the need to regulate behavior that can impact other people's lives, so I think we should definitely regulate the behavior that can impact most strongly someone else's life: parenthood. The parent is commonly the most infulential factor for a child's world, but independent of mental & social fitness and the ability to economically sustain a child anyone can have as many kids as they like. It's obviously hard to decide who is fit to have a kid and who is not, but the least we could settle on is an obligatory child-raising seminar to educate people on proper upbringing procedures. This seminar could have an excluding test in the end to make sure people absorb the knowledge. Illegal offspring will be given up for adoption. Let's see what comes up that could CMV! Also, I'm aware of the single-child policy that China sustained, which led to some atrocious situations. However this seems mainly related to the tradition of bridal treasure and importance people attach to their lineage, two factors that should not play any significant role in western society. I'm not very big on the subject though, so please correct me. **edit** I have read every single comment, and answered as many as I could. The whole process has refined my view considerably, there has been a lot of great input, especially on the side of alternatives to bring back population growth, and insight in the actual problem. Most people seem to invalidate my argument by the lack of practical solution to execute and enforce it. But when something is practically hard, it doesn't mean that it's morally wrong. I'm seeing a lot of disagreement about exactly how much stress is put on our planet by the massive population, and about wether the population is actually going to regulate itself or if it will keep growing. Personally I am a bit shocked that there is so much denial about the harm that we do to this planet, and the potential danger that we face. But I guess, since there is no definite scientific consensus (just like with global warming), there is no definite answer. My attitude is to be on the safe side and aim for a modest unimposing humanity on the long term, while some of you seem to want to take the jolly ride and see where it ends. This makes me very sad. Finally, about the licence: a lot of people have pointed out that this also is hard to regulate. Despite the practical problems, I think it is very important to be able to protect a potential newborn against a harmful environment. Right now society values more strongly the freedom of all to have a kid, then the kid's protection. I stand by my view that society needs tools to protect newborns before the harm is done, because we have to be on the side of the innocent & defenseless and not on that of the knowing and able. Someone said: some of the most abused kids have grown up to be wonderful people. Maybe, but even if all of them grew up to be fantastic contributors to society, I wouldn't wish a damaging childhood upon anyone. Thank you for reading.

t3_2hcri1

CMV: There is no moral obligation to be a productive member of society

Simply put and to be as cliched as possible you only get one life to lead ,and if someones Idea of happiness is to be free of responsibilities and just coast by that is there right even if it makes it slightly harder for the rest of us. That's not to say the consequences of being lazy or unproductive should not apply no one is entitled to anything they didn't work for barring special circumstances. However it's not the place of anyone in a society to demand someone contribute. I suppose as an example grown men who live with their parents due to a lack of motivation or people who are happy in meaningless jobs that don't really contribute anything significant. There will always be the rest of us who actually find joy in accomplishing things. edited for redundancy UPDATE: My view has been changed I never accounted for the people like family or coworkers directly affected by one persons laziness who would be forced to work or do more then would make THEM happy, One persons rights end where another person's begin. _____ > *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 moral obligation to be a productive member of society. Simply put and to be as cliched as possible you only get one life to lead ,and if someones Idea of happiness is to be free of responsibilities and just coast by that is there right even if it makes it slightly harder for the rest of us. That's not to say the consequences of being lazy or unproductive should not apply no one is entitled to anything they didn't work for barring special circumstances. However it's not the place of anyone in a society to demand someone contribute. I suppose as an example grown men who live with their parents due to a lack of motivation or people who are happy in meaningless jobs that don't really contribute anything significant. There will always be the rest of us who actually find joy in accomplishing things. edited for redundancy UPDATE: My view has been changed I never accounted for the people like family or coworkers directly affected by one persons laziness who would be forced to work or do more then would make THEM happy, One persons rights end where another person's begin.

t3_1jx1tu

I think the Olympic Games should be cancelled altogether. CMV.

The Olympics were intended to unite different peoples for competitive fun, but since their origin they have been used to assert political power by pissing off one nation or another. Countries boycott the Olympics, others are banned from it just because they disagree with, or are currently in conflict with another participating country. [List of Olympic absences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games_scandals_and_controversies) Governments use the Olympics to get as much attention as possible. For example, the Russian government now banning gays and any homosexual expression from "their" games. The Olympics promote a nationalistic mindset, which is in more cases bad than good. Usually, the Games' most beneficial use is a distraction for the public. Other uses are not so beneficial: * Kidnapping (1972) * Bombing (1996) * Displaying Race Superiority (1936) * Sending antagonizing messages to other nations (Every 2 years) Other than high commercialism and high tourism for the hosting city, I don't really see any benefit to this very costly recurring event.

I think the Olympic Games should be cancelled altogether. CMV. The Olympics were intended to unite different peoples for competitive fun, but since their origin they have been used to assert political power by pissing off one nation or another. Countries boycott the Olympics, others are banned from it just because they disagree with, or are currently in conflict with another participating country. [List of Olympic absences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games_scandals_and_controversies) Governments use the Olympics to get as much attention as possible. For example, the Russian government now banning gays and any homosexual expression from "their" games. The Olympics promote a nationalistic mindset, which is in more cases bad than good. Usually, the Games' most beneficial use is a distraction for the public. Other uses are not so beneficial: * Kidnapping (1972) * Bombing (1996) * Displaying Race Superiority (1936) * Sending antagonizing messages to other nations (Every 2 years) Other than high commercialism and high tourism for the hosting city, I don't really see any benefit to this very costly recurring event.

t3_1ehky0

I believe Presidents should be treated by respect regardless of if you agree with their policies or not.

A lot of people criticize Obama and Bush using for the most part Ad hominem arguments. My parents are very liberal and are constantly saying what a terrible person Bush is/how some of his actions were "crimes". I disagree with his policies, but I still respected him as the leader of our country, and still do.

I believe Presidents should be treated by respect regardless of if you agree with their policies or not. A lot of people criticize Obama and Bush using for the most part Ad hominem arguments. My parents are very liberal and are constantly saying what a terrible person Bush is/how some of his actions were "crimes". I disagree with his policies, but I still respected him as the leader of our country, and still do.

t3_5f2smq

CMV: Democracy is dead

Over 2016, democracy has proven that it is a poor form of government. Even though democracy in the second half of the 20th century proved vital in changing society for the better, e.g. ending segregation, bringing European countries closer together, and expanding rights for more and more people, in the 21st century, much of that is being undone. Referendums have caused countries like Colombia and the UK to chose to take huge risks that few experienced leaders feel would be the right direction. The US had elected a president that has promised to pull out of a treaty that may be the only serious platform that the world had for dealing with climate change on a global scale, that wants to illegalize abortion, setting back women's rights 40 years, and who also wants to weaken the post war European and US relationship, which opens Europe up to domination by Russia. In addition to this, thr basic concepts of democracy, that each citizen has equal say, is completely undermined by the huge amount of influence that money has. Lobby groups in democracies around the world corrupt legislators, who also happen to be the only ones who can reform such practices. While democracies are destroying themselves, some non-democracies are thriving. China is a economic powerhouse, that had kept stable by listening to the concerns of its people, but not succumbing to every one of their whims. Corruption had been a major problem in China, however a focused and immediately implemented anti-courrption campaign had had an instant impact. Problems that plague democracies, such as high levels of violent crime in cities do not exist here. Underage pregnancy is rare and alcohol related crime is also low. The authoritarian approach of China had solved many of the west's social problems. So I put it to you all that democracy is dead, change my view!

CMV: Democracy is dead. Over 2016, democracy has proven that it is a poor form of government. Even though democracy in the second half of the 20th century proved vital in changing society for the better, e.g. ending segregation, bringing European countries closer together, and expanding rights for more and more people, in the 21st century, much of that is being undone. Referendums have caused countries like Colombia and the UK to chose to take huge risks that few experienced leaders feel would be the right direction. The US had elected a president that has promised to pull out of a treaty that may be the only serious platform that the world had for dealing with climate change on a global scale, that wants to illegalize abortion, setting back women's rights 40 years, and who also wants to weaken the post war European and US relationship, which opens Europe up to domination by Russia. In addition to this, thr basic concepts of democracy, that each citizen has equal say, is completely undermined by the huge amount of influence that money has. Lobby groups in democracies around the world corrupt legislators, who also happen to be the only ones who can reform such practices. While democracies are destroying themselves, some non-democracies are thriving. China is a economic powerhouse, that had kept stable by listening to the concerns of its people, but not succumbing to every one of their whims. Corruption had been a major problem in China, however a focused and immediately implemented anti-courrption campaign had had an instant impact. Problems that plague democracies, such as high levels of violent crime in cities do not exist here. Underage pregnancy is rare and alcohol related crime is also low. The authoritarian approach of China had solved many of the west's social problems. So I put it to you all that democracy is dead, change my view!

t3_21qlo7

CMV: Science can not give us a system of morality

I guess this is mainly a response to people who think that they can glean morality **from the ground up** from the perspective of science. I'm making my way through [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtH3Q54T-M8) video and at the start Sam Harris, who argues that science can tell you right from wrong, says this: >Imagine a universe in which every conscious creature suffers as much as it possibly can for as long as it can. I call this worst possible misery for everyone. The worst possible misery for everyone is bad. Now, if the word bad means anything, it applies to that situation. Now, if you think worst possible misery for everyone might not be bad, or it might be good in the end, or there might be something worse, I don't know what you're talking about. And what's more, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about either. **Now, this it seems to me is the only philosophical assumption you have to grant me.** The bolded part is what I have a problem with. The majority of moral systems, and Sam Harris' seem to be built on the assumptions that: * things that cause suffering and hurt happiness and health are **bad** * things that cause happiness and health and lower suffering are **good**. I don't see any reason to assume that these are true. How can science tell you these things? It seems that science can only tell you that these things are good or bad *for* something - like, killing is bad *if you want a cooperative society* or torture is bad *for steady physical and mental health* or health is good *if you want happy citizens,* etc etc. Within some arbitrary framework invented by a human, science can tell you whether something is good or bad for it, but I don't see how science can tell you whether something is good or bad on it's own. Imagine these newspaper headlines: >"Scientists discover DNA" >"Scientists discover the Higgs Boson" >"Scientists discover why rape is wrong" See the problem? I don't see how you could ever possibly observe nature and the universe and then come up with why rape is right/wrong, or any action for that matter. (Yes, I know that according to scientific observations of rape victims they show physical injuries and long-term psychological effects *that are considered negative under the arbitrary assumption that physical injuries are bad and mental health is good.* But I don't think science can tell you why rape is right/wrong *without* relying on arbitrary assumptions.) _____ > *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: Science can not give us a system of morality. I guess this is mainly a response to people who think that they can glean morality **from the ground up** from the perspective of science. I'm making my way through [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtH3Q54T-M8) video and at the start Sam Harris, who argues that science can tell you right from wrong, says this: >Imagine a universe in which every conscious creature suffers as much as it possibly can for as long as it can. I call this worst possible misery for everyone. The worst possible misery for everyone is bad. Now, if the word bad means anything, it applies to that situation. Now, if you think worst possible misery for everyone might not be bad, or it might be good in the end, or there might be something worse, I don't know what you're talking about. And what's more, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about either. **Now, this it seems to me is the only philosophical assumption you have to grant me.** The bolded part is what I have a problem with. The majority of moral systems, and Sam Harris' seem to be built on the assumptions that: * things that cause suffering and hurt happiness and health are **bad** * things that cause happiness and health and lower suffering are **good**. I don't see any reason to assume that these are true. How can science tell you these things? It seems that science can only tell you that these things are good or bad *for* something - like, killing is bad *if you want a cooperative society* or torture is bad *for steady physical and mental health* or health is good *if you want happy citizens,* etc etc. Within some arbitrary framework invented by a human, science can tell you whether something is good or bad for it, but I don't see how science can tell you whether something is good or bad on it's own. Imagine these newspaper headlines: >"Scientists discover DNA" >"Scientists discover the Higgs Boson" >"Scientists discover why rape is wrong" See the problem? I don't see how you could ever possibly observe nature and the universe and then come up with why rape is right/wrong, or any action for that matter. (Yes, I know that according to scientific observations of rape victims they show physical injuries and long-term psychological effects *that are considered negative under the arbitrary assumption that physical injuries are bad and mental health is good.* But I don't think science can tell you why rape is right/wrong *without* relying on arbitrary assumptions.)

t3_25wx55

CMV: Any religious belief is inherently clouded and restricted.

Nobody can hope to understand every religion in the world. Few people could list for you ten different religions (assuming Christianity all counts as one). When a person chooses which religion to follow (Or their parents force them into one religion, but that's a debate for another day), they are not able to be informed as to what they are actually following. It's quite likely that there is a different religion out there that better suits the individual. How can you hope to know you've chosen correctly? For me personally, christianity in particular has too many inconsistencies and relies on too many postulates that appear false. I therefore do not follow it. But many people follow it regardless, not considering other options that they would be more comfortable in. People blindly follow one essentially random religion without a true grasp of the situation. Therefore they are clouded from what they may truly believe. Note that I am certainly not against the idea of religion. It brings many people comfort and can help them feel secure. If that happens, then good for them. But I can't help bit think that these people may not be getting the best experience they can. Also note that I posted this in CMV, so I'm open to what others can say! _____ > *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: Any religious belief is inherently clouded and restricted. Nobody can hope to understand every religion in the world. Few people could list for you ten different religions (assuming Christianity all counts as one). When a person chooses which religion to follow (Or their parents force them into one religion, but that's a debate for another day), they are not able to be informed as to what they are actually following. It's quite likely that there is a different religion out there that better suits the individual. How can you hope to know you've chosen correctly? For me personally, christianity in particular has too many inconsistencies and relies on too many postulates that appear false. I therefore do not follow it. But many people follow it regardless, not considering other options that they would be more comfortable in. People blindly follow one essentially random religion without a true grasp of the situation. Therefore they are clouded from what they may truly believe. Note that I am certainly not against the idea of religion. It brings many people comfort and can help them feel secure. If that happens, then good for them. But I can't help bit think that these people may not be getting the best experience they can. Also note that I posted this in CMV, so I'm open to what others can say!

t3_2xiyj9

CMV: There is no such thing as too much discipline when it comes to raising children

Firstly I would like to define discipline not as corporal punishment but more akin to how I understand the military or tiger parenting - high structure and order, expectations/demand of manners, cleanliness respect ect. I do not mean beating a child for every minor infraction of the rules where fear = respect. Obviously there would be strong consequences if the child was to not follow the rules but not corporal punishment. Something that would be classified as 'good parenting strategies' (my purpose here would not be to debate what they are but for the sake of the argument we can agree they exist) If we take the argument to its opposite extreme, an undisciplined / brat child, I would say this is the most undesirable outcome for a child. If a kid can not follow instructions from people in positions of authority then he will not only be at risk of putting himself in danger (don't run on to the road) but he will not be able to do well in school which limits his options for higher education and job prospects as well as not being informed enough not to make bad decisions (teen pregnancy). There are 2 counter arguments I see, firstly the fear that coming from a highly structured and disciplined upbringing, once they have some freedom they will buck the upbringing they had and go off the rails, killing prostitutes and doing heroine. But is that at all realistic? If it is assumed all teenagers go through some level of rebellion is it not reasonable to assume the disciplined kid would become less disciplined while the brat kid becomes a juvenile delinquent? The other counter argument I see is that a rigidly structured childhood would minimise individuality and creativity, but so long as you encourage a creative outlet and allow input from the child is 1 hour of piano lessons or football training everyday not better then the same time playing playstation? Thanks EDIT: Thanks for the responses, there were a bunch of anicdotale 'I knew a guy' stories which I don't really think add much weight to the argument one way or the other, u/Hq347332 and u/jayjay0918 both came up with good counter arguments using prison as the most extreme place for structure and disciple and I have to agree that that would not be the best place to raise a child. _____ > *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 too much discipline when it comes to raising children. Firstly I would like to define discipline not as corporal punishment but more akin to how I understand the military or tiger parenting - high structure and order, expectations/demand of manners, cleanliness respect ect. I do not mean beating a child for every minor infraction of the rules where fear = respect. Obviously there would be strong consequences if the child was to not follow the rules but not corporal punishment. Something that would be classified as 'good parenting strategies' (my purpose here would not be to debate what they are but for the sake of the argument we can agree they exist) If we take the argument to its opposite extreme, an undisciplined / brat child, I would say this is the most undesirable outcome for a child. If a kid can not follow instructions from people in positions of authority then he will not only be at risk of putting himself in danger (don't run on to the road) but he will not be able to do well in school which limits his options for higher education and job prospects as well as not being informed enough not to make bad decisions (teen pregnancy). There are 2 counter arguments I see, firstly the fear that coming from a highly structured and disciplined upbringing, once they have some freedom they will buck the upbringing they had and go off the rails, killing prostitutes and doing heroine. But is that at all realistic? If it is assumed all teenagers go through some level of rebellion is it not reasonable to assume the disciplined kid would become less disciplined while the brat kid becomes a juvenile delinquent? The other counter argument I see is that a rigidly structured childhood would minimise individuality and creativity, but so long as you encourage a creative outlet and allow input from the child is 1 hour of piano lessons or football training everyday not better then the same time playing playstation? Thanks EDIT: Thanks for the responses, there were a bunch of anicdotale 'I knew a guy' stories which I don't really think add much weight to the argument one way or the other, u/Hq347332 and u/jayjay0918 both came up with good counter arguments using prison as the most extreme place for structure and disciple and I have to agree that that would not be the best place to raise a child. _____ > *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_6cn0vn

CMV: New age 'mumble rappers' are ruining hip hop

I'm pretty much the stereotypical 'oldhead' hiphop fan (not actually old tho). I think rappers like young thug, lil yachty, lil uzi, future, desiigner, 21 savage etc are a joke and ruining hip hop. I see a lot of people talking about how great some of these guys are, who actually seem to have an extensive knowledge of hip hops history and a lot of older good artists. Tbh i thought these fans would have no idea about how hip hop used to or should be like. These new guys literally mumble though like wtf are you saying, you're saying nothing. They talk about nothing and seem to be ignorant of hip hop and its past. How can these guys be considered talented and even compared to guys like kendrick, eminem, kanye, wutang, pac? _____ > *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: New age 'mumble rappers' are ruining hip hop. I'm pretty much the stereotypical 'oldhead' hiphop fan (not actually old tho). I think rappers like young thug, lil yachty, lil uzi, future, desiigner, 21 savage etc are a joke and ruining hip hop. I see a lot of people talking about how great some of these guys are, who actually seem to have an extensive knowledge of hip hops history and a lot of older good artists. Tbh i thought these fans would have no idea about how hip hop used to or should be like. These new guys literally mumble though like wtf are you saying, you're saying nothing. They talk about nothing and seem to be ignorant of hip hop and its past. How can these guys be considered talented and even compared to guys like kendrick, eminem, kanye, wutang, pac?

t3_6jisq8

CMV: I believe free trade is a good thing and help create economic growth along with jobs

Like the title said I believe free trade drove economic growth and help create more job than it destroy, and it's a good thing. I don't believe in people saying free trade is destroying the economy and hurting more people than it help, tried to convince me otherwise reddit. obviously this play a part with Trump getting elected since the rust belt voted for Trump, with him being anti-free trade especially NAFTA saying it was one of the worst trade deal ever sign, most economist said free trade is a good thing. I don't see any reason as to why people would be opposed to free trade, it's true that some people lose their job but it help create more jobs and that is how it is in a capitalist society some people lose, while other gain. Automation and free market are the reason to why people are losing their job since USA production is at it heightist with less workers while coal just can't beat the price and more environmental friendly natural gas _____ > *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: I believe free trade is a good thing and help create economic growth along with jobs. Like the title said I believe free trade drove economic growth and help create more job than it destroy, and it's a good thing. I don't believe in people saying free trade is destroying the economy and hurting more people than it help, tried to convince me otherwise reddit. obviously this play a part with Trump getting elected since the rust belt voted for Trump, with him being anti-free trade especially NAFTA saying it was one of the worst trade deal ever sign, most economist said free trade is a good thing. I don't see any reason as to why people would be opposed to free trade, it's true that some people lose their job but it help create more jobs and that is how it is in a capitalist society some people lose, while other gain. Automation and free market are the reason to why people are losing their job since USA production is at it heightist with less workers while coal just can't beat the price and more environmental friendly natural gas

t3_59uwsd

CMV: 538 election predictions are as good as you can get and there is no need for me to look at other sources of polling information

First off, I'm not saying 538 elections predictions are perfect, but I view them as being the best at what they do and don't see any value in using any other sources for polling information, especially not individual polling results. In general most polls are pretty individually useless since the main thing I want to know is the chance of winning of each candidate which requires a state by state view for the whole country with the addition of historical polling vs actual result variation accounted for to yield a percent chance of each candidate winning. If I do care about an individual state (like my own state) or how the popular vote will turn out 538 also has all of those listed with their added value historical adjustments and projections. Many people often complain about the quality of many polls and point to many potential issue with how they balance democrats vs republicans. The issues I have with these complaints are that pollsters do this professionally and probably know what they are doing. But even if they have a point, 538 adjusts their polls for historical bias of each pollster, so the complaint would have to explain why a poll SUDDENLY has a new bias that it didn't before, which I've never seen complaints of this form. I don't really see people convincing me of issues with 538 or the advantages of looking at unadjusted polling results, but I'll receptive to those arguments if you have them. The main thing I expect people to say is that I should look at other poll aggregator sites. I don't do this for several reasons: * If each aggregator had different approaches that were just as good there would be some value to visiting all of them and then averaging them since you'd be mitigating modeling error. But you'd have to assume all models are created equal or at least weight them based on how much trust you put into each. The issue is that everyone has access to the same data (as far as I know) and I just have too much respect for the great track record that 538 has. Nate Silver's history as a successful sports forecaster which is a field where projections are put to the test on a daily basis instead of a 2-year basis also adds value in my mind. * Even if there was a small amount of added value from viewing other polls, I see far more added value spending that time reading the articles 538 writes about how they perceive their own results. 538 is extremely honest and transparent with their potential failings. They are constantly posting articles analyzing potential issues they could see and why that might cause issues in their results. Also they post articles about how if they are wrong what the results would look like. And how assumptions about differences between "likely voters" and "registered voters" affect their model. * I've done very little research on other aggregator sites, but I've read through 538's methodology and in my mind it is the exact approach that should be taken, so other aggregators are either doing almost entirely the same thing or aren't using a methodology that I would consider to be the best.

CMV: 538 election predictions are as good as you can get and there is no need for me to look at other sources of polling information. First off, I'm not saying 538 elections predictions are perfect, but I view them as being the best at what they do and don't see any value in using any other sources for polling information, especially not individual polling results. In general most polls are pretty individually useless since the main thing I want to know is the chance of winning of each candidate which requires a state by state view for the whole country with the addition of historical polling vs actual result variation accounted for to yield a percent chance of each candidate winning. If I do care about an individual state (like my own state) or how the popular vote will turn out 538 also has all of those listed with their added value historical adjustments and projections. Many people often complain about the quality of many polls and point to many potential issue with how they balance democrats vs republicans. The issues I have with these complaints are that pollsters do this professionally and probably know what they are doing. But even if they have a point, 538 adjusts their polls for historical bias of each pollster, so the complaint would have to explain why a poll SUDDENLY has a new bias that it didn't before, which I've never seen complaints of this form. I don't really see people convincing me of issues with 538 or the advantages of looking at unadjusted polling results, but I'll receptive to those arguments if you have them. The main thing I expect people to say is that I should look at other poll aggregator sites. I don't do this for several reasons: * If each aggregator had different approaches that were just as good there would be some value to visiting all of them and then averaging them since you'd be mitigating modeling error. But you'd have to assume all models are created equal or at least weight them based on how much trust you put into each. The issue is that everyone has access to the same data (as far as I know) and I just have too much respect for the great track record that 538 has. Nate Silver's history as a successful sports forecaster which is a field where projections are put to the test on a daily basis instead of a 2-year basis also adds value in my mind. * Even if there was a small amount of added value from viewing other polls, I see far more added value spending that time reading the articles 538 writes about how they perceive their own results. 538 is extremely honest and transparent with their potential failings. They are constantly posting articles analyzing potential issues they could see and why that might cause issues in their results. Also they post articles about how if they are wrong what the results would look like. And how assumptions about differences between "likely voters" and "registered voters" affect their model. * I've done very little research on other aggregator sites, but I've read through 538's methodology and in my mind it is the exact approach that should be taken, so other aggregators are either doing almost entirely the same thing or aren't using a methodology that I would consider to be the best.

t3_1xradn

I shouldn't try to get a job! CMV

Currently on disability for "autism" and a few other bs mental illnesses. Life is like a 24/7 vacation. My life is completely stress-free, for the first time since foever. I only get like $700 a month, but it's all I really need. I have enough for food and internet and rent, and enough for gas for my shitty car which I used in High School. (also medical, in case anything happens to me) That's all I really need. I'm not a consumerist whore, who has to justify my existence with more expensive and grandiose purchases. If I ever want to travel Europe or something, then its well within my means as long as I don't travel like an American who brings half his house in luggage. I don't see the point in investing myself in a job. The boomers have completely fucked up the market and it's impossible to make a career out of anything unless you're absurdly ambitious and intelligent, so if I were to get a job I'd just be another faceless peon to the company, and they'd fire me and leave me jobless the second a robot was invented that could do my job 0.01% faster. Also, I think it's downright depressing that with all the limited time on earth, we're expected to devote a great percentage of it slaving over some menial stupid task so some fat jew can make a few extra shekels. Fuck that, I'm going to be dead in 70 years I don't want to look back and realize that I spent half of my life in some fucking factory or office or McDonalds doing nothing but making myself unhappy. the year is 2014, and I see no reason to get a job anymore.

I shouldn't try to get a job! CMV. Currently on disability for "autism" and a few other bs mental illnesses. Life is like a 24/7 vacation. My life is completely stress-free, for the first time since foever. I only get like $700 a month, but it's all I really need. I have enough for food and internet and rent, and enough for gas for my shitty car which I used in High School. (also medical, in case anything happens to me) That's all I really need. I'm not a consumerist whore, who has to justify my existence with more expensive and grandiose purchases. If I ever want to travel Europe or something, then its well within my means as long as I don't travel like an American who brings half his house in luggage. I don't see the point in investing myself in a job. The boomers have completely fucked up the market and it's impossible to make a career out of anything unless you're absurdly ambitious and intelligent, so if I were to get a job I'd just be another faceless peon to the company, and they'd fire me and leave me jobless the second a robot was invented that could do my job 0.01% faster. Also, I think it's downright depressing that with all the limited time on earth, we're expected to devote a great percentage of it slaving over some menial stupid task so some fat jew can make a few extra shekels. Fuck that, I'm going to be dead in 70 years I don't want to look back and realize that I spent half of my life in some fucking factory or office or McDonalds doing nothing but making myself unhappy. the year is 2014, and I see no reason to get a job anymore.

t3_3znoki

CMV:Feminism/ Social Justice are good things

I'm having a lot of trouble because i'm seeing a lot of rabid/ angry reactions to notions of feminism, social justice. On Reddit, it seems to be akin to George Carlin's Dirty words you can't say. I think that it's important that people who do the same work get equal pay. I think it's important that people get to determine what they can and can't do with their bodies. I think it's important that people shouldn't be discriminated/ attacked on the basis of their identity. I think it's important that people are able to access the same resources/ opportunities across the board (healthcare, education etc.) Help me out, why do Feminism and Social Justice get such a bad rap around here? What am I missing... _____

CMV:Feminism/ Social Justice are good things. I'm having a lot of trouble because i'm seeing a lot of rabid/ angry reactions to notions of feminism, social justice. On Reddit, it seems to be akin to George Carlin's Dirty words you can't say. I think that it's important that people who do the same work get equal pay. I think it's important that people get to determine what they can and can't do with their bodies. I think it's important that people shouldn't be discriminated/ attacked on the basis of their identity. I think it's important that people are able to access the same resources/ opportunities across the board (healthcare, education etc.) Help me out, why do Feminism and Social Justice get such a bad rap around here? What am I missing... _____

t3_1ryb1t

I believe that requiring students to "show their work" on basic algebra problems serves no purpose and is essentially accusing the student of cheating. CMV.

Because I've been out of school for so long I have to take a beginner Algebra course this year. Everything's pretty much review-status and at this point in the semester I have a 99.8%. I'm not struggling. The professor got a new grader and every assignment that comes back is plastered with "Where is your work? You must show your work." She's not marked me down for it, so it's no big deal, but it reminded me of all the times I was marked down in high school for not showing work. I can see the value of showing work to recognize students' problems. If someone's getting all the answers wrong you can sift through their method and find the flaw that needs correcting. However, if they are getting the answers right then showing work serves no other purpose than busywork to prove that the student didn't cheat. (Though considering Wolfram Alpha will walk you through every step it's still possible to cheat while "showing your work.") I'm not good at math. I never have been, and so when a problem is so simple that *even I* can do it in my head it irritates me greatly to be told to show my work. If we were doing trig or calculus (I hear they're hard, I honestly don't know) that'd be one thing but we're factoring bi and trinomials for godssake. I literally do not know what work I can show beyond actually writing out simple things like multiplication tables. I'm hoping some math teachers, TAs, or other folks can CMV because I tend to see red when I'm told to show my work on what amounts to a simple multiplication problem. I can see at as nothing *but* busywork and a demand to offer proof that you did the homework.

I believe that requiring students to "show their work" on basic algebra problems serves no purpose and is essentially accusing the student of cheating. CMV. Because I've been out of school for so long I have to take a beginner Algebra course this year. Everything's pretty much review-status and at this point in the semester I have a 99.8%. I'm not struggling. The professor got a new grader and every assignment that comes back is plastered with "Where is your work? You must show your work." She's not marked me down for it, so it's no big deal, but it reminded me of all the times I was marked down in high school for not showing work. I can see the value of showing work to recognize students' problems. If someone's getting all the answers wrong you can sift through their method and find the flaw that needs correcting. However, if they are getting the answers right then showing work serves no other purpose than busywork to prove that the student didn't cheat. (Though considering Wolfram Alpha will walk you through every step it's still possible to cheat while "showing your work.") I'm not good at math. I never have been, and so when a problem is so simple that *even I* can do it in my head it irritates me greatly to be told to show my work. If we were doing trig or calculus (I hear they're hard, I honestly don't know) that'd be one thing but we're factoring bi and trinomials for godssake. I literally do not know what work I can show beyond actually writing out simple things like multiplication tables. I'm hoping some math teachers, TAs, or other folks can CMV because I tend to see red when I'm told to show my work on what amounts to a simple multiplication problem. I can see at as nothing *but* busywork and a demand to offer proof that you did the homework.

t3_26658r

CMV: I believe suicide and voluntary euthanasia should be legal on every country.

I believe our lives are our own and no one has the right to take it, except ourselves. If the pain, suffering and lack of hope is so unbearable, one should have the right to end his or her own life, being it by himself/herself or by asking someone else to do it. For example, my country sends to jail everyone who fails a suicide attempt, which I think is ridiculous for obvious reasons. And if the person isn't able to do it on his/her own, asking someone to do it, either by ending her life through "direct" methods such as a painless poisoning or by "indirect" methods such as turning off the machine that keep that person's heart beating. PLEASE keep in mind I'm talking about VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA, not non-voluntary euthanasia or involuntary euthanasia. Change my view.

CMV: I believe suicide and voluntary euthanasia should be legal on every country. I believe our lives are our own and no one has the right to take it, except ourselves. If the pain, suffering and lack of hope is so unbearable, one should have the right to end his or her own life, being it by himself/herself or by asking someone else to do it. For example, my country sends to jail everyone who fails a suicide attempt, which I think is ridiculous for obvious reasons. And if the person isn't able to do it on his/her own, asking someone to do it, either by ending her life through "direct" methods such as a painless poisoning or by "indirect" methods such as turning off the machine that keep that person's heart beating. PLEASE keep in mind I'm talking about VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA, not non-voluntary euthanasia or involuntary euthanasia. Change my view.

t3_2a3427

CMV: There should be no "freedom of religion" because religion is a bad idea to begin with

There should be no "freedom of religion" because religion is a false concept- it's like having the freedom to use whatever perpetual motion machine you prefer. Because those are not real, guaranteeing that right is useless and wasteful. Worse, it subtly legitimizes it. If the constitution really made a point of letting people choose their own perpetual motion machines, many more people would take that idea seriously than otherwise would, to the point where it would seem patriotic to have a preference. Freedom of religion is not a right anyone should be proud to have. It should be forgotten and ignored, like a clunky relic. >>>>>Atheism is the absence of religion, not a form of religion, so as a non-believer I need no religious liberties.

CMV: There should be no "freedom of religion" because religion is a bad idea to begin with. There should be no "freedom of religion" because religion is a false concept- it's like having the freedom to use whatever perpetual motion machine you prefer. Because those are not real, guaranteeing that right is useless and wasteful. Worse, it subtly legitimizes it. If the constitution really made a point of letting people choose their own perpetual motion machines, many more people would take that idea seriously than otherwise would, to the point where it would seem patriotic to have a preference. Freedom of religion is not a right anyone should be proud to have. It should be forgotten and ignored, like a clunky relic. >>>>>Atheism is the absence of religion, not a form of religion, so as a non-believer I need no religious liberties.

t3_4qb5s2

CMV: Art that is not naturalistic or representative is in no way inherently inferior in quality to art that is.

Many amateur critics of art often scoff at modern and contemporary art because they perceive it as simplistic and created by an individual without any genuine "artistic talent". They correlate the knowledge and ability of an artist, and consequently the value of their art, with its ability to represent things "accurately". This is an opinion that I believe is flawed, as it disregards the intellectual and ideological basis underlying art production. Modern and contemporary art's drive toward abstraction has multiple explanations. One theory purports that the invention and evolution of photographic technology drives artists to seek relevance by redefining their own medium. A related common narrative is that art increasingly embraces media specificity, abandoning representative conventions that established and allowed for the uninterrupted narrative function of painting in order to explore and emphasize the features and functions of artistic production itself. This trajectory is fairly straightforward to trace: Early modern artists employed thick, obvious brushstrokes, undermining the illusory nature of paintings while simultaneously drawing attention to the medium of painting itself. Impressionists disregarded clarity, colour conventions (i.e., chiaroscuro), and further divorced from dimensionality. Cubists further challenged representation, reducing figures to their geometric components. Suprematists, Dadaists, and surrealists challenged modes of production and drove even further to abstraction. All pretences of representation were abandoned altogether by Abstract Expressionists. Although art gradually divorced itself from naturalism and representation and became increasingly "simplistic", its ideological foundation and the conceptual basis underlying new forms of representation grew and diversified. In order to understand the significance of a substantial amount of modern art, one needs to be familiar with the artwork's predecessors, as well as the social and political climate under which the art was produced. In essence, my argument is this: The critics who are quick to dismiss modern and contemporary art for being too simplistic are placing an undue value on aesthetics, because they fail to understand the evolution of the conceptual basis of art production. Modern and contemporary art is not inferior in quality to its predecessors because it does not reflect a degeneration of artistic talent, but rather a shift in focus from illusory representation to medium specificity as a mode of expression. _____ > *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: Art that is not naturalistic or representative is in no way inherently inferior in quality to art that is. Many amateur critics of art often scoff at modern and contemporary art because they perceive it as simplistic and created by an individual without any genuine "artistic talent". They correlate the knowledge and ability of an artist, and consequently the value of their art, with its ability to represent things "accurately". This is an opinion that I believe is flawed, as it disregards the intellectual and ideological basis underlying art production. Modern and contemporary art's drive toward abstraction has multiple explanations. One theory purports that the invention and evolution of photographic technology drives artists to seek relevance by redefining their own medium. A related common narrative is that art increasingly embraces media specificity, abandoning representative conventions that established and allowed for the uninterrupted narrative function of painting in order to explore and emphasize the features and functions of artistic production itself. This trajectory is fairly straightforward to trace: Early modern artists employed thick, obvious brushstrokes, undermining the illusory nature of paintings while simultaneously drawing attention to the medium of painting itself. Impressionists disregarded clarity, colour conventions (i.e., chiaroscuro), and further divorced from dimensionality. Cubists further challenged representation, reducing figures to their geometric components. Suprematists, Dadaists, and surrealists challenged modes of production and drove even further to abstraction. All pretences of representation were abandoned altogether by Abstract Expressionists. Although art gradually divorced itself from naturalism and representation and became increasingly "simplistic", its ideological foundation and the conceptual basis underlying new forms of representation grew and diversified. In order to understand the significance of a substantial amount of modern art, one needs to be familiar with the artwork's predecessors, as well as the social and political climate under which the art was produced. In essence, my argument is this: The critics who are quick to dismiss modern and contemporary art for being too simplistic are placing an undue value on aesthetics, because they fail to understand the evolution of the conceptual basis of art production. Modern and contemporary art is not inferior in quality to its predecessors because it does not reflect a degeneration of artistic talent, but rather a shift in focus from illusory representation to medium specificity as a mode of expression.

t3_1uk7dp

I believe universal public healthcare (no private health sector) is the only morally justifiable system. CMV

I'm from Canada but I have family in the United States and friends from South Korea; three different systems of health care with varying levels of private sector involvement. Of these three, I see Canada's as the most fair, because people of all income levels get the same quality of care (for the most part, it's not perfect). It prevents people from having to make the painful choice between sickness and bankruptcy. Publicly-employed doctors are also more likely to work to prevent illness because they don't get more money if their patients get sick. The United States is the worst out of the three, because the quality of care you receive is almost completely parallel with your income level. If you don't have good insurance, when you get sick you essentially have the choice between denying yourself care and making it worse or taking a huge hit out of your bank account. This can mean having to mortgage/sell your house or even skip buying food. Even if you can afford it, it has the potential to completely ruin your life. For example, my great aunt who lives in Cincinnati was a nurse all her life and her late husband was a doctor all his life. They were smart with their money and saved a lot to be able to retire comfortably. However, my great aunt has chronic hip problems which are not covered by her (already expensive) insurance plan. Frequent trips to the hospital over the years has forced her to live in an expensive elderly care complex, also not covered by her insurance. From all those costs plus hospital bills, she has gone completely bankrupt and has few places left to go. My grandmother, on the other hand, lives in Toronto. When she got cancer, everything other than her wheelchair was covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Now she's made a full recovery and it cost us relatively little. In fact, out of curiosity we looked up the price of the medication she was taking, and if we would have lived in the States, it would have cost us $30,000 a month. We would have had to sell our house. Needless to say, I was happy when the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed, but I feel as if this is only the first step and it will only take us to what South Korea has which is a tier system; the poor gets the bare minimum and the rich have the luxury of shorter lines, better equipment, better-trained doctors, etc. While I think it's a step in the right direction, I still hold firm that higher income level does not entitle you to better chance of survival when you're sick. Instead, taxes should be raised and everyone should have an equally good chance. A common criticism of Canadian healthcare is that lines are always very long. I think this is because of two reasons: One, nobody ever decides not to go to the hospital because they can't afford it. "When in doubt, ask a doctor" is the attitude, as it should be. Two, most science-oriented students nowadays go into engineering or computer science rather than medicine. This can be fixed by encouraging more biology in schools, making more med school scholarships, etc. The solution is not to re-think the entire system. **TL;DR Universal healthcare is worth the higher taxes and longer lines because all people get the same care regardless of income level, you never have to choose between food or medicine, and hospital bills will never bankrupt you**

I believe universal public healthcare (no private health sector) is the only morally justifiable system. CMV. I'm from Canada but I have family in the United States and friends from South Korea; three different systems of health care with varying levels of private sector involvement. Of these three, I see Canada's as the most fair, because people of all income levels get the same quality of care (for the most part, it's not perfect). It prevents people from having to make the painful choice between sickness and bankruptcy. Publicly-employed doctors are also more likely to work to prevent illness because they don't get more money if their patients get sick. The United States is the worst out of the three, because the quality of care you receive is almost completely parallel with your income level. If you don't have good insurance, when you get sick you essentially have the choice between denying yourself care and making it worse or taking a huge hit out of your bank account. This can mean having to mortgage/sell your house or even skip buying food. Even if you can afford it, it has the potential to completely ruin your life. For example, my great aunt who lives in Cincinnati was a nurse all her life and her late husband was a doctor all his life. They were smart with their money and saved a lot to be able to retire comfortably. However, my great aunt has chronic hip problems which are not covered by her (already expensive) insurance plan. Frequent trips to the hospital over the years has forced her to live in an expensive elderly care complex, also not covered by her insurance. From all those costs plus hospital bills, she has gone completely bankrupt and has few places left to go. My grandmother, on the other hand, lives in Toronto. When she got cancer, everything other than her wheelchair was covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Now she's made a full recovery and it cost us relatively little. In fact, out of curiosity we looked up the price of the medication she was taking, and if we would have lived in the States, it would have cost us $30,000 a month. We would have had to sell our house. Needless to say, I was happy when the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed, but I feel as if this is only the first step and it will only take us to what South Korea has which is a tier system; the poor gets the bare minimum and the rich have the luxury of shorter lines, better equipment, better-trained doctors, etc. While I think it's a step in the right direction, I still hold firm that higher income level does not entitle you to better chance of survival when you're sick. Instead, taxes should be raised and everyone should have an equally good chance. A common criticism of Canadian healthcare is that lines are always very long. I think this is because of two reasons: One, nobody ever decides not to go to the hospital because they can't afford it. "When in doubt, ask a doctor" is the attitude, as it should be. Two, most science-oriented students nowadays go into engineering or computer science rather than medicine. This can be fixed by encouraging more biology in schools, making more med school scholarships, etc. The solution is not to re-think the entire system. **TL;DR Universal healthcare is worth the higher taxes and longer lines because all people get the same care regardless of income level, you never have to choose between food or medicine, and hospital bills will never bankrupt you**

t3_1gxf5p

I think people who complain about "spoilers" all the time are shallow and incapable of understanding deeper human relationships through storytelling. CMV.

Perhaps it is because I have a liberal arts background. A specific focus on literature. I cannot abide people who can't openly talk about books/television/movies/games without absolutely losing their shit and acting like you're a jerk because you told them a piece of information they didn't come across from exploring the piece of art themselves. It seems like there are spoiler tags in every book/television/movies/games subreddit available. Interestingly enough, there aren't spoiler tags in r/music. I guess finding out the lyrics/sheet music doesn't *ruin it* for people listening to music. (Spoiler, dudes: this song is in G major) I felt at first that it must be some aspect of not understanding storytelling, character development, or perhaps writing in general. Things that really make a piece of artwork shine other than simply the *plot.* Plots are boring. Plots are insipid. They can be explained in simple terms very quickly, and told in different ways can seem new and fresh. Yet, basic plots are more often than not quite similar in many respects. The real meat of any piece comes in fleshing out characters, setting, mood, theme. These more complex ideas take a lot more thought and often re-viewing pieces in question. So, one almost *has* to re-read/re-watch/re-play to be able to do things such as take notes, consider meanings, and it would be really hard to do such things if one is too busy being pissed off that they already knows what happens to so-and-so. However, I also know many people who are not at all bothered by spoilers who absolutely stink at reading, understanding character development, or any such thought-provoking aspect of literature. They can know the determined future and not be upset about it. They can be just as eager to see it play out as they were before, sometimes even moreso! So, where does this leave me? I don't know, at once I think its roots are in lack of depth of understanding of literature, but I think there is evidence that perhaps it is a deeper lack of understanding of human relationships and a shallow focus on events and their importance. Change my view, Reddit!

I think people who complain about "spoilers" all the time are shallow and incapable of understanding deeper human relationships through storytelling. CMV. Perhaps it is because I have a liberal arts background. A specific focus on literature. I cannot abide people who can't openly talk about books/television/movies/games without absolutely losing their shit and acting like you're a jerk because you told them a piece of information they didn't come across from exploring the piece of art themselves. It seems like there are spoiler tags in every book/television/movies/games subreddit available. Interestingly enough, there aren't spoiler tags in r/music. I guess finding out the lyrics/sheet music doesn't *ruin it* for people listening to music. (Spoiler, dudes: this song is in G major) I felt at first that it must be some aspect of not understanding storytelling, character development, or perhaps writing in general. Things that really make a piece of artwork shine other than simply the *plot.* Plots are boring. Plots are insipid. They can be explained in simple terms very quickly, and told in different ways can seem new and fresh. Yet, basic plots are more often than not quite similar in many respects. The real meat of any piece comes in fleshing out characters, setting, mood, theme. These more complex ideas take a lot more thought and often re-viewing pieces in question. So, one almost *has* to re-read/re-watch/re-play to be able to do things such as take notes, consider meanings, and it would be really hard to do such things if one is too busy being pissed off that they already knows what happens to so-and-so. However, I also know many people who are not at all bothered by spoilers who absolutely stink at reading, understanding character development, or any such thought-provoking aspect of literature. They can know the determined future and not be upset about it. They can be just as eager to see it play out as they were before, sometimes even moreso! So, where does this leave me? I don't know, at once I think its roots are in lack of depth of understanding of literature, but I think there is evidence that perhaps it is a deeper lack of understanding of human relationships and a shallow focus on events and their importance. Change my view, Reddit!

t3_258b1o

CMV: The individual mandate in PPACA (Obamacare) is unprecedented under the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Throughout the years, Supreme Court cases have made numerous interpretations to this clause that have either been restrictive (US v. Morrison) or expansionary in nature (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.) Either way, establishing new precedent hasn't necessarily been bad during the court's history (the Civil Rights Act was validated as per the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta v. US, and that extended the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment's reach to private businesses.) But the Obama Administration argued that the individual mandate of the PPACA is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. It's not. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." States such as Massachusetts and Vermont have passed acts of legislation pertaining to healthcare that have been completely separate from our healthcare system as a whole prior to Obama's tenure as president. And that was a valid exercise of the 10th Amendment. The reason the individual mandate is unprecedented under the Commerce Clause is because it would greatly extend Congress's powers as to let them penalize people for not buying insurance as a condition of lawful standing. As the Chief Justice ruled, it is indeed a valid exercise under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), but it doesn't necessarily parallel with regulating interstate commerce. Change my view.

CMV: The individual mandate in PPACA (Obamacare) is unprecedented under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Throughout the years, Supreme Court cases have made numerous interpretations to this clause that have either been restrictive (US v. Morrison) or expansionary in nature (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.) Either way, establishing new precedent hasn't necessarily been bad during the court's history (the Civil Rights Act was validated as per the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta v. US, and that extended the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment's reach to private businesses.) But the Obama Administration argued that the individual mandate of the PPACA is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. It's not. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." States such as Massachusetts and Vermont have passed acts of legislation pertaining to healthcare that have been completely separate from our healthcare system as a whole prior to Obama's tenure as president. And that was a valid exercise of the 10th Amendment. The reason the individual mandate is unprecedented under the Commerce Clause is because it would greatly extend Congress's powers as to let them penalize people for not buying insurance as a condition of lawful standing. As the Chief Justice ruled, it is indeed a valid exercise under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), but it doesn't necessarily parallel with regulating interstate commerce. Change my view.

t3_3ps430

CMV: Bernie Sanders is not a socialist

I believe that socialism means several things and can be described widely, some of the policies Bernie Sanders supports are similar to what socialists support but on the sum, he is not a socialist. Of course there are newspapers who say the same thing 1- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html?_r=0 2- http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/ It is similar to how Rand Paul has picked some popular aspects of liberatarianism but he is just a conservative, Bernie is just a bit more progressive democrat. He is a capitalist and has not proposed any market reform that changes a sector which was market driven to completely state owned. To add comment by /u/HarryLillis >Bernie Sanders uses the term Democratic Socialist somewhat incorrectly. I think this may be intentional as I think he's finding that this is a word that is resonating with the working class right now, since there's actually a deep rooted love of Socialism in the working peoples of America that has been suppressed, consider the Haymarket Affair. However, he's a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. The countries he refers to as models are Social Democracies, and his policies are not even as far Left as theirs. He is not arguing that Capital needs to be destroyed, merely redistributed

CMV: Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. I believe that socialism means several things and can be described widely, some of the policies Bernie Sanders supports are similar to what socialists support but on the sum, he is not a socialist. Of course there are newspapers who say the same thing 1- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html?_r=0 2- http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/ It is similar to how Rand Paul has picked some popular aspects of liberatarianism but he is just a conservative, Bernie is just a bit more progressive democrat. He is a capitalist and has not proposed any market reform that changes a sector which was market driven to completely state owned. To add comment by /u/HarryLillis >Bernie Sanders uses the term Democratic Socialist somewhat incorrectly. I think this may be intentional as I think he's finding that this is a word that is resonating with the working class right now, since there's actually a deep rooted love of Socialism in the working peoples of America that has been suppressed, consider the Haymarket Affair. However, he's a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. The countries he refers to as models are Social Democracies, and his policies are not even as far Left as theirs. He is not arguing that Capital needs to be destroyed, merely redistributed

t3_64s0qx

CMV: The majority of police violence issues are caused by the victim not knowing how to get detained/arrested or interact with the police

I think there are very few situations where a person did everything the police officer told them to do, but was acted violently against anyway. Some of the efforts towards improving police/citizen relations need to go towards informing people how to correctly interact with police officers. In most cases, the person was mentally/physically capable of complying with the officers orders, but chose not to do so. This doesn't mean that there aren't cases where a person didn't understand english, had a handicap, or the officer acted incompetently; These just aren't the majority. It simply isn't reasonable to expect a human being to forcibly detain another human being that is resisting, and not to injure the person resisting at all. It also is completely reasonable for an officer to feel in threat for their life when someone is physically resisting them. Just some of my additional thoughts on this in no particular order: - There is often an open carry gun involved (the one the officer is carrying). When someone physically resists an officer, they are a threat to go for that gun. The officer doesn't know this person, so must assume that is their plan. - Unfortunately, our society doesn't give officers the option of just letting the person go if they are uncooperative. It's really not fair to expect our police officers to arrest people that don't want to be arrested, yet do so without hurting them or doing anything that looks bad on video. Until we decide to have a system in place where the officer isn't expected to arrest anyone unless they suspect they're a violent (murder, armed robbery, etc..) criminal, there are going to be acts of violence against citizens. - No one has the right to disobey a police officers commands. When one does that, they are committing a crime. In other words, if you've done absolutely nothing wrong, and have never broken a single law in your life, yet an officers demands you stop and put your hands behind your back; you must do so. It's wrong, and also pointless, to resist at that point in time. - If you are being constantly pulled over or generally harassed by the police for no reason, then start filing complaints. Use those records to later sue. _____ > *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 majority of police violence issues are caused by the victim not knowing how to get detained/arrested or interact with the police. I think there are very few situations where a person did everything the police officer told them to do, but was acted violently against anyway. Some of the efforts towards improving police/citizen relations need to go towards informing people how to correctly interact with police officers. In most cases, the person was mentally/physically capable of complying with the officers orders, but chose not to do so. This doesn't mean that there aren't cases where a person didn't understand english, had a handicap, or the officer acted incompetently; These just aren't the majority. It simply isn't reasonable to expect a human being to forcibly detain another human being that is resisting, and not to injure the person resisting at all. It also is completely reasonable for an officer to feel in threat for their life when someone is physically resisting them. Just some of my additional thoughts on this in no particular order: - There is often an open carry gun involved (the one the officer is carrying). When someone physically resists an officer, they are a threat to go for that gun. The officer doesn't know this person, so must assume that is their plan. - Unfortunately, our society doesn't give officers the option of just letting the person go if they are uncooperative. It's really not fair to expect our police officers to arrest people that don't want to be arrested, yet do so without hurting them or doing anything that looks bad on video. Until we decide to have a system in place where the officer isn't expected to arrest anyone unless they suspect they're a violent (murder, armed robbery, etc..) criminal, there are going to be acts of violence against citizens. - No one has the right to disobey a police officers commands. When one does that, they are committing a crime. In other words, if you've done absolutely nothing wrong, and have never broken a single law in your life, yet an officers demands you stop and put your hands behind your back; you must do so. It's wrong, and also pointless, to resist at that point in time. - If you are being constantly pulled over or generally harassed by the police for no reason, then start filing complaints. Use those records to later sue.

t3_66ghvt

CMV: Keeping up with current happenings and the news is absolutely useless for a common person.

I admit it, my grasp on what's happening in the world right now is very weak. If you asked me who the current UN Secretary General is, or where in the middle east war is going on, I would be stumped. I am currently a student studying maths and to me, all of this information is simply noise, not knowledge. Knowledge, to me, is something that could be useful to me in the future. Learning accounting, or basic economics might be knowledge, however, knowing the current president of the European Union, is not. People who religiously follow current happenings and act superior to those who don't are perhaps some of the most annoying people I have dealt with. Simple knowing a bunch of facts, which you can in no way influence, does not give you a right to tower over those who do not. Furthermore, any of this could be easily accessed through a simple google search. There is no need to remember who anybody is, when I could easily look it up in a second. News should be treated as entertainment. Much like how reading an Agatha Christie book is treated as being entertaining rather than a learning experience. ~~I've been told that the news expands your world view. But how on earth does keeping up with the latest political bumbling in Wherever expand my world view? It does not give me new ideas, it does not expand the way I think. Reading an Agatha Christie book, which is usually considered entertainment, might actually give me tips on how to get away with murder!~~ All of this changes, however, if I am somebody who is directly involved in the field. A politician might derive great utility from keeping up with what's happening in the world, a stock broker needs to know what's happening in the corporate sector, but an average Joe does not need any of it. **EDIT** - Based on what /u/grimbaldi said, I've struck out the world view line. The key to expanding your world view, is surely to keep up with the world happenings. Awarded 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: Keeping up with current happenings and the news is absolutely useless for a common person. I admit it, my grasp on what's happening in the world right now is very weak. If you asked me who the current UN Secretary General is, or where in the middle east war is going on, I would be stumped. I am currently a student studying maths and to me, all of this information is simply noise, not knowledge. Knowledge, to me, is something that could be useful to me in the future. Learning accounting, or basic economics might be knowledge, however, knowing the current president of the European Union, is not. People who religiously follow current happenings and act superior to those who don't are perhaps some of the most annoying people I have dealt with. Simple knowing a bunch of facts, which you can in no way influence, does not give you a right to tower over those who do not. Furthermore, any of this could be easily accessed through a simple google search. There is no need to remember who anybody is, when I could easily look it up in a second. News should be treated as entertainment. Much like how reading an Agatha Christie book is treated as being entertaining rather than a learning experience. ~~I've been told that the news expands your world view. But how on earth does keeping up with the latest political bumbling in Wherever expand my world view? It does not give me new ideas, it does not expand the way I think. Reading an Agatha Christie book, which is usually considered entertainment, might actually give me tips on how to get away with murder!~~ All of this changes, however, if I am somebody who is directly involved in the field. A politician might derive great utility from keeping up with what's happening in the world, a stock broker needs to know what's happening in the corporate sector, but an average Joe does not need any of it. **EDIT** - Based on what /u/grimbaldi said, I've struck out the world view line. The key to expanding your world view, is surely to keep up with the world happenings. Awarded a delta

t3_1h819u

I understand and agree with the social stigma associated with online dating. CMV.

First off, I realize that this stigma is fading more and more in the last years, and meeting your partner on the internet is more and more becoming both a common occurance, and a socially accepted practice - however, most people still seem to feel somewhat uneasy or embarassed about it, and a conversation about it can easily turn into an awkward situation. Secondly, I have to disclose that I'm not exactly qualified to have an opinion on this matter at all, being a (mostly kissless) virgin at age 21 who never really dabbled in dating in general so far - I have, however, been "romantically active" on the internet in the past, holding some sort-of "online relationships" that consisted of prolonged and daily instant messaging with a few girls, but that never lead to any real-life interaction and ultimately faded away into mutual silence. But maybe *because* of my former "experience" with this topic, I can't help but agree with the social consensus about online dating being "weird", "unnormal" or "weak". Resorting to online dating seems, to me, like a kind-of last resort, something you either do after you've had no success dating people in reality and are afraid or hesitant to try again, or something you attempt due to social and sexual anxiety, a lack of confidence and unwillingness to put yourself out there and "give it a shot" for real. Whenever I'm with a group and someone tells about how they've met their partner online, I smile and nod like everyone else, trying to not be judgemental and keep an open mind, but I can't shake some thoughts in the back of my head along the lines of "Well, no surprise there!" and "What a loser." - and looking around the rest of the group, I get the impression that other people are also thinking similar things, and that no one quite knows how to react. I realize these thoughts are quite arrogant and douche-y, especially considering my own lack of experience and my former history. I both feel like I'm unqualified to judge other people in this way because "I have nothing to show for myself", yet also competent because "I've been there before and can understand the motivations". But who knows - ^^^^I'm ^^^^probably ^^^^just ^^^^bitter. I'd love to become more open-minded in this regard. Please, CMV. **TLDR:** I've never dated, and only held some "online relationships" - yet I still think online dating is for losers. CMV. EDIT: I want to emphasize that I don't mean to offend anyone with the points or choices of words presented here - please, do not think that! I am here because I recognize this mentality as faulty, and would love to hear some arguments that convince me to finally discard it. EDIT2: Changed "unnatural" to "unnormal". Because that sounds so much better.

I understand and agree with the social stigma associated with online dating. CMV. First off, I realize that this stigma is fading more and more in the last years, and meeting your partner on the internet is more and more becoming both a common occurance, and a socially accepted practice - however, most people still seem to feel somewhat uneasy or embarassed about it, and a conversation about it can easily turn into an awkward situation. Secondly, I have to disclose that I'm not exactly qualified to have an opinion on this matter at all, being a (mostly kissless) virgin at age 21 who never really dabbled in dating in general so far - I have, however, been "romantically active" on the internet in the past, holding some sort-of "online relationships" that consisted of prolonged and daily instant messaging with a few girls, but that never lead to any real-life interaction and ultimately faded away into mutual silence. But maybe *because* of my former "experience" with this topic, I can't help but agree with the social consensus about online dating being "weird", "unnormal" or "weak". Resorting to online dating seems, to me, like a kind-of last resort, something you either do after you've had no success dating people in reality and are afraid or hesitant to try again, or something you attempt due to social and sexual anxiety, a lack of confidence and unwillingness to put yourself out there and "give it a shot" for real. Whenever I'm with a group and someone tells about how they've met their partner online, I smile and nod like everyone else, trying to not be judgemental and keep an open mind, but I can't shake some thoughts in the back of my head along the lines of "Well, no surprise there!" and "What a loser." - and looking around the rest of the group, I get the impression that other people are also thinking similar things, and that no one quite knows how to react. I realize these thoughts are quite arrogant and douche-y, especially considering my own lack of experience and my former history. I both feel like I'm unqualified to judge other people in this way because "I have nothing to show for myself", yet also competent because "I've been there before and can understand the motivations". But who knows - ^^^^I'm ^^^^probably ^^^^just ^^^^bitter. I'd love to become more open-minded in this regard. Please, CMV. **TLDR:** I've never dated, and only held some "online relationships" - yet I still think online dating is for losers. CMV. EDIT: I want to emphasize that I don't mean to offend anyone with the points or choices of words presented here - please, do not think that! I am here because I recognize this mentality as faulty, and would love to hear some arguments that convince me to finally discard it. EDIT2: Changed "unnatural" to "unnormal". Because that sounds so much better.

t3_1nlkhq

President Obama should tell Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor that they will get nothing, on camera, in the oval office. [CMV]

News has broke that President Obama has invited House and Senate Leadership to the White House to discuss the shutdown and the underlying issues that led to it. Namely, the Affordable Care Act. Republican House leaders Boehner and Cantor have been intransigent for the past several weeks and, in my opinion, operated in bad faith. They refused to negotiate with the Senate in any formal manner until an hour before the funding stopped. Then has campaigned in the press that he'd be willing to talk if only the White House would listen. I think the best course of action would be for the President to set-up a meeting in the Oval Office and give the Speaker his offer, which is nothing. Pass a spending bill and raise the debt limit, no strings attached. Then end the meeting. Basically a combination of Willy Wonka (Good day, sir!) and Michael in Godfather Part II (My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming licence. Which I would appreciate you putting up personally.) Why should a second term President feel obligated to placate? If the ACA is to be his legacy, he should not compromise, whatsoever.

President Obama should tell Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor that they will get nothing, on camera, in the oval office. [CMV]. News has broke that President Obama has invited House and Senate Leadership to the White House to discuss the shutdown and the underlying issues that led to it. Namely, the Affordable Care Act. Republican House leaders Boehner and Cantor have been intransigent for the past several weeks and, in my opinion, operated in bad faith. They refused to negotiate with the Senate in any formal manner until an hour before the funding stopped. Then has campaigned in the press that he'd be willing to talk if only the White House would listen. I think the best course of action would be for the President to set-up a meeting in the Oval Office and give the Speaker his offer, which is nothing. Pass a spending bill and raise the debt limit, no strings attached. Then end the meeting. Basically a combination of Willy Wonka (Good day, sir!) and Michael in Godfather Part II (My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming licence. Which I would appreciate you putting up personally.) Why should a second term President feel obligated to placate? If the ACA is to be his legacy, he should not compromise, whatsoever.

t3_2vdtbx

CMV: Scientology is not that bad, and is on par with any other religion more or less

I've been seeing a lot of hate on Scientology lately, and let me preface, *I am not a scientologist, I have no interest to become one, and I have no strong feelings on any religion or lack of religion that are important for this*. As well, just saying "Well its ridiculous because Xenu and aliens and volcanoes and how would e-meters ever work and spirits and science fiction author, you've got to be kidding me!" is not a viable counter argument, its a religion. Its important to people because they believe in it, it doesn't matter how silly it sounds to an individual, it doesn't mean anything in the larger scope. Especially with Beck getting awards, seems like all I see is "Well I can't like him anymore now that I know hes a scientologist". I have a vague knowledge of some of the more unlawful things the group does, but this seems about on par with bad things other groups do. We know theres Islamic terrorism, we know that there are militant Christians that do terrible things, and while there are probably some bad members in Scientology, they don't really seem that bad. They've donated to loads of charities, and generally Scientology organizitons are pretty good about helping out their community and many members, such as Beck, are simply second generation Scientologists. Its been in their lives but its never dominated their lives. They were never brainwashed into believing in it, they just want to. EDIT: I appreciate all the detailed comments. And I'd say im about half changed. More or less, I think I just have a different view, but not entirely flipped. I really do think theres a divide in Scientology. A seedy underground part of it filled with people who got a lot of power and money from the organization and now are running rampant with it, and the more modest part. I still don't think celebrities in it are worse people. In fact, I think the average joe in it is still a fine and dandy guy. I think that a majority of Scientologists are as good of people as anyone else. Though there is (and I think most of the worst events more than a decade in the past) kind of a dark part of the organization whos views aren't intentionally evil, just kind of stupid enough where it ends up being fairly terrible to their own members on occasion. _____ > *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: Scientology is not that bad, and is on par with any other religion more or less. I've been seeing a lot of hate on Scientology lately, and let me preface, *I am not a scientologist, I have no interest to become one, and I have no strong feelings on any religion or lack of religion that are important for this*. As well, just saying "Well its ridiculous because Xenu and aliens and volcanoes and how would e-meters ever work and spirits and science fiction author, you've got to be kidding me!" is not a viable counter argument, its a religion. Its important to people because they believe in it, it doesn't matter how silly it sounds to an individual, it doesn't mean anything in the larger scope. Especially with Beck getting awards, seems like all I see is "Well I can't like him anymore now that I know hes a scientologist". I have a vague knowledge of some of the more unlawful things the group does, but this seems about on par with bad things other groups do. We know theres Islamic terrorism, we know that there are militant Christians that do terrible things, and while there are probably some bad members in Scientology, they don't really seem that bad. They've donated to loads of charities, and generally Scientology organizitons are pretty good about helping out their community and many members, such as Beck, are simply second generation Scientologists. Its been in their lives but its never dominated their lives. They were never brainwashed into believing in it, they just want to. EDIT: I appreciate all the detailed comments. And I'd say im about half changed. More or less, I think I just have a different view, but not entirely flipped. I really do think theres a divide in Scientology. A seedy underground part of it filled with people who got a lot of power and money from the organization and now are running rampant with it, and the more modest part. I still don't think celebrities in it are worse people. In fact, I think the average joe in it is still a fine and dandy guy. I think that a majority of Scientologists are as good of people as anyone else. Though there is (and I think most of the worst events more than a decade in the past) kind of a dark part of the organization whos views aren't intentionally evil, just kind of stupid enough where it ends up being fairly terrible to their own members on occasion.

t3_25apqn

CMV: Sociopaths are evolutionarily superior to those with highly accessible emotions.

Sociopaths or Psychopaths rarely have their judgment clouded by emotional attachment. This makes them superior to the average person since they will be able to chose the best course of action regardless of if it is distasteful. One example would be a group of people are stuck in a lifeboat there's only enough food and water to make it to the nearest shore for 3. If everyone eats and drinks the rations, they all die. If the excess people are killed then the remaining 3 will almost surely survive. A psychopath would have very little trouble making the choice to kill the excess, whereas your average person will probably hesitate or not be able to do so at all. 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: Sociopaths are evolutionarily superior to those with highly accessible emotions. Sociopaths or Psychopaths rarely have their judgment clouded by emotional attachment. This makes them superior to the average person since they will be able to chose the best course of action regardless of if it is distasteful. One example would be a group of people are stuck in a lifeboat there's only enough food and water to make it to the nearest shore for 3. If everyone eats and drinks the rations, they all die. If the excess people are killed then the remaining 3 will almost surely survive. A psychopath would have very little trouble making the choice to kill the excess, whereas your average person will probably hesitate or not be able to do so at all. CMV

t3_1gy1gc

I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to (legally) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV

I believe that I should be allowed to consent to have sex with someone who is older than 18, if I so desired. I know the dangers of unprotected sex, I know how to be safe, and I know the emotional consequences that can follow. I don't believe that because I'm 15, I somehow don't have the capacity to know, comprehend, and consent to having sex. I'm not some incompetent, mindless baby that can't think for himself.I think it's really stupid to say that someone my age can't consent. What makes me any less able to consent than someone who's, say, 18? So, CMV. I'm a Bisexual guy too, if that matters.

I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to (legally) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV. I believe that I should be allowed to consent to have sex with someone who is older than 18, if I so desired. I know the dangers of unprotected sex, I know how to be safe, and I know the emotional consequences that can follow. I don't believe that because I'm 15, I somehow don't have the capacity to know, comprehend, and consent to having sex. I'm not some incompetent, mindless baby that can't think for himself.I think it's really stupid to say that someone my age can't consent. What makes me any less able to consent than someone who's, say, 18? So, CMV. I'm a Bisexual guy too, if that matters.

t3_42oa0g

CMV:Alcoholics Anonymous is (regardless of deity) an inherently religious program

Many will argue that because believers in AA doctrine do not share a common deity that they do not comprise a religion. This assumption is ludicrous to me as many other religions fail this test: Buddhism in its original form had no deity, Some modern buddhist choose a personal god; Some modern churches such as Ba'hai and UU faiths accept an "all deities are valid"; many pagan or spiritual groups (such as but not limited to Wicca) allow personal gods. Further more there is a shared belief that (regardless of the form he/she/it takes) there is a sentient power that knows better than the practitioners of AA faith who is loving and waiting to guide them. This "higher power" is a form shifting, personalized but shared deity. Further more AA behaves like a religion: Its followers meet regularly, meetings traditionally begin and end in prayer. There is a sacred text that is treated as if it holds all the answers. There is good/evil duality. Practitioners of AA believe they are waging a moral war It is a faith based ideology: Practitioners follow certain rituals (most famously the 12 steps) with a belief in the power of those rituals to make them well. To my knowledge this power is not evidenced consistently by studies. You are encouraged to tithe; You are encouraged to return even well beyond the point of reaching your sobriety; you are encouraged to bring others. Those who fail are said to have "not followed the program". This sounds to me like saying "God didn't grant him his prayer because he was not pious enough". So those who prove successful are granted a "pious" status. Many "old-timers" are treated as higher ups in their religion. _____ > *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:Alcoholics Anonymous is (regardless of deity) an inherently religious program. Many will argue that because believers in AA doctrine do not share a common deity that they do not comprise a religion. This assumption is ludicrous to me as many other religions fail this test: Buddhism in its original form had no deity, Some modern buddhist choose a personal god; Some modern churches such as Ba'hai and UU faiths accept an "all deities are valid"; many pagan or spiritual groups (such as but not limited to Wicca) allow personal gods. Further more there is a shared belief that (regardless of the form he/she/it takes) there is a sentient power that knows better than the practitioners of AA faith who is loving and waiting to guide them. This "higher power" is a form shifting, personalized but shared deity. Further more AA behaves like a religion: Its followers meet regularly, meetings traditionally begin and end in prayer. There is a sacred text that is treated as if it holds all the answers. There is good/evil duality. Practitioners of AA believe they are waging a moral war It is a faith based ideology: Practitioners follow certain rituals (most famously the 12 steps) with a belief in the power of those rituals to make them well. To my knowledge this power is not evidenced consistently by studies. You are encouraged to tithe; You are encouraged to return even well beyond the point of reaching your sobriety; you are encouraged to bring others. Those who fail are said to have "not followed the program". This sounds to me like saying "God didn't grant him his prayer because he was not pious enough". So those who prove successful are granted a "pious" status. Many "old-timers" are treated as higher ups in their religion.

t3_1epezw

I've been raised to always have my wallet, keys, and phone on me. CMV

A trait I picked up from my Grandfather. It just always seems more beneficial to have these items on me at all times. I'm curious if there's any reasons not to have one or all of these on me though.

I've been raised to always have my wallet, keys, and phone on me. CMV. A trait I picked up from my Grandfather. It just always seems more beneficial to have these items on me at all times. I'm curious if there's any reasons not to have one or all of these on me though.

t3_3jwkyb

CMV: In Essentially Every Presidential Election the more Physically Attractive Candidate Won.

[I've made this to help illustrate.](http://i.imgur.com/7UUXXCS.png) I did use the weasel word "essentially", because there is some subjectivity to attractiveness. There are some close cases (like maybe Romney/Obama or Bush/Kerry), but I think if you add in personal charisma, then you can produce a theory that predicts the President with 100% accuracy without ever taking their policies or views into account. I won't go quite as far as to say this means their views don't matter at all, because the entire election process before that ensures they are all within a fairly narrow scope of beliefs. I'm certainly not saying the most attractive candidate from the early contenders will eventually win. I'm just claiming that once the political process has decided who to allow into the circle, then the public comes in and basically picks the guy they "like best" and all of the debates and the talk about important issues really just becomes a proxy for intuition and emotion about the candidates. It seems the only other conclusion we could reach is that attractiveness is so closely connected to intelligence and capability that it is merely a side effect of that connection. I think my current view is the more reasonable one. I do think there is some legitimate reason to believe attractiveness is connected to these traits, but not enough to ensure the most attractive candidate wins every time. That theory also relies on the notion that the electorate always determines who the best person for the job is. I think it is much simpler to conclude people pick the President their most attracted to physically. ----- EDIT: This might help you clarify where you disagree with me: Attractiveness Charisma -------------- -------- Obama - Romney | Tie Strong Obama Obama - McCain | Strong Obama Strong Obama Bush - Kerry | Moderate Kerry Moderate Bush Bush - Gore | Slight Bush Moderate Bush Clinton - Dole | Moderate Clinton Strong Clinton Clinton - Bush | Strong Clinton Strong Clinton Bush - Dukakis | Moderate Bush Slight Bush Reagan - Mondale | Moderate Reagan Strong Reagan Reagan - Carter | Moderate Reagan Strong Reagan Carter - Ford | Slight Carter Tie Nixon - McGovern | Slight Nixon Slight Nixon Nixon - Humphrey | Moderate Nixon Slight Nixon

CMV: In Essentially Every Presidential Election the more Physically Attractive Candidate Won. [I've made this to help illustrate.](http://i.imgur.com/7UUXXCS.png) I did use the weasel word "essentially", because there is some subjectivity to attractiveness. There are some close cases (like maybe Romney/Obama or Bush/Kerry), but I think if you add in personal charisma, then you can produce a theory that predicts the President with 100% accuracy without ever taking their policies or views into account. I won't go quite as far as to say this means their views don't matter at all, because the entire election process before that ensures they are all within a fairly narrow scope of beliefs. I'm certainly not saying the most attractive candidate from the early contenders will eventually win. I'm just claiming that once the political process has decided who to allow into the circle, then the public comes in and basically picks the guy they "like best" and all of the debates and the talk about important issues really just becomes a proxy for intuition and emotion about the candidates. It seems the only other conclusion we could reach is that attractiveness is so closely connected to intelligence and capability that it is merely a side effect of that connection. I think my current view is the more reasonable one. I do think there is some legitimate reason to believe attractiveness is connected to these traits, but not enough to ensure the most attractive candidate wins every time. That theory also relies on the notion that the electorate always determines who the best person for the job is. I think it is much simpler to conclude people pick the President their most attracted to physically. ----- EDIT: This might help you clarify where you disagree with me: Attractiveness Charisma -------------- -------- Obama - Romney | Tie Strong Obama Obama - McCain | Strong Obama Strong Obama Bush - Kerry | Moderate Kerry Moderate Bush Bush - Gore | Slight Bush Moderate Bush Clinton - Dole | Moderate Clinton Strong Clinton Clinton - Bush | Strong Clinton Strong Clinton Bush - Dukakis | Moderate Bush Slight Bush Reagan - Mondale | Moderate Reagan Strong Reagan Reagan - Carter | Moderate Reagan Strong Reagan Carter - Ford | Slight Carter Tie Nixon - McGovern | Slight Nixon Slight Nixon Nixon - Humphrey | Moderate Nixon Slight Nixon

t3_1qis6h

I think that opposition to genetically modified food is just as unscientific as rejecting global warming or evolution CMV

GMOs have the potential to produce more food in a smaller area with less water and fertilizer. They could help feed a planet with an ever growing population and fight hunger in the third world. In light of these benefits, it seems to me like most opposition to GMOs is driven by unfounded fears. To my knowledge, there isn't much evidence to indicate that GMOs have harmful effects. I think the aversion to GMOs is rooted in ignorance and a general fear of anything coming out of a laboratory. I understand that there are all sorts of legal and economic issues such as "is it reasonable to patent a living thing?" and "it will favor major corporations and hurt small farmers", but if those issues could be resolved, why oppose GMOs?

I think that opposition to genetically modified food is just as unscientific as rejecting global warming or evolution CMV. GMOs have the potential to produce more food in a smaller area with less water and fertilizer. They could help feed a planet with an ever growing population and fight hunger in the third world. In light of these benefits, it seems to me like most opposition to GMOs is driven by unfounded fears. To my knowledge, there isn't much evidence to indicate that GMOs have harmful effects. I think the aversion to GMOs is rooted in ignorance and a general fear of anything coming out of a laboratory. I understand that there are all sorts of legal and economic issues such as "is it reasonable to patent a living thing?" and "it will favor major corporations and hurt small farmers", but if those issues could be resolved, why oppose GMOs?

t3_3fig64

CMV: The second amendment has no place in modern society

I believe that owning and carrying a firearm should be a privilege, not a right. That means mandatory background checks/mental health screenings and proper training. If you don't pass any of those, you aren't allowed to own a weapon. If you violate the law in some way with a gun, that gun should be taken away you should lose your right to own. The second amendment was originally intended to prevent the government from oppressing the people using military force: I believe that it's now pointless because a) the government has much subtler ways to do that and b) the government also has tanks and jets and shit, what good will a rifle do?

CMV: The second amendment has no place in modern society. I believe that owning and carrying a firearm should be a privilege, not a right. That means mandatory background checks/mental health screenings and proper training. If you don't pass any of those, you aren't allowed to own a weapon. If you violate the law in some way with a gun, that gun should be taken away you should lose your right to own. The second amendment was originally intended to prevent the government from oppressing the people using military force: I believe that it's now pointless because a) the government has much subtler ways to do that and b) the government also has tanks and jets and shit, what good will a rifle do?

t3_1fp6ri

I believe the human race cannot recover from greed and violence to reach utopia, no matter what. CMV

I truly believe that the symptoms of greed and selfishness will always be a part of human life unless we destroy ourselves or something extraterrestrial intervenes. So many movies and sci fi series portray a future where racism, religious warfare and greed is pretty much eliminated with logical thought and science prevailing. I don't believe such a utopia is possible. All evidence points to humanity spiraling downward. We make incredible advances in medicine, technology, scientific knowledge and quality of life, yet a third of the planet goes without safe drinking water. We're polarizing further and further apart, and I don't think it can last long before imploding into some form of anarchy. We're already seeing the uprisings occurring in the Middle East and recently Turkey. Bottom line is that those are responses to greed. There's no indication at all that this pattern will subside. We have historical precedent to tell us that one regime replacing another doesn't fix anything at all. It just makes people happy for a few years that their previous oppressors were dethroned. A decade or two later and it's the same story. Even 'advanced' civilizations like the US and EU are an absolute mess right this second. You could say there's a level of stability, but it's all a facade. Case in point: GFC of 09ish. What a perfect demonstration of our planet being run by idiots. But I digress. I can hear you saying that we are making great leaps forward in many fields, but the fact remains that we're pushing forward where it's easy and failing hard where it counts: eradicating racism, religiously fueled violence, poverty, greed, corruption and more. And those are just the social disorders we have! I haven't even mentioned that fact that we can't help but screw up the very planet on which we live! I've typed this on my phone at a cafe, so sorry if it seems a bit rambly (and excuse any typos). I just had a moment of frustration with humanity. But I would love for someone to Change My View!

I believe the human race cannot recover from greed and violence to reach utopia, no matter what. CMV. I truly believe that the symptoms of greed and selfishness will always be a part of human life unless we destroy ourselves or something extraterrestrial intervenes. So many movies and sci fi series portray a future where racism, religious warfare and greed is pretty much eliminated with logical thought and science prevailing. I don't believe such a utopia is possible. All evidence points to humanity spiraling downward. We make incredible advances in medicine, technology, scientific knowledge and quality of life, yet a third of the planet goes without safe drinking water. We're polarizing further and further apart, and I don't think it can last long before imploding into some form of anarchy. We're already seeing the uprisings occurring in the Middle East and recently Turkey. Bottom line is that those are responses to greed. There's no indication at all that this pattern will subside. We have historical precedent to tell us that one regime replacing another doesn't fix anything at all. It just makes people happy for a few years that their previous oppressors were dethroned. A decade or two later and it's the same story. Even 'advanced' civilizations like the US and EU are an absolute mess right this second. You could say there's a level of stability, but it's all a facade. Case in point: GFC of 09ish. What a perfect demonstration of our planet being run by idiots. But I digress. I can hear you saying that we are making great leaps forward in many fields, but the fact remains that we're pushing forward where it's easy and failing hard where it counts: eradicating racism, religiously fueled violence, poverty, greed, corruption and more. And those are just the social disorders we have! I haven't even mentioned that fact that we can't help but screw up the very planet on which we live! I've typed this on my phone at a cafe, so sorry if it seems a bit rambly (and excuse any typos). I just had a moment of frustration with humanity. But I would love for someone to Change My View!

t3_2x8d5x

CMV: Consciousness operates under Quantum Mechanics

Let's assume that consciousness exists. 1. The brain is biological but also eletrochemical(stress on electro) because of the way each neuron interacts with every other neuron via electrical synapses. 2. The key aspect of the brain is not the neurons themselves but the set and pattern of electrical synapses in the brain. 3. Consciousness is therefore about those electrical synapses. 4. The study of electrons or electrical behaviour falls under particle physics which operates under Quantum Mechanics which is probabilistic. 5. Therefore, consciousness is quantum and probabilistic. _____ > *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: Consciousness operates under Quantum Mechanics. Let's assume that consciousness exists. 1. The brain is biological but also eletrochemical(stress on electro) because of the way each neuron interacts with every other neuron via electrical synapses. 2. The key aspect of the brain is not the neurons themselves but the set and pattern of electrical synapses in the brain. 3. Consciousness is therefore about those electrical synapses. 4. The study of electrons or electrical behaviour falls under particle physics which operates under Quantum Mechanics which is probabilistic. 5. Therefore, consciousness is quantum and probabilistic.

t3_2j7nel

CMV:I believe that the United States should not negotiate with terrorists.

My belief is that by negotiating with terrorists we jeopardize American ideals, and potentially American security. I believe we should not negotiate with terrorists for the following reasons: 1. If we give a hundred million dollars to a terrorist organization with an American hostage they now have the capability to threaten the U.S. as a whole. 2. By rewarding terrorists for the kidnapping of an American citizen we are giving them an incentive to kidnap more of our people. This is therefore counter productive because in our attempt to save one life we might unknowingly encourage a terrorist organization to take hundreds more. 3. Beyond practical concerns by negotiating with terrorists we are in a small way condoning their actions. By rewarding them for their activities we are in a way endorsing 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 believe that the United States should not negotiate with terrorists. My belief is that by negotiating with terrorists we jeopardize American ideals, and potentially American security. I believe we should not negotiate with terrorists for the following reasons: 1. If we give a hundred million dollars to a terrorist organization with an American hostage they now have the capability to threaten the U.S. as a whole. 2. By rewarding terrorists for the kidnapping of an American citizen we are giving them an incentive to kidnap more of our people. This is therefore counter productive because in our attempt to save one life we might unknowingly encourage a terrorist organization to take hundreds more. 3. Beyond practical concerns by negotiating with terrorists we are in a small way condoning their actions. By rewarding them for their activities we are in a way endorsing 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!*

t3_1ih982

I'm not big into concerts and my wife wants to go see The Eagles perform. I don't want to spend much money on tickets, as it's (in my opinion) crazy expensive. CMV

The Eagles are coming to my city in November, and the ticket prices are shown [here](https://ev8.evenue.net/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/SEGetEventInfo?ticketCode=GS%3ATU%3ATB14%3AEAGLES%3A&linkID=tixunlimited&shopperContext=&caller=&appCode=&RSRC=CV&RDAT=SC#__utma=232716096.2114434729.1374059010.1374059010.1374059010.1&__utmb=232716096.1.10.1374059010&__utmc=232716096&__utmx=-&__utmz=232716096.1374059010.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=110709574). It's $40 per ticket for nosebleed seats, and that's already more than I've spent on a concert ticket. (I think the most expensive was $35 for a ticket.) The most expensive tickets are $149. Is it really going to be worth it to spend the money to get a closer seat? I realize that this is a one time thing. I realize that this is something that will make my wife happy to do. I just can't justify to myself to spend this much on an experience that lasts a couple of hours. I think I'm just having tightwad jitters about spending the money. Thanks in advance for your help in changing my view.

I'm not big into concerts and my wife wants to go see The Eagles perform. I don't want to spend much money on tickets, as it's (in my opinion) crazy expensive. CMV. The Eagles are coming to my city in November, and the ticket prices are shown [here](https://ev8.evenue.net/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/SEGetEventInfo?ticketCode=GS%3ATU%3ATB14%3AEAGLES%3A&linkID=tixunlimited&shopperContext=&caller=&appCode=&RSRC=CV&RDAT=SC#__utma=232716096.2114434729.1374059010.1374059010.1374059010.1&__utmb=232716096.1.10.1374059010&__utmc=232716096&__utmx=-&__utmz=232716096.1374059010.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=110709574). It's $40 per ticket for nosebleed seats, and that's already more than I've spent on a concert ticket. (I think the most expensive was $35 for a ticket.) The most expensive tickets are $149. Is it really going to be worth it to spend the money to get a closer seat? I realize that this is a one time thing. I realize that this is something that will make my wife happy to do. I just can't justify to myself to spend this much on an experience that lasts a couple of hours. I think I'm just having tightwad jitters about spending the money. Thanks in advance for your help in changing my view.

t3_2p7yq0

CMV: There are 7 billion people in this world. Why should I feel bad that some are suffering?

This world seems overpopulated. I feel like there's simply not enough food to go around to feed everybody. Why should I feel bad that some people are dying of disease, starvation, or murder if most of this doesn't affect me. Animals have to die. So why should I donate money towards these causes when there is so much suffering that goes on as a consequence of overpopulation? I know I am very lucky to lead the life I have, I am neither rich nor poor and I have never gone hungry. I also would not trade my place in this world even for someone who's had it worse. I absolutely believe there's no way to keep everyone well fed and happy. _____ > *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 are 7 billion people in this world. Why should I feel bad that some are suffering?. This world seems overpopulated. I feel like there's simply not enough food to go around to feed everybody. Why should I feel bad that some people are dying of disease, starvation, or murder if most of this doesn't affect me. Animals have to die. So why should I donate money towards these causes when there is so much suffering that goes on as a consequence of overpopulation? I know I am very lucky to lead the life I have, I am neither rich nor poor and I have never gone hungry. I also would not trade my place in this world even for someone who's had it worse. I absolutely believe there's no way to keep everyone well fed and happy.