Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_6lnc3o

CMV: I should lose my virginity in a casual encounter to get it over with as opposed to waiting for someone I care for

I think that I should lose my virginity in a casual encounter to get it over with as opposed to waiting for someone I care for because it is more important to lose it quickly around the right time (16) rather than to lose it with someone you care for. I am speaking from the perspective of a 21-year-old heterosexual male. It doesn't even need to be an enjoyable experience, the only restrictions is that it must be with your preferred gender, and it must not be with a prostitute, and it must be consensual. I think the main benefits gained from losing your virginity are being able to understand roughly what works when it comes to flirting, and being able to stop worrying about losing it for status and focus on actually finding something you want (something I believe is impossible while being a virgin). I have heard some males claim that they regretted doing this but I really think that they are doing so to try to deny how they were wasting so many years of their lives as virgins by pretending it didn't matter. _____ > *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 should lose my virginity in a casual encounter to get it over with as opposed to waiting for someone I care for. I think that I should lose my virginity in a casual encounter to get it over with as opposed to waiting for someone I care for because it is more important to lose it quickly around the right time (16) rather than to lose it with someone you care for. I am speaking from the perspective of a 21-year-old heterosexual male. It doesn't even need to be an enjoyable experience, the only restrictions is that it must be with your preferred gender, and it must not be with a prostitute, and it must be consensual. I think the main benefits gained from losing your virginity are being able to understand roughly what works when it comes to flirting, and being able to stop worrying about losing it for status and focus on actually finding something you want (something I believe is impossible while being a virgin). I have heard some males claim that they regretted doing this but I really think that they are doing so to try to deny how they were wasting so many years of their lives as virgins by pretending it didn't matter.

t3_1fgwq0

I think the idea of marriage contacts will result in millions of children with divorced parents. CMV

Some countries are toying around with the idea of making 5-10 year marriage contacts to counteract divorce cases and issues. Wouldn't this just make it easier for kids to be raised in broken families? I don't know many kids from those homes that don't either find trouble, struggle in school, or have emotional damage...

I think the idea of marriage contacts will result in millions of children with divorced parents. CMV. Some countries are toying around with the idea of making 5-10 year marriage contacts to counteract divorce cases and issues. Wouldn't this just make it easier for kids to be raised in broken families? I don't know many kids from those homes that don't either find trouble, struggle in school, or have emotional damage...

t3_22odnq

CMV: Prostitution should be legal (for those 18 and older).

> *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!* Reason 1: Criminalizing prostitution makes it easier to abuse prostitutes. If a prostitute is being threatened in a hotel room, then she will not threaten to call the cops or alert hotel staff. Reason 2: Criminalizing prostitution, much like marijuana and alcohol, has not stopped people from engaging in it. The time and money otherwise spent going after adult prostitutes and their pimps can be diverted towards rescuing child prostitutes. Reason 3: A person has the right to do what they want with their own body, whether we like what they do or not. Reason 4: If prostitution is legal, then when a person stops being a prostitute it will be easier for them to find a job because they will be less likely to have a criminal record. Reason 5: Pornography is legal, and pornography is prostitution with a camera. Reason 6: If prostitution is legal, then it will be theoretically easier to decrease its occurrence via shaming. People can stand outside of establishments that provide prostitution and record people going in and out for all the world to see on YouTube.

CMV: Prostitution should be legal (for those 18 and older). > *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!* Reason 1: Criminalizing prostitution makes it easier to abuse prostitutes. If a prostitute is being threatened in a hotel room, then she will not threaten to call the cops or alert hotel staff. Reason 2: Criminalizing prostitution, much like marijuana and alcohol, has not stopped people from engaging in it. The time and money otherwise spent going after adult prostitutes and their pimps can be diverted towards rescuing child prostitutes. Reason 3: A person has the right to do what they want with their own body, whether we like what they do or not. Reason 4: If prostitution is legal, then when a person stops being a prostitute it will be easier for them to find a job because they will be less likely to have a criminal record. Reason 5: Pornography is legal, and pornography is prostitution with a camera. Reason 6: If prostitution is legal, then it will be theoretically easier to decrease its occurrence via shaming. People can stand outside of establishments that provide prostitution and record people going in and out for all the world to see on YouTube.

t3_5wqzao

CMV: R/prequelmemes is the best subreddit.

There is no other place on reddit that is dedicated to the truly magnificent laughs that arrise from that subreddit. Sure, it leaks into other places and does so amazingly, but r/prequelmemes is the central hub of it all. Almost like how the sith temple beneath the Jedi Temple leaked and affected the Jedis ability to sense the dark side rising. There is no other place that can teach people about the tragedy of Darth plagueis the wise with such gusto (especially subreddits run by Jedi). I look forward to your responses. They will make a fine addition to my collection. So try to CMV - this is where the fun begins.

CMV: R/prequelmemes is the best subreddit. There is no other place on reddit that is dedicated to the truly magnificent laughs that arrise from that subreddit. Sure, it leaks into other places and does so amazingly, but r/prequelmemes is the central hub of it all. Almost like how the sith temple beneath the Jedi Temple leaked and affected the Jedis ability to sense the dark side rising. There is no other place that can teach people about the tragedy of Darth plagueis the wise with such gusto (especially subreddits run by Jedi). I look forward to your responses. They will make a fine addition to my collection. So try to CMV - this is where the fun begins.

t3_1i5fsi

Downvotes should not be anonymous. CMV.

Downvotes should be used to quickly hide very disruptive comments. If someone starts insulting other Redditors without a proper reason, or if someone posts a link to NSFW content while making it look like it's a link to the Wikipedia page on bats, please downvote them. But many people downvote completely innocent content. *"I don't think the graphics of that Rambo-game look very bad"* - 30 downvotes. That's why it should be clear who downvotes what. When you hover your mouse above the score, it could display something like "Mike123, Harris6 and StrangeName have downvoted this comment". You could also make the /disliked page on every userpage public. Nobody has to be ashamed of using downvotes in the proper manner - it's actually a good thing. But I think people will be a bit more careful with downvoting others if they know others can see what they did.

Downvotes should not be anonymous. CMV. Downvotes should be used to quickly hide very disruptive comments. If someone starts insulting other Redditors without a proper reason, or if someone posts a link to NSFW content while making it look like it's a link to the Wikipedia page on bats, please downvote them. But many people downvote completely innocent content. *"I don't think the graphics of that Rambo-game look very bad"* - 30 downvotes. That's why it should be clear who downvotes what. When you hover your mouse above the score, it could display something like "Mike123, Harris6 and StrangeName have downvoted this comment". You could also make the /disliked page on every userpage public. Nobody has to be ashamed of using downvotes in the proper manner - it's actually a good thing. But I think people will be a bit more careful with downvoting others if they know others can see what they did.

t3_1hwz7v

I'm a liberal who isn't comfortable with abortion or the pro-choice agenda. CMV.

On every social issue, I lean far to the left - gay rights, drug legalization, climate change... you name it. Except abortion. I wouldn't go so far as to call myself pro-life, but I have some serious problems with the pro-choice camp's arguments. It's my belief that partial-birth/late-term abortion is definitely wrong (unless the life of the mother is seriously at risk), and that even earlier term abortions should be highly scrutinized before proceeding. My belief is based on two principles: 1) once a fetus is considered alive, it cannot be "aborted", - to do so is murder, just like killing any other human being; 2) we don't know and haven't yet defined at exactly what moment a fetus becomes "alive" - and I don't know that we ever will. Therefore, since we don't know at what moment a fetus' life begins, and since it would be immoral to abort a living human being, I believe abortion is incredibly risky morally, as one can't be sure they aren't killing a "living" human being or not. I understand the argument that women (obviously) have a right to their bodies and no one should tell them what they can or cannot do with them. However, in cases of abortion I would argue that the fetus' right to live (assuming that it is indeed alive) must trump a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to be a vessel for the fetus. I don't believe life begins at conception. However, it's also obvious that life begins at some point before a baby emerges from its mother's womb 9 months later. I know most states have laws banning abortion after 24 weeks - but not all of them. And, as now everyone knows, recently Wendy Davis received heaps of praise from progressives for filibustering a Texas law that would have limited abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. So clearly most liberals think abortions performed after 20 weeks aren't a problem. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think it's radical or ridiculous to argue that living human beings should not be killed, and that we don't know exactly when a human life begins. So if that's the case, why does everyone on the left seem so OK with abortion under almost any circumstances? 5 months (~20 weeks) seems like a good amount of time to decide whether or not you want to have a baby, so I guess I don't understand all the vitriol from the left over the bill Wendy Davis filibustered. It seems like we're playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of life. As an aside, I'm relieved to find a place where I can ask a question like this and get fact-based responses back rather than dogmatic hate speech, which (in my experience) both pro-choice and pro-life advocates seem to sling without restraint at anyone who questions their beliefs. **Edit: Sorry to be MIA for a lot of the comments so far - I didn't realize people would respond so quickly! Also, thank you for the respectful and intelligent comments thus far.**

I'm a liberal who isn't comfortable with abortion or the pro-choice agenda. CMV. On every social issue, I lean far to the left - gay rights, drug legalization, climate change... you name it. Except abortion. I wouldn't go so far as to call myself pro-life, but I have some serious problems with the pro-choice camp's arguments. It's my belief that partial-birth/late-term abortion is definitely wrong (unless the life of the mother is seriously at risk), and that even earlier term abortions should be highly scrutinized before proceeding. My belief is based on two principles: 1) once a fetus is considered alive, it cannot be "aborted", - to do so is murder, just like killing any other human being; 2) we don't know and haven't yet defined at exactly what moment a fetus becomes "alive" - and I don't know that we ever will. Therefore, since we don't know at what moment a fetus' life begins, and since it would be immoral to abort a living human being, I believe abortion is incredibly risky morally, as one can't be sure they aren't killing a "living" human being or not. I understand the argument that women (obviously) have a right to their bodies and no one should tell them what they can or cannot do with them. However, in cases of abortion I would argue that the fetus' right to live (assuming that it is indeed alive) must trump a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to be a vessel for the fetus. I don't believe life begins at conception. However, it's also obvious that life begins at some point before a baby emerges from its mother's womb 9 months later. I know most states have laws banning abortion after 24 weeks - but not all of them. And, as now everyone knows, recently Wendy Davis received heaps of praise from progressives for filibustering a Texas law that would have limited abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. So clearly most liberals think abortions performed after 20 weeks aren't a problem. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think it's radical or ridiculous to argue that living human beings should not be killed, and that we don't know exactly when a human life begins. So if that's the case, why does everyone on the left seem so OK with abortion under almost any circumstances? 5 months (~20 weeks) seems like a good amount of time to decide whether or not you want to have a baby, so I guess I don't understand all the vitriol from the left over the bill Wendy Davis filibustered. It seems like we're playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of life. As an aside, I'm relieved to find a place where I can ask a question like this and get fact-based responses back rather than dogmatic hate speech, which (in my experience) both pro-choice and pro-life advocates seem to sling without restraint at anyone who questions their beliefs. **Edit: Sorry to be MIA for a lot of the comments so far - I didn't realize people would respond so quickly! Also, thank you for the respectful and intelligent comments thus far.**

t3_2g7bje

CMV:Non native English speakers can make good TEFL teachers

*TEFL = Teaching English as a foreign language, for more check /r/TEFL* Currently it can be very hard for non native English speakers to get a job teaching English outside of their country of origin. (For example a French citizen getting a job teaching English in China) I think ability to teach English abroad should be based on English ability (plus other factors) but not country of birth. There are many points I want to make: 1) English is now a global language. A discussion between a Japanese person and a Spanish person could be a common occurrence. As an international language we should be open to international teachers. English does not belong to native speakers anymore. 2) There is no set accent. A southern American accent, a New Jersey accent, a London accent and a scottish accent are all very different from each other. What is it that makes these accents acceptable but a French accent not? If someone is understandable to most speakers and their English is above a certain level they have the right to teach globally. 3) Non native speakers often understand learning English better than native speakers. If I asked a random selection of people to explain the past perfect I think many non native speakers would do better than native speakers. This is as we approached learning the language in different ways. This means a new native English speaker doesn't always know all the meta stuff they should. 4) What does to be a native speaker even mean? There are many countries (Philippines, India, Singapore, large areas of Africa) that use English one of their primary languages, but countries that only provide visas to native speakers often won't count these countries. Change my view! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Non native English speakers can make good TEFL teachers. *TEFL = Teaching English as a foreign language, for more check /r/TEFL* Currently it can be very hard for non native English speakers to get a job teaching English outside of their country of origin. (For example a French citizen getting a job teaching English in China) I think ability to teach English abroad should be based on English ability (plus other factors) but not country of birth. There are many points I want to make: 1) English is now a global language. A discussion between a Japanese person and a Spanish person could be a common occurrence. As an international language we should be open to international teachers. English does not belong to native speakers anymore. 2) There is no set accent. A southern American accent, a New Jersey accent, a London accent and a scottish accent are all very different from each other. What is it that makes these accents acceptable but a French accent not? If someone is understandable to most speakers and their English is above a certain level they have the right to teach globally. 3) Non native speakers often understand learning English better than native speakers. If I asked a random selection of people to explain the past perfect I think many non native speakers would do better than native speakers. This is as we approached learning the language in different ways. This means a new native English speaker doesn't always know all the meta stuff they should. 4) What does to be a native speaker even mean? There are many countries (Philippines, India, Singapore, large areas of Africa) that use English one of their primary languages, but countries that only provide visas to native speakers often won't count these countries. Change my view!

t3_24v14w

CMV: I believe that vigilantism should be legalized, as long as it's regulated.

I believe that it's our duty as human beings to do what we can to help each other in any way we can. I know that I wouldn't even think twice about helping someone in trouble. Unfortunately, not many people I know agree with me. While I understand that it isn't our job as civilians to get in the way of danger, I feel that it should be one's choice to do so or not. I have great respect for police officers. If it wasn't for them, I'd have likely been in jail once or twice. I don't even have a record, thanks to them. That being said, I also feel that there is too much red tape for them to be effective. There are also some (IMO) very stupid laws against certain methods of gathering evidence (audio recording, for example). If it's recorded w/ the subjects knowledge, it's inadmissible in court, and could land *you* in trouble instead. I don't believe that is fair for many people. I realize that some people could take advantage of legal vigilantism. They could use it as an excuse to act in ways that can seriously harm them or others. That's why I think that it should be regulated if it was legal. Some rules could be. 1. Mandatory Registration that is known to only the vigilante and the executive office of the State Government in which the vigilante is registered. The individual will then receive a form of identification to present to law enforcement if required. 2. If the actions of the vigilante result in the death or permanent injury of another party, suspect or civilian, they are to be held responsible. 3. Consequences of actions **(explained in #2)** include but are not limited to... -Arrest of vigilante. -The revoking of the individuals vigilante status, and thus legally prohibit them from continuing. Their former status as a vigilante is also put on record. Any later actions of a similar nature are to be considered criminal offense of the 2nd Degree at the least. 4. If the vigilante is told by law enforcement to leave a case alone, they must comply. I can't think of much more at this time. I'll update later. **EDIT!!** &#8710

CMV: I believe that vigilantism should be legalized, as long as it's regulated. I believe that it's our duty as human beings to do what we can to help each other in any way we can. I know that I wouldn't even think twice about helping someone in trouble. Unfortunately, not many people I know agree with me. While I understand that it isn't our job as civilians to get in the way of danger, I feel that it should be one's choice to do so or not. I have great respect for police officers. If it wasn't for them, I'd have likely been in jail once or twice. I don't even have a record, thanks to them. That being said, I also feel that there is too much red tape for them to be effective. There are also some (IMO) very stupid laws against certain methods of gathering evidence (audio recording, for example). If it's recorded w/ the subjects knowledge, it's inadmissible in court, and could land *you* in trouble instead. I don't believe that is fair for many people. I realize that some people could take advantage of legal vigilantism. They could use it as an excuse to act in ways that can seriously harm them or others. That's why I think that it should be regulated if it was legal. Some rules could be. 1. Mandatory Registration that is known to only the vigilante and the executive office of the State Government in which the vigilante is registered. The individual will then receive a form of identification to present to law enforcement if required. 2. If the actions of the vigilante result in the death or permanent injury of another party, suspect or civilian, they are to be held responsible. 3. Consequences of actions **(explained in #2)** include but are not limited to... -Arrest of vigilante. -The revoking of the individuals vigilante status, and thus legally prohibit them from continuing. Their former status as a vigilante is also put on record. Any later actions of a similar nature are to be considered criminal offense of the 2nd Degree at the least. 4. If the vigilante is told by law enforcement to leave a case alone, they must comply. I can't think of much more at this time. I'll update later. **EDIT!!** &#8710

t3_3d7ar8

CMV: I don't believe in gender, other than biological sex. As in, I don't believe in any set gender norms/the existance of a non-biological gender.

Please understand that I have no hatred for transgender people, and I will not force this view upon them or anyone. I have rather liberal views, really; I'm ready to accept a lot of things... But I have trouble understanding the reasoning behind gender dysphoria and all of that. I identify as my biological sex, yet I really feel more 'feminine' than 'masculine'. Yet I don't really believe in either term due to their outdated definitions and all of that nonsense. I'm not a very spiritual person. And I don't believe in a lot 'outside' of what we can percieve. Yes I believe there's more to the world, but I don't believe in anything beyond biological sex. Of course it's not binary. Intersex people very obviously exist, that's just scientific fact. **I'm starting to go off topic here, but I'm not sure how to elaborate on all of this.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe in gender, other than biological sex. As in, I don't believe in any set gender norms/the existance of a non-biological gender. Please understand that I have no hatred for transgender people, and I will not force this view upon them or anyone. I have rather liberal views, really; I'm ready to accept a lot of things... But I have trouble understanding the reasoning behind gender dysphoria and all of that. I identify as my biological sex, yet I really feel more 'feminine' than 'masculine'. Yet I don't really believe in either term due to their outdated definitions and all of that nonsense. I'm not a very spiritual person. And I don't believe in a lot 'outside' of what we can percieve. Yes I believe there's more to the world, but I don't believe in anything beyond biological sex. Of course it's not binary. Intersex people very obviously exist, that's just scientific fact. **I'm starting to go off topic here, but I'm not sure how to elaborate on all of this.**

t3_6z9p0j

CMV: I believe it is never okay to dox anyone, not even Neo-Nazis.

I do not believe that it is okay to dox people by publishing their names, identities, addresses, places of employment against their will. The only time when this is acceptable is when that person is a fugitive and the information about them you are spreading was released by a police department; and even then, you have to be very careful to ensure that any of the details about that person only came from the polic department (no follow-up information of your own should be added; it should be tipped to the PD not blasted to the public). Outside of when you are parroting information released by a PD, you should not spread their personally identifying information against their will. This applies to everyone no matter how much they personally agree or disagree with you. Even including Neo-Nazis, who I condemn to the bone. There was some doxxing of the Unite the Right rally protestors and as much as I despise them, I do not believe that they should be doxxed. You've opened up the door to the counterprotestors being doxxed if you're standard is "I disagree with them vehemently so I will dox them"; those protestors despise the antifa counterprotestros just as much as the antifa members despised the protestors. I do not believe that appearing unmasked in public is tantamount to saying "you are free to dox me by amplifying the spotlight on me". This also spreads the risk for false identification like what happened to an [innocent Arkansas professor](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/16/arkansas-professor-wrongly-id-d-as-torch-bearing-protester-in-charlottesville.html). You cannot take vigilanteism into your own hands. One of this very site's darkest days was when it doxxed and falsely suspected suspects in the Boston Bombing case in 2013. Outside of when you are parroting information already released by a law enforcement agency, it is always morally impermissible and it should be illegal to publish personally identifying information about a person against their will. _____ > *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 it is never okay to dox anyone, not even Neo-Nazis. I do not believe that it is okay to dox people by publishing their names, identities, addresses, places of employment against their will. The only time when this is acceptable is when that person is a fugitive and the information about them you are spreading was released by a police department; and even then, you have to be very careful to ensure that any of the details about that person only came from the polic department (no follow-up information of your own should be added; it should be tipped to the PD not blasted to the public). Outside of when you are parroting information released by a PD, you should not spread their personally identifying information against their will. This applies to everyone no matter how much they personally agree or disagree with you. Even including Neo-Nazis, who I condemn to the bone. There was some doxxing of the Unite the Right rally protestors and as much as I despise them, I do not believe that they should be doxxed. You've opened up the door to the counterprotestors being doxxed if you're standard is "I disagree with them vehemently so I will dox them"; those protestors despise the antifa counterprotestros just as much as the antifa members despised the protestors. I do not believe that appearing unmasked in public is tantamount to saying "you are free to dox me by amplifying the spotlight on me". This also spreads the risk for false identification like what happened to an [innocent Arkansas professor](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/16/arkansas-professor-wrongly-id-d-as-torch-bearing-protester-in-charlottesville.html). You cannot take vigilanteism into your own hands. One of this very site's darkest days was when it doxxed and falsely suspected suspects in the Boston Bombing case in 2013. Outside of when you are parroting information already released by a law enforcement agency, it is always morally impermissible and it should be illegal to publish personally identifying information about a person against their will. _____ > *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_1zznn2

The best horror games have helplessness as a main factor. CMV

Most horror games that we play can be pretty scary, like the Dead Space and Silent Hill series, but you always have a gun or weapon of some sort to fight off your attackers, which gives you a way to level the playing field. But in games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Outlast, and Dreadhalls, you have no way of defending yourself. You feel as though the threat is infinitely more powerful than you because while they can kill you, you can't do more than try and slow them down. You dread the noise you hear around the corner because you could time your approach wrong and be face to face with a foe who's almost as fast as you that you can't do anything but run from and hope that you don't box yourself into a dead end. Horror games that have you unarmed with no way of defeating enemies(with the exception of plot-driven kills) are scarier, and better deserving of the "horror" label than games that let you blast through baddies. CMV.

The best horror games have helplessness as a main factor. CMV. Most horror games that we play can be pretty scary, like the Dead Space and Silent Hill series, but you always have a gun or weapon of some sort to fight off your attackers, which gives you a way to level the playing field. But in games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Outlast, and Dreadhalls, you have no way of defending yourself. You feel as though the threat is infinitely more powerful than you because while they can kill you, you can't do more than try and slow them down. You dread the noise you hear around the corner because you could time your approach wrong and be face to face with a foe who's almost as fast as you that you can't do anything but run from and hope that you don't box yourself into a dead end. Horror games that have you unarmed with no way of defeating enemies(with the exception of plot-driven kills) are scarier, and better deserving of the "horror" label than games that let you blast through baddies. CMV.

t3_4pxx1w

CMV: I see no good reason to buy very expensive designer brands if there are very well made imitations.

Where I live I have seen some really well made imitation products. Such as shoes, belts, basically every designer bag, wallets, sunglasses and the like. Most of these products are usually way cheaper and usually look identical unless you REALLY know the tell tale signs of a knock off/remake which are usually minute details. I don't know anything about manufacturing practices on either side but I'd think they're pretty similar. I see no point in spending 100's of dollars to have a genuine brand name item when you can buy a basically identical versions for a fraction of the cost, so long as the quality is decent and its not super obvious that it's an imitation.

CMV: I see no good reason to buy very expensive designer brands if there are very well made imitations. Where I live I have seen some really well made imitation products. Such as shoes, belts, basically every designer bag, wallets, sunglasses and the like. Most of these products are usually way cheaper and usually look identical unless you REALLY know the tell tale signs of a knock off/remake which are usually minute details. I don't know anything about manufacturing practices on either side but I'd think they're pretty similar. I see no point in spending 100's of dollars to have a genuine brand name item when you can buy a basically identical versions for a fraction of the cost, so long as the quality is decent and its not super obvious that it's an imitation.

t3_1lbdd2

I feel that the kneejerk reaction gamers have toward the possibility of violent video games fostering violent behavior is wrong, CMV.

With GTA V coming out soon this subject is bubbling up again. In a nutshell, if you think violence in video games (as well as our other forms of media that have become saturated with violence) has zero effect on the violence we see in our culture I think you are deluding yourself. I'd like to emphasize that I think this is a "knee-jerk" reaction- it seems like hardly anyone is willing to honestly and critically look at this situation anymore, and mostly people feel comfortable jumping on their bandwagon of choice instead of really thinking about it. Yes, plenty of people play Call of Duty and don't start killing Germans because of it, just as playing Grand Theft Auto probably isn't causing people to run over hookers for money. I'm a gamer too and I've done both these things in video games without feeling tempted to recreate them in real life. But how can you say the incredible amount of violence we are exposed to in all forms of our entertainment has zero effect on the rise of senseless acts of violence in our culture? How is that even possible? It's all about desensitization. Violence certainly isn't anything new in human society, we all know that. But wasn't violence historically something that was mostly witnessed by the warriors and soldiers? Sure it's all props and illusion now, but never before in (at least recent) history has such a broad swath of the general population been exposed to images of people being decapitated, shot to death, and blown up. Remember the turn in public opinion on the Vietnam War when, for the first time, real images of war were being broadcast to everyone with a television set? When people found out what war really was, they were shocked, horrified, disgusted. Now every male from 18 to 25 has experienced the Normandy invasion. Isn't it worth having a conversation about what effects this desensitization to violence may be having on us? I don't believe that we should ban violence in our media, it has its place, and should be for adults only. But I think gamers and the soccer moms alike are preventing everybody from having a real dialogue about this because of our tendency to jump on bandwagons.

I feel that the kneejerk reaction gamers have toward the possibility of violent video games fostering violent behavior is wrong, CMV. With GTA V coming out soon this subject is bubbling up again. In a nutshell, if you think violence in video games (as well as our other forms of media that have become saturated with violence) has zero effect on the violence we see in our culture I think you are deluding yourself. I'd like to emphasize that I think this is a "knee-jerk" reaction- it seems like hardly anyone is willing to honestly and critically look at this situation anymore, and mostly people feel comfortable jumping on their bandwagon of choice instead of really thinking about it. Yes, plenty of people play Call of Duty and don't start killing Germans because of it, just as playing Grand Theft Auto probably isn't causing people to run over hookers for money. I'm a gamer too and I've done both these things in video games without feeling tempted to recreate them in real life. But how can you say the incredible amount of violence we are exposed to in all forms of our entertainment has zero effect on the rise of senseless acts of violence in our culture? How is that even possible? It's all about desensitization. Violence certainly isn't anything new in human society, we all know that. But wasn't violence historically something that was mostly witnessed by the warriors and soldiers? Sure it's all props and illusion now, but never before in (at least recent) history has such a broad swath of the general population been exposed to images of people being decapitated, shot to death, and blown up. Remember the turn in public opinion on the Vietnam War when, for the first time, real images of war were being broadcast to everyone with a television set? When people found out what war really was, they were shocked, horrified, disgusted. Now every male from 18 to 25 has experienced the Normandy invasion. Isn't it worth having a conversation about what effects this desensitization to violence may be having on us? I don't believe that we should ban violence in our media, it has its place, and should be for adults only. But I think gamers and the soccer moms alike are preventing everybody from having a real dialogue about this because of our tendency to jump on bandwagons.

t3_60v3zq

CMV: The British government does not have a mandate to leave the single market

The following video shows that during the European Union membership referendum in the UK, the Leave campaign repeatedly, emphatically, and enthusiastically argued that the UK would not leave the single market of the EU in the event of Brexit. This is clearly now not the case, and the possibility of leaving the EU single market as a result of Brexit is high, and getting higher. But what mandate does the UK government have to make this policy change? I would argue none. If you promise one thing, and then do another, you are going against your mandate. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce The only counter argument I've heard to this is that the leave vote campaign was not the government, and that thus there is no responsibility here. The problem is the government is deriving it's legitimacy to take this action forward on the basis of the referendum which the leave campaign fought. If you're going to argue that because vote leave is not the government, therefore they don't have to fulfil vote leaves promise, then on what basis do they have to listen to the referendum result? _____ > *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 British government does not have a mandate to leave the single market. The following video shows that during the European Union membership referendum in the UK, the Leave campaign repeatedly, emphatically, and enthusiastically argued that the UK would not leave the single market of the EU in the event of Brexit. This is clearly now not the case, and the possibility of leaving the EU single market as a result of Brexit is high, and getting higher. But what mandate does the UK government have to make this policy change? I would argue none. If you promise one thing, and then do another, you are going against your mandate. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce The only counter argument I've heard to this is that the leave vote campaign was not the government, and that thus there is no responsibility here. The problem is the government is deriving it's legitimacy to take this action forward on the basis of the referendum which the leave campaign fought. If you're going to argue that because vote leave is not the government, therefore they don't have to fulfil vote leaves promise, then on what basis do they have to listen to the referendum result?

t3_1yn5hg

I believe that homophobia is just as biologically ingrained as homosexuality. CMV.

PLEASE NOTE: this post is not about hatred of homosexual people. It is about a feeling of disgust towards homosexual acts. I use the term "homophobic" in its literal sense, meaning "fear of homosexuality." I am a straight man. When I scroll through porn, occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video will pop up. My instantaneous reaction is to go "eww!" and close out the page. Is that reaction biological? Or is it ingrained in by society? There's no way to know for sure, but I believe that that it is as equally rooted in biology as homosexuality. When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, we say "oh that makes sense." But when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, he or she may be deemed "homophobic," which in turn can be equated to "hateful." However, were straight people not grossed out by homosexual sex, they would all be bi-curious. In other words, inherent revulsion at homosexuality is what makes people straight, and keeps them reproducing. It's inconsistent to say "homosexuality is not a choice, but heterosexuality is." Some small children are turned off by homosexuality, just as there are children who, once sexual feelings emerge, are attracted to it. Both are rooted in a combination of biology and socialization from a very early age. It is unfair to condemn individuals in *either* case. EDIT: Added a line for clarification

I believe that homophobia is just as biologically ingrained as homosexuality. CMV. PLEASE NOTE: this post is not about hatred of homosexual people. It is about a feeling of disgust towards homosexual acts. I use the term "homophobic" in its literal sense, meaning "fear of homosexuality." I am a straight man. When I scroll through porn, occasionally a thumbnail for a gay video will pop up. My instantaneous reaction is to go "eww!" and close out the page. Is that reaction biological? Or is it ingrained in by society? There's no way to know for sure, but I believe that that it is as equally rooted in biology as homosexuality. When a homosexual person is grossed out by straight sex, we say "oh that makes sense." But when a straight person is grossed out by homosexual sex, he or she may be deemed "homophobic," which in turn can be equated to "hateful." However, were straight people not grossed out by homosexual sex, they would all be bi-curious. In other words, inherent revulsion at homosexuality is what makes people straight, and keeps them reproducing. It's inconsistent to say "homosexuality is not a choice, but heterosexuality is." Some small children are turned off by homosexuality, just as there are children who, once sexual feelings emerge, are attracted to it. Both are rooted in a combination of biology and socialization from a very early age. It is unfair to condemn individuals in *either* case. EDIT: Added a line for clarification

t3_41o7v5

CMV: Spike Lee's boycott post against the oscar's is racist

On CNN today, there is an article about Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee boycotting the oscars (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/entertainment/oscars-boycott-spike-lee-jada-pinkett-smith-feat/index.html). While I completely understand the reason they are upset (although I am curious which African-American actors/actresses were snubbed, as if it just happens to work out that the top actors were white, I don't see a problem. Only if they are clearly overlooking black talent.), Spike Lee's post in particular seemed extremely racist. In stating that he means no disrespect, he is just upset, he only apologizes to the black people involved. While attacking the Oscars for being racist, he only talks about how black people are being snubbed, but there are no Latin nominees, no Asian nominees, no indian nominees... He does not apologize to other minorities on the board... I just don't see how his tirade is also steeped in racism. I would very much like my view changed, as "racism combating racism" is something I have seen more and more recently, and I would truly like to understand 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 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: Spike Lee's boycott post against the oscar's is racist. On CNN today, there is an article about Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee boycotting the oscars (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/entertainment/oscars-boycott-spike-lee-jada-pinkett-smith-feat/index.html). While I completely understand the reason they are upset (although I am curious which African-American actors/actresses were snubbed, as if it just happens to work out that the top actors were white, I don't see a problem. Only if they are clearly overlooking black talent.), Spike Lee's post in particular seemed extremely racist. In stating that he means no disrespect, he is just upset, he only apologizes to the black people involved. While attacking the Oscars for being racist, he only talks about how black people are being snubbed, but there are no Latin nominees, no Asian nominees, no indian nominees... He does not apologize to other minorities on the board... I just don't see how his tirade is also steeped in racism. I would very much like my view changed, as "racism combating racism" is something I have seen more and more recently, and I would truly like to understand it better.

t3_1m5nls

I believe that pure capitalism, though not perfect, is the best economic system for a nation. CMV

I live in the U.S. and I think that if we allowed private businesses to take the place of government entities such as public schools, public roads, and many others that the economy of my country would be much better. I believe that because these businesses would be for profit then they would work much more efficiently and for a fair price (supply and demand would dictate this). Take public road construction for example, I drive by I-45 everyday and rarely see much getting done. as a result my tax dollars are getting used less-efficiently while my roads are stagnant and poor quality. I would also like to point out that I'm no economist, so if whoever responds to this could kind of keep it ELI5-ish, that would be wonderful.

I believe that pure capitalism, though not perfect, is the best economic system for a nation. CMV. I live in the U.S. and I think that if we allowed private businesses to take the place of government entities such as public schools, public roads, and many others that the economy of my country would be much better. I believe that because these businesses would be for profit then they would work much more efficiently and for a fair price (supply and demand would dictate this). Take public road construction for example, I drive by I-45 everyday and rarely see much getting done. as a result my tax dollars are getting used less-efficiently while my roads are stagnant and poor quality. I would also like to point out that I'm no economist, so if whoever responds to this could kind of keep it ELI5-ish, that would be wonderful.

t3_5zjl12

CMV: Democrats should focus on their own base rather than Trump voters in future elections

Democrats have been criticised for giving up on working class white men and many have said they need to reach out to these people. I disagree because I think that reaching out to these people is impossible as they are too loyal to Trump and because their views are so radically different to Democrats' own supporters, they can't appeal to both. Firstly, I think that at this point, no rational argument would change the mind of most current Trump supporters. Some voted for him as a protest vote and some just to stop Clinton and they can be convinced to switch but I think that anyone who still supports him cannot be convinced by the Democrats and any effort directed towards that is effort wasted. Secondly, Democrats have a few important issues they focus on like equal rights for women and minorities, oppurtunities and support for the poor and fighting climate change. Most of these causes are either opposed or ignored by most Trump voters and Republicans. Scientific evidence has not convinced Republicans of the dangers of climate change so I can't see how Democrats can convince them. They can either give up on the issue (losing votes to the Greens) or ignore these voters. Problems like police violence and racial discrimination are either ignored or indirectly supported by Republicans (e.g. ID laws, gerrymandering etc.) and Trump's approval rates despite his contempt for them shows that Democrats can't convince Trump supporters to care about these issues. Wrt helping the poor, Democrats can change some minds in this area but I think that Republicans preference for white voters over others means that they will always have the majority of their votes. Some principled conservatives could be convinced to vote against what the [GOP has become](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/14/the-gop-is-americas-party-of-white-nationalism/) but I think that because of the influence of right wing media (Fox and Breitbart) most will see any Democrat as a threat to the US and they can't be relied on to stop a Trump-led Republican party. Overall, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Trump's current supporters could not be convinced to change their minds about him regardless of the arguments or evidence presented as they have either made up their minds or don't care about the same issues Democrats do and any efforts to do so is either a waste of time or will alienate people who might actually vote Democrat (e.g. minorities, millennials, women, college educated). These groups are growing portions of the electorate and improved turnout from them should be enough to win a Presidential election. This is similar to thoughts I expressed in a [previous CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5svc5f/cmv_donald_trump_could_shoot_somebody_in_the/) that was phrased much more black and white but this is a more accurate version of what I think. **EDIT:** Just to clarify, I don't beleive the Democrats are the only ones playing identity politics or that they particullarly started it. I believe that civil rights has always been an issue and the Republicans and Democrats values meant they took a side. The idea that the Dems are the only ones playing this game is an excuse put forward by Republicans to justify their inability to meet the concerns of people outside their older, whiter base. _____ > *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: Democrats should focus on their own base rather than Trump voters in future elections. Democrats have been criticised for giving up on working class white men and many have said they need to reach out to these people. I disagree because I think that reaching out to these people is impossible as they are too loyal to Trump and because their views are so radically different to Democrats' own supporters, they can't appeal to both. Firstly, I think that at this point, no rational argument would change the mind of most current Trump supporters. Some voted for him as a protest vote and some just to stop Clinton and they can be convinced to switch but I think that anyone who still supports him cannot be convinced by the Democrats and any effort directed towards that is effort wasted. Secondly, Democrats have a few important issues they focus on like equal rights for women and minorities, oppurtunities and support for the poor and fighting climate change. Most of these causes are either opposed or ignored by most Trump voters and Republicans. Scientific evidence has not convinced Republicans of the dangers of climate change so I can't see how Democrats can convince them. They can either give up on the issue (losing votes to the Greens) or ignore these voters. Problems like police violence and racial discrimination are either ignored or indirectly supported by Republicans (e.g. ID laws, gerrymandering etc.) and Trump's approval rates despite his contempt for them shows that Democrats can't convince Trump supporters to care about these issues. Wrt helping the poor, Democrats can change some minds in this area but I think that Republicans preference for white voters over others means that they will always have the majority of their votes. Some principled conservatives could be convinced to vote against what the [GOP has become](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/14/the-gop-is-americas-party-of-white-nationalism/) but I think that because of the influence of right wing media (Fox and Breitbart) most will see any Democrat as a threat to the US and they can't be relied on to stop a Trump-led Republican party. Overall, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Trump's current supporters could not be convinced to change their minds about him regardless of the arguments or evidence presented as they have either made up their minds or don't care about the same issues Democrats do and any efforts to do so is either a waste of time or will alienate people who might actually vote Democrat (e.g. minorities, millennials, women, college educated). These groups are growing portions of the electorate and improved turnout from them should be enough to win a Presidential election. This is similar to thoughts I expressed in a [previous CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5svc5f/cmv_donald_trump_could_shoot_somebody_in_the/) that was phrased much more black and white but this is a more accurate version of what I think. **EDIT:** Just to clarify, I don't beleive the Democrats are the only ones playing identity politics or that they particullarly started it. I believe that civil rights has always been an issue and the Republicans and Democrats values meant they took a side. The idea that the Dems are the only ones playing this game is an excuse put forward by Republicans to justify their inability to meet the concerns of people outside their older, whiter base.

t3_61gh7m

CMV: there is nothing good about populism/extreme nationalism

Is there actually been any good populist leaders? Way I see it I find populism mostly is based on mostly on people's discontent. When people are frustrated they turn on populist side who offers them quick and simple solutions to a complex problems(which often doesn't solve problem or it might have consequences). Often populist are also extreme nationalist and populist leaders say they represent "will of people"or "silent majority", and while representing "the people" they leave out everyone who is against them. They often incriminate the"corrupted" elitist and often some group that isn't nationals, like foreigners, illegal immigrants or even some religious minority group(Islam for example). While blaming the elitists for all the problems, when they get to be in charge they do not recognize the legitimacy of the existence of the opposition, since they ALONE represent all the citizens or the majority. So in their point of view everyone who doesn't support them isn't actual citizen. While populist/extreme nationalist are in charge they tend to change "the game rules" to their own benefit, like making it possible to be president for long as possible or centralize power to head of the state. And this again threatens western democracy and it starts to resemble fascism. I do understand that nationalism is fundamental for countries existence but I'm talking about very extreme form of nationalism. Do notice I might have some wrongly understood point of views, so feel free to correct. Edit: fixed some typos

CMV: there is nothing good about populism/extreme nationalism. Is there actually been any good populist leaders? Way I see it I find populism mostly is based on mostly on people's discontent. When people are frustrated they turn on populist side who offers them quick and simple solutions to a complex problems(which often doesn't solve problem or it might have consequences). Often populist are also extreme nationalist and populist leaders say they represent "will of people"or "silent majority", and while representing "the people" they leave out everyone who is against them. They often incriminate the"corrupted" elitist and often some group that isn't nationals, like foreigners, illegal immigrants or even some religious minority group(Islam for example). While blaming the elitists for all the problems, when they get to be in charge they do not recognize the legitimacy of the existence of the opposition, since they ALONE represent all the citizens or the majority. So in their point of view everyone who doesn't support them isn't actual citizen. While populist/extreme nationalist are in charge they tend to change "the game rules" to their own benefit, like making it possible to be president for long as possible or centralize power to head of the state. And this again threatens western democracy and it starts to resemble fascism. I do understand that nationalism is fundamental for countries existence but I'm talking about very extreme form of nationalism. Do notice I might have some wrongly understood point of views, so feel free to correct. Edit: fixed some typos

t3_63rpl5

CMV:We should all stop eating meat in the long-term

I currently eat meat and enjoy it, love a BBQ, eat beef, chicken etc. but I would probably get used to it if a government came in that banned the meat industry. Livestock, especially cows, take up so much of the worlds farmland that could be better utilized growing crops and also places like the Amazon are shrinking due to grazing. Animal suffering is another thing, most animals which are used as livestock can feel pain and suffer in that job role. There may be a large initial cull but the benefit over time will reduce suffering in the long run. We can survive by eating non-meat foods, not necessarily vegan but not meat, there are lots of other protein sources and many people around the world are vegetarian and are not malnourished. One example which could be a counter-argument is that 30-40% of Indians are vegetarian and there are high levels of malnutrition in the country, but this is more a socioeconomic thing i.e. general food intake due to being poor, as well as the types of foods people eat such as cereals over things with more protein like eggs, as richer vegetarians in India are not generally malnourished. Also red meat specifically has been linked to increased risk of some cancers, although of course the counter could be "what doesn't cause cancer these days amirite!?" So it would probably be better for the environment, suffering of the animals and our general health

CMV:We should all stop eating meat in the long-term. I currently eat meat and enjoy it, love a BBQ, eat beef, chicken etc. but I would probably get used to it if a government came in that banned the meat industry. Livestock, especially cows, take up so much of the worlds farmland that could be better utilized growing crops and also places like the Amazon are shrinking due to grazing. Animal suffering is another thing, most animals which are used as livestock can feel pain and suffer in that job role. There may be a large initial cull but the benefit over time will reduce suffering in the long run. We can survive by eating non-meat foods, not necessarily vegan but not meat, there are lots of other protein sources and many people around the world are vegetarian and are not malnourished. One example which could be a counter-argument is that 30-40% of Indians are vegetarian and there are high levels of malnutrition in the country, but this is more a socioeconomic thing i.e. general food intake due to being poor, as well as the types of foods people eat such as cereals over things with more protein like eggs, as richer vegetarians in India are not generally malnourished. Also red meat specifically has been linked to increased risk of some cancers, although of course the counter could be "what doesn't cause cancer these days amirite!?" So it would probably be better for the environment, suffering of the animals and our general health

t3_21ia6x

Some human lives are worth more than others. CMV

I think that some people are more valuable to the community than others. The value to a community that a doctor or other professional provides far outweighs that provided by a retail or fast food employee. The better your value to the community, the more the law should side with you. If a lifesaving doctor wants to hack up a homeless person, that is ok. If a professional is accused of assault by a fast food worker, it shouldn't even go past the DAs office. Lesser people can best serve their communities by serving their betters. CMV

Some human lives are worth more than others. CMV. I think that some people are more valuable to the community than others. The value to a community that a doctor or other professional provides far outweighs that provided by a retail or fast food employee. The better your value to the community, the more the law should side with you. If a lifesaving doctor wants to hack up a homeless person, that is ok. If a professional is accused of assault by a fast food worker, it shouldn't even go past the DAs office. Lesser people can best serve their communities by serving their betters. CMV

t3_2ehvwu

CMV: Property does not exist.

Personal property is an invention of one man to oppress another man and is supported only by propaganda and violence, not by some ontological state of "property-ness." As an idea, or a platonic form, property does not exist. Supporting premises: 1. **All deeds to land** are upheld only so long as there are states to uphold them. During coups, massive recessions, or even world wars "property" is often destroyed, pillaged, or otherwise ignored – especially fine property like sculptures and historical architecture. 2. **From an existential sense**, the uniqueness of any one object in space requires it to exist on its own without ownership. This comes from neoplatonic categories accidents. Every "thing" has substance, quality, quantity, relation, passion/affection (acted upon), action (acting), place, time, [being in a] position, condition. "Jack's boat," for instance, only covers relation and only some of the time, for relation is much bigger than whether or not Jack has his hands on the boat. The boat, as a simply object in space, defies any attempt to demystify existence. In other words, you could say that the existence of Jack's boat says more about Jack's experience a human than it does about Jack's wealth. This is exactly what the Native Americans were saying, albeit through poetry rather than syllogism. 3. **You can't take it with you, you know.** That should tell us something: naked we came, naked we leave. 4. **Shares in a company** (imaginary numbers) are more about debt (another on-paper idea) and profit (a number generated by other imaginary numbers). They can be repurchased by the company at which point the company owns itself, which is nonsense if we're talking about property. For the Jews and Christians out there – "covet they neighbor's house" isn't claiming the dignity of the neighbor's ownership so much as the dignity of the relationship and this is backed up by the year of Jubilee in which all debt was forgiven and all property released. Religious people aside, shares in a company are only valuable insofar as we're talking about profit sharing. Outside of that conversation, property breaks down. You could say this about capital in general – as representational currency, it merely represents an idea. 5. **That we find human slavery** wrong says something both about the uniqueness of humans above animals and objects *and* about property in general: if it is wrong to own a human, it's probably wrong to own. Contra: it is right to love a human, therefore it is right to love. Or: it is right to protect children, therefore it is right to protect. > I'm going to bed at the moment, but I plan on responding to comments in the morning. Looking forward to learning from you all. _____ > *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: Property does not exist. Personal property is an invention of one man to oppress another man and is supported only by propaganda and violence, not by some ontological state of "property-ness." As an idea, or a platonic form, property does not exist. Supporting premises: 1. **All deeds to land** are upheld only so long as there are states to uphold them. During coups, massive recessions, or even world wars "property" is often destroyed, pillaged, or otherwise ignored – especially fine property like sculptures and historical architecture. 2. **From an existential sense**, the uniqueness of any one object in space requires it to exist on its own without ownership. This comes from neoplatonic categories accidents. Every "thing" has substance, quality, quantity, relation, passion/affection (acted upon), action (acting), place, time, [being in a] position, condition. "Jack's boat," for instance, only covers relation and only some of the time, for relation is much bigger than whether or not Jack has his hands on the boat. The boat, as a simply object in space, defies any attempt to demystify existence. In other words, you could say that the existence of Jack's boat says more about Jack's experience a human than it does about Jack's wealth. This is exactly what the Native Americans were saying, albeit through poetry rather than syllogism. 3. **You can't take it with you, you know.** That should tell us something: naked we came, naked we leave. 4. **Shares in a company** (imaginary numbers) are more about debt (another on-paper idea) and profit (a number generated by other imaginary numbers). They can be repurchased by the company at which point the company owns itself, which is nonsense if we're talking about property. For the Jews and Christians out there – "covet they neighbor's house" isn't claiming the dignity of the neighbor's ownership so much as the dignity of the relationship and this is backed up by the year of Jubilee in which all debt was forgiven and all property released. Religious people aside, shares in a company are only valuable insofar as we're talking about profit sharing. Outside of that conversation, property breaks down. You could say this about capital in general – as representational currency, it merely represents an idea. 5. **That we find human slavery** wrong says something both about the uniqueness of humans above animals and objects *and* about property in general: if it is wrong to own a human, it's probably wrong to own. Contra: it is right to love a human, therefore it is right to love. Or: it is right to protect children, therefore it is right to protect. > I'm going to bed at the moment, but I plan on responding to comments in the morning. Looking forward to learning from you all.

t3_2q3i4a

CMV: Mobile games should not have on screen gamepads

Lots of mobile games have on screen gamepads and have fast paced action gameplay (the current humble mobile bundle is yet another example). I believe that a game is either badly designed or does not belong on a mobile platform if it requires an on screen gamepad. Another way to express that: if the game was ported to PC, it should be entirely playable with just a mouse. (Note that fast paced action is ok, as long as it can be played without the need of an on screen gamepad, eg. Montezuma 3) And it doesn't matter whether the gamepad is shown on the screen or just wherever you place your fingers (like in e.g. Leo's Fortune). The lack of haptic feedback is a huge obstacle in the player's main feedback cycle. Obviously people must play these games because there are lots of them. So why? CMV edit: Clarification, I'm talking about touch devices like phones and tablets. edit2: 5 hours have passed, I'm not convinced and going to bed, will read rest tomorrow _____ > *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: Mobile games should not have on screen gamepads. Lots of mobile games have on screen gamepads and have fast paced action gameplay (the current humble mobile bundle is yet another example). I believe that a game is either badly designed or does not belong on a mobile platform if it requires an on screen gamepad. Another way to express that: if the game was ported to PC, it should be entirely playable with just a mouse. (Note that fast paced action is ok, as long as it can be played without the need of an on screen gamepad, eg. Montezuma 3) And it doesn't matter whether the gamepad is shown on the screen or just wherever you place your fingers (like in e.g. Leo's Fortune). The lack of haptic feedback is a huge obstacle in the player's main feedback cycle. Obviously people must play these games because there are lots of them. So why? CMV edit: Clarification, I'm talking about touch devices like phones and tablets. edit2: 5 hours have passed, I'm not convinced and going to bed, will read rest tomorrow

t3_714qpv

CMV: patterns are strictly social constructs.

Clarification: I'm not talking about patterns in art, such as a floral pattern, but rather things "in nature," such as seasons, the tides of an ocean, the cycles of the moon, etc. If we rolled a die one million times, and four consecutive numbers were 1212, would that be a pattern? An argument could be made either way. There's a repetition, so a pattern is in place, however, four out of a million numbers is such a small sample that the repetition is more of a fluke. The pattern would be in the eye of the beholder. The universe is over 13 billion years old, and will last much longer. According to astronomers, most of the time the universe exists, there will nothing. No stars, planets, black holes... nothing. Nothing may be the only true pattern. Everything we call a pattern happens for such a profoundly tiny amount of time, that my million die roll example is absurdly generous. Even if the sun sets for a trillion years to come, this is just a blink of the eye. Social constructs can be very handy. Patterns are a very useful construct. I don't think we need to abandon them, I just don't think they're real, but I have some doubts.

CMV: patterns are strictly social constructs. Clarification: I'm not talking about patterns in art, such as a floral pattern, but rather things "in nature," such as seasons, the tides of an ocean, the cycles of the moon, etc. If we rolled a die one million times, and four consecutive numbers were 1212, would that be a pattern? An argument could be made either way. There's a repetition, so a pattern is in place, however, four out of a million numbers is such a small sample that the repetition is more of a fluke. The pattern would be in the eye of the beholder. The universe is over 13 billion years old, and will last much longer. According to astronomers, most of the time the universe exists, there will nothing. No stars, planets, black holes... nothing. Nothing may be the only true pattern. Everything we call a pattern happens for such a profoundly tiny amount of time, that my million die roll example is absurdly generous. Even if the sun sets for a trillion years to come, this is just a blink of the eye. Social constructs can be very handy. Patterns are a very useful construct. I don't think we need to abandon them, I just don't think they're real, but I have some doubts.

t3_265jbu

CMV: Grades are an accurate reflection of intelligence

Certainly, you can be very clever and have terrible grades, but at the same time it is not smart to do poorly in school, thus limiting your opportunity. I almost get angry when I hear someone say this. Granted this is a blanket statement, and doesn't include outside circumstance such as extreme poverty or a disease, but I feel that 90% of the time laziness is to blame. I've heard the "I know stupid people with good grades" argument and I don't understand that. Even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge Please change my view!

CMV: Grades are an accurate reflection of intelligence. Certainly, you can be very clever and have terrible grades, but at the same time it is not smart to do poorly in school, thus limiting your opportunity. I almost get angry when I hear someone say this. Granted this is a blanket statement, and doesn't include outside circumstance such as extreme poverty or a disease, but I feel that 90% of the time laziness is to blame. I've heard the "I know stupid people with good grades" argument and I don't understand that. Even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge Please change my view!

t3_285amk

CMV:Everything in the world is sentient.

As you are reading this, you exist as a continuous causal stream of events that proceed in accordance with the laws of physics. You are experiencing what it is like for matter to perceive itself. As each of us knows, it [feels like something to be a person.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience) That matter should possess an inner life is a mystery. We appear to act, but we cannot affect the course of physical law. We are only passengers on this ride, free to watch and experience but not to drive. If you theorize that you have an inner life but a rock does not, some mechanism of your theory will have to explain why. But if you drop the assumption that the rock isn't sentient, [you have a simpler theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) that still explains all the facts we know, and is therefore more likely to be true. The simplest view is that everything, the entire universe and everything in it, possesses subjective experience. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Everything in the world is sentient. As you are reading this, you exist as a continuous causal stream of events that proceed in accordance with the laws of physics. You are experiencing what it is like for matter to perceive itself. As each of us knows, it [feels like something to be a person.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience) That matter should possess an inner life is a mystery. We appear to act, but we cannot affect the course of physical law. We are only passengers on this ride, free to watch and experience but not to drive. If you theorize that you have an inner life but a rock does not, some mechanism of your theory will have to explain why. But if you drop the assumption that the rock isn't sentient, [you have a simpler theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) that still explains all the facts we know, and is therefore more likely to be true. The simplest view is that everything, the entire universe and everything in it, possesses subjective experience. Change my view.

t3_1tmuiu

I don't believe in modern education. Those who reactively defend modern education are either indoctrinated or have a vested interest in equating schooling with education. CMV.

Education via schooling serves several social purposes, most of which do not actually benefit students. 1.) A modern employment program for teachers, administrators, and the education-industrial complex 2.) A babysitting program for kids whose parents go to work 3.) A way of keeping kids out of the labor force so they don't excessively drive down wages for everyone else 4.) A way of indoctrinating kids into capitalist society and making them too rigid to escape the ways of thinking they're indoctrinated into 5.) A way of maintaining the present social hierarchy by giving the illusion of meritocracy, when in fact wealthy students are given more resources to handle or bypass educational bullshit. Modern educational institutions have been kept in place because people don't know what else to do with themselves now that they no longer need to go to school in order to learn. No one in their right mind would look at the technology we have today and still design the educational or economic system the way it is. Nor would anyone in their right mind choose to go through such a system of their own free will if they didn't have to do so. People are said to be free, but kids are apparently not people, so they aren't free to spend their time as they wish during their formative years, nor are they typically allowed to earn money to support themselves. This was the case even when unemployment was low and digital technology was not widely available. The freedom to live and work as you see fit are the basic and necessary condition for freedom and autonomy, but we instead choose to keep kids in social prison because we don't have the courage to admit that the social and economic systems that were in place before the digital age are fundamentally broken and outdated. The argument that young people do not have the capacity to be free or work is the same sort of argument that people used to give for denying women the right to vote. They're too stupid for autonomy! Leave it to the adults! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Kate Upton "Capitalism has tried to jail its way out of the problem" [of excess Americans]. - David Simon We should pay kids for going to school. It is the same deal we have with employers - we will put up with your bullshit and do your bullshit busywork, so long as you pay us for our time and effort. The problem is so massive and pervasive that it is easier for everyone to just keep their head down, find their own rent-seeking niche, and not question the ubiquitous bullshit. I think pushback and character attacks against me will tend to be from those who've identified with or have an interest in the educational-industrial complex, in the same way that if one identified as a member of a religion and someone spoke against it, one might get very angry and defensive. Modern education is secular indoctrination, no less harmful than religious indoctrination, and much harder to escape because it is everywhere. Of course they don't give people the tools to escape from the mental prison they've built for them. Another way of looking at it is that notwithstanding the protests of those with a vested interest in the status quo, schooling is not only not equivalent to education, nor is it the only path to obtaining education, but rather it tends to be actively harmful and stifling of genuine education. CMV.

I don't believe in modern education. Those who reactively defend modern education are either indoctrinated or have a vested interest in equating schooling with education. CMV. Education via schooling serves several social purposes, most of which do not actually benefit students. 1.) A modern employment program for teachers, administrators, and the education-industrial complex 2.) A babysitting program for kids whose parents go to work 3.) A way of keeping kids out of the labor force so they don't excessively drive down wages for everyone else 4.) A way of indoctrinating kids into capitalist society and making them too rigid to escape the ways of thinking they're indoctrinated into 5.) A way of maintaining the present social hierarchy by giving the illusion of meritocracy, when in fact wealthy students are given more resources to handle or bypass educational bullshit. Modern educational institutions have been kept in place because people don't know what else to do with themselves now that they no longer need to go to school in order to learn. No one in their right mind would look at the technology we have today and still design the educational or economic system the way it is. Nor would anyone in their right mind choose to go through such a system of their own free will if they didn't have to do so. People are said to be free, but kids are apparently not people, so they aren't free to spend their time as they wish during their formative years, nor are they typically allowed to earn money to support themselves. This was the case even when unemployment was low and digital technology was not widely available. The freedom to live and work as you see fit are the basic and necessary condition for freedom and autonomy, but we instead choose to keep kids in social prison because we don't have the courage to admit that the social and economic systems that were in place before the digital age are fundamentally broken and outdated. The argument that young people do not have the capacity to be free or work is the same sort of argument that people used to give for denying women the right to vote. They're too stupid for autonomy! Leave it to the adults! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Kate Upton "Capitalism has tried to jail its way out of the problem" [of excess Americans]. - David Simon We should pay kids for going to school. It is the same deal we have with employers - we will put up with your bullshit and do your bullshit busywork, so long as you pay us for our time and effort. The problem is so massive and pervasive that it is easier for everyone to just keep their head down, find their own rent-seeking niche, and not question the ubiquitous bullshit. I think pushback and character attacks against me will tend to be from those who've identified with or have an interest in the educational-industrial complex, in the same way that if one identified as a member of a religion and someone spoke against it, one might get very angry and defensive. Modern education is secular indoctrination, no less harmful than religious indoctrination, and much harder to escape because it is everywhere. Of course they don't give people the tools to escape from the mental prison they've built for them. Another way of looking at it is that notwithstanding the protests of those with a vested interest in the status quo, schooling is not only not equivalent to education, nor is it the only path to obtaining education, but rather it tends to be actively harmful and stifling of genuine education. CMV.

t3_2o6154

CMV: "Healthy fat" does not exist because, by the nature of obesity, and overweight person is always at a greater health risk than his/her normal-weight counterparts.

(I made an error in the title: it should be "CMV: "Healthy fat" does not exist because, by the nature of obesity, ***an*** overweight person is always at a greater health risk than his/her normal-weight counterparts.") I'd like to preface this by saying that I am in no way condoning the shaming of a person for his or her body weight, just as I would not condone the shaming of a smoker or alcoholic. An overweight person is *always* at a great risk for developing health issues, if he or she does not already suffer from any. If it weren't a health risk, then the word "obese" would not exist. People claim that one cannot tell that an overweight person is unhealthy, which simply is untrue. If the individual is at a greater risk of developing a grocery list of diseases and disorders, then, by definition, that person is not healthy (relative to a person of a normal weight). [Here](http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks)'s a quick source to reinforce that claim. I have been severely obese for 18 years of my life. Even at 250 pounds, I thought I was healthy and that anyone who said otherwise, even my doctor, was being rude because he or she just hated fat people. But I've come to realize that it isn't about looks; it's about health. I did not have heart disease, diabetes, or any other disease that I knew of, but I was incredibly unhealthy. Just getting dressed in the morning became increasingly difficult. Being overweight is *never* healthy. Edit: Will be on again later tonight to reply to everyone!

CMV: "Healthy fat" does not exist because, by the nature of obesity, and overweight person is always at a greater health risk than his/her normal-weight counterparts. (I made an error in the title: it should be "CMV: "Healthy fat" does not exist because, by the nature of obesity, ***an*** overweight person is always at a greater health risk than his/her normal-weight counterparts.") I'd like to preface this by saying that I am in no way condoning the shaming of a person for his or her body weight, just as I would not condone the shaming of a smoker or alcoholic. An overweight person is *always* at a great risk for developing health issues, if he or she does not already suffer from any. If it weren't a health risk, then the word "obese" would not exist. People claim that one cannot tell that an overweight person is unhealthy, which simply is untrue. If the individual is at a greater risk of developing a grocery list of diseases and disorders, then, by definition, that person is not healthy (relative to a person of a normal weight). [Here](http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks)'s a quick source to reinforce that claim. I have been severely obese for 18 years of my life. Even at 250 pounds, I thought I was healthy and that anyone who said otherwise, even my doctor, was being rude because he or she just hated fat people. But I've come to realize that it isn't about looks; it's about health. I did not have heart disease, diabetes, or any other disease that I knew of, but I was incredibly unhealthy. Just getting dressed in the morning became increasingly difficult. Being overweight is *never* healthy. Edit: Will be on again later tonight to reply to everyone!

t3_1ly3a1

CMV: I believe those still living do not matter after you have died

If you are dead, you have lost the most valuable thing that can ever be gained in my opinion, existence. Anything that happens after you have died does not matter because you cannot know of it. What good is leaving the world a better place than when you left if you cannot see the results or know the consequences and reflect upon your deeds? I have come to several different conclusions, but cannot currently shake this thought. I do not act upon this and do actively try to better the world and seek a reason why, but if not for my own existence, what is the point?

CMV: I believe those still living do not matter after you have died. If you are dead, you have lost the most valuable thing that can ever be gained in my opinion, existence. Anything that happens after you have died does not matter because you cannot know of it. What good is leaving the world a better place than when you left if you cannot see the results or know the consequences and reflect upon your deeds? I have come to several different conclusions, but cannot currently shake this thought. I do not act upon this and do actively try to better the world and seek a reason why, but if not for my own existence, what is the point?

t3_1jl2l0

I'm pro-choice, but I think 20 weeks is not an unreasonable limit on abortions. CMV.

Is five months not more than enough to time for a woman to determine she is pregnant, decide to have an abortion, and if necessary, finance the operation? I support a woman's right to choose, but I think the sooner the abortion happens, the better. In cases where the mother's life is in danger, I absolutely support late-term abortions. I understand that the "20 week rule" could be a step towards outlawing abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade, so I don't want to hear a slippery-slope argument. I want to judge the 20 week rule on its own.

I'm pro-choice, but I think 20 weeks is not an unreasonable limit on abortions. CMV. Is five months not more than enough to time for a woman to determine she is pregnant, decide to have an abortion, and if necessary, finance the operation? I support a woman's right to choose, but I think the sooner the abortion happens, the better. In cases where the mother's life is in danger, I absolutely support late-term abortions. I understand that the "20 week rule" could be a step towards outlawing abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade, so I don't want to hear a slippery-slope argument. I want to judge the 20 week rule on its own.

t3_6ysmh4

CMV: Reddit is created in s way to promote circle-jerking with subtle systems in place.

The down-vote button is obviously the biggest offender of this. While reddit claims that down-voting is strictly for off-topic discussion, I don't buy that at all. The MODERATORS should be there to regulate healthy discussion. Not the general user The downvote button is also why people circle jerk so much. Got -2 and your comment score is visable ? You're never gonna get a healthy discussion at your view-point you're gonna get some salty hatred. Your comment gets less visibilty etc.. Then, when your comment gets buried, the comments that all agree with each-other all get stroked together. Then people trying to spin a different perspective are virtually removed from the discussion. They get nasty comments and downvoted to invisibility. Its regularly common for people to outright DELETE their own comment because the downvote circle jerk. Further removing discussion. Karma also lays a system where if you are downvoted enough in a sub, you can only comment every 10 fucking minutes. What is that shit ? Also, because so many people care about their overall karma, they shove generic comments in threads to further promote circle jerking.

CMV: Reddit is created in s way to promote circle-jerking with subtle systems in place. The down-vote button is obviously the biggest offender of this. While reddit claims that down-voting is strictly for off-topic discussion, I don't buy that at all. The MODERATORS should be there to regulate healthy discussion. Not the general user The downvote button is also why people circle jerk so much. Got -2 and your comment score is visable ? You're never gonna get a healthy discussion at your view-point you're gonna get some salty hatred. Your comment gets less visibilty etc.. Then, when your comment gets buried, the comments that all agree with each-other all get stroked together. Then people trying to spin a different perspective are virtually removed from the discussion. They get nasty comments and downvoted to invisibility. Its regularly common for people to outright DELETE their own comment because the downvote circle jerk. Further removing discussion. Karma also lays a system where if you are downvoted enough in a sub, you can only comment every 10 fucking minutes. What is that shit ? Also, because so many people care about their overall karma, they shove generic comments in threads to further promote circle jerking.

t3_2r9s49

CMV: cyberbully victims only have themselves to blame

To clarify: I do not mean whatever is being said to/about them is true, but rather they have complete control over seeing it at all. They have the ability to block/unfriend anyone that is harassing them. If any of their bullies cross the legal line they can be reported to the authorities. And if for any reason that fails, you can completely delete your social media where you are being targeted. I think of it as if I were to walk into a store, and every other customer there called me an asshole, every single time I went there. I'd stop going to the store. I wouldn't keep going and keep taking it. It seems foolish that these people allow their bullies the ability to harass them when it's within 100% of their control to stop it.

CMV: cyberbully victims only have themselves to blame. To clarify: I do not mean whatever is being said to/about them is true, but rather they have complete control over seeing it at all. They have the ability to block/unfriend anyone that is harassing them. If any of their bullies cross the legal line they can be reported to the authorities. And if for any reason that fails, you can completely delete your social media where you are being targeted. I think of it as if I were to walk into a store, and every other customer there called me an asshole, every single time I went there. I'd stop going to the store. I wouldn't keep going and keep taking it. It seems foolish that these people allow their bullies the ability to harass them when it's within 100% of their control to stop it.

t3_2rs57a

CMV: The rate at which one's income is taxed should be based upon average hourly income rather than annual income

The rate at which income is taxed (at least in the United States) [increases with annual income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates). Although it is convenient for calculation purposes to simply regard all income within a single calendar year as the same, this system puts individuals who work extremely long hours at a significant disadvantage. For example: **Worker A** is paid $50/hour, works 16 hours/day, and works 6 days/week for an annual income of $250,272 and a tax rate of 33% **Worker B** is paid $50/hour, works 8 hours/day, and works 4 days/week for an annual income of $83,424 and a tax rate of 25% Either Worker B is being handsomely rewarded for laziness or Worker A is being significantly penalized for diligence... _____ > *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 rate at which one's income is taxed should be based upon average hourly income rather than annual income. The rate at which income is taxed (at least in the United States) [increases with annual income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates). Although it is convenient for calculation purposes to simply regard all income within a single calendar year as the same, this system puts individuals who work extremely long hours at a significant disadvantage. For example: **Worker A** is paid $50/hour, works 16 hours/day, and works 6 days/week for an annual income of $250,272 and a tax rate of 33% **Worker B** is paid $50/hour, works 8 hours/day, and works 4 days/week for an annual income of $83,424 and a tax rate of 25% Either Worker B is being handsomely rewarded for laziness or Worker A is being significantly penalized for diligence...

t3_3kp9n9

CMV: If high school students are required to submit to random drug testing then so should the teachers

Our local high school is considering random drug testing for students participating in extracurricular activities. I feel that if the students have to be tested then so should the faculty and any coaches. Why are we holding the students to a higher standard than their teachers? I'm asking reddit to change my view (or at least question it) because my sister who is on the school board was very surprised when I suggested teachers should be tested, too. So maybe my thinking is really out of line. A few points to consider. I'm not dead set against testing or dead set for it. I just think the faculty and coaches should have to meet the same standard as the students. If you're going to test one group, test them both. If you don't test group one then don't test either. I am not on the faculty but am a coach. I would be subjected to the testing as well which would not be a problem. This is in Alaska where marijuana is legal so there is a definite gray area there. I think teachers should be allowed to drink alcohol but students should not. I'm honestly on the fence about teachers smoking pot. I personally don't think the repercussions for students at our school getting caught drinking or with drugs is stiff enough so this isn't just me trying to let the kids get away with drinking or smoking.

CMV: If high school students are required to submit to random drug testing then so should the teachers. Our local high school is considering random drug testing for students participating in extracurricular activities. I feel that if the students have to be tested then so should the faculty and any coaches. Why are we holding the students to a higher standard than their teachers? I'm asking reddit to change my view (or at least question it) because my sister who is on the school board was very surprised when I suggested teachers should be tested, too. So maybe my thinking is really out of line. A few points to consider. I'm not dead set against testing or dead set for it. I just think the faculty and coaches should have to meet the same standard as the students. If you're going to test one group, test them both. If you don't test group one then don't test either. I am not on the faculty but am a coach. I would be subjected to the testing as well which would not be a problem. This is in Alaska where marijuana is legal so there is a definite gray area there. I think teachers should be allowed to drink alcohol but students should not. I'm honestly on the fence about teachers smoking pot. I personally don't think the repercussions for students at our school getting caught drinking or with drugs is stiff enough so this isn't just me trying to let the kids get away with drinking or smoking.

t3_2eysjp

CMV: We should forget trying to stop or reverse climate change and instead devote time and resources to finding ways to live with it.

The materials I have read about climate change and the actions I have observed by various organizations and governments haven't convinced me that climate change is something that we can effectively fix or stop (just slow it down). For example, several developed countries are not joining the treaties that have them control their emissions and have repealed taxes on emissions. So my thought is: instead of people wasting time and resources on trying to convince governments to help with climate change, what if they try to find ways to live with it (it is a long term change so any technologies that can be developed along the way will be a major factor). Is this sustainable? What are some of the ways this can happen? etc.. _____ > *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: We should forget trying to stop or reverse climate change and instead devote time and resources to finding ways to live with it. The materials I have read about climate change and the actions I have observed by various organizations and governments haven't convinced me that climate change is something that we can effectively fix or stop (just slow it down). For example, several developed countries are not joining the treaties that have them control their emissions and have repealed taxes on emissions. So my thought is: instead of people wasting time and resources on trying to convince governments to help with climate change, what if they try to find ways to live with it (it is a long term change so any technologies that can be developed along the way will be a major factor). Is this sustainable? What are some of the ways this can happen? etc..

t3_1en69a

I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV

I believe that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary for thousands of American and Imperial lives to be spared. If it weren't for them, the war in the Pacific would have lasted much longer and even more soldiers would have been killed.

I believe that the Unites States was justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. CMV. I believe that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary for thousands of American and Imperial lives to be spared. If it weren't for them, the war in the Pacific would have lasted much longer and even more soldiers would have been killed.

t3_1w5b8y

I believe every school should have multiple armed guards. CMV.

I'm watching the news, and every day of this past week there has been some shooting in public areas, mostly schools and universities. Every school needs people who can terminate these kinds of inhumane acts as soon as they begin. Having police that take 3+ minutes to get to the attack are not helpful. By that time, the shooter has already killed his / her targets and most likely shot and killed them self as well. Gun laws won't change anything. Quite a few of these shootings are done with illegally obtained fire arms. And even if we took away every single civilian owned gun, that still wouldn't stop these. People would then make bombs, carry knives, BUILD guns, etc. People who think gun laws will stop these shootings are delusional. It's time to accept the fact that brute force is sometimes needed. Having multiple armed guards at the entrances and exits of every school will help to stop these shootings. If they don't deter the shooter from continuing with his or her plan, then the shooter will still be killed quickly. CMV.

I believe every school should have multiple armed guards. CMV. I'm watching the news, and every day of this past week there has been some shooting in public areas, mostly schools and universities. Every school needs people who can terminate these kinds of inhumane acts as soon as they begin. Having police that take 3+ minutes to get to the attack are not helpful. By that time, the shooter has already killed his / her targets and most likely shot and killed them self as well. Gun laws won't change anything. Quite a few of these shootings are done with illegally obtained fire arms. And even if we took away every single civilian owned gun, that still wouldn't stop these. People would then make bombs, carry knives, BUILD guns, etc. People who think gun laws will stop these shootings are delusional. It's time to accept the fact that brute force is sometimes needed. Having multiple armed guards at the entrances and exits of every school will help to stop these shootings. If they don't deter the shooter from continuing with his or her plan, then the shooter will still be killed quickly. CMV.

t3_1s7j9t

I should buy Litecoins right now. CMV.

Hello, I think I should invest in Litecoins right now. They are steadily on an upward trend, and currently going for ~$33. Litecoin mining GPU's have been snatched up and are basically out of stock everywhere. I think the value will continue to climb, maybe not as astronomically high as Bitcoins, but it is clearly on an upward trend. My plan is to invest ~$2,000 in Litecoins, which is about 20% of what is in my bank account at the moment. If I lose all that money, it will suck but it won't mean I can't meet my other financial responsibilities. CMV

I should buy Litecoins right now. CMV. Hello, I think I should invest in Litecoins right now. They are steadily on an upward trend, and currently going for ~$33. Litecoin mining GPU's have been snatched up and are basically out of stock everywhere. I think the value will continue to climb, maybe not as astronomically high as Bitcoins, but it is clearly on an upward trend. My plan is to invest ~$2,000 in Litecoins, which is about 20% of what is in my bank account at the moment. If I lose all that money, it will suck but it won't mean I can't meet my other financial responsibilities. CMV

t3_2qlhq0

CMV: Making New Year's Resolutions is almost always a futile effort, and anyone who waits until the new year to change a huge aspect of their lives is deluding them self.

We hear it time and time again every new year. Our closest friends and families making new years resolutions. While I encourage people in improving themselves, I hate the idea of New Year's Resolutions. I believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning. [45% of Americans make resolutions every new year.](http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/) Yet just a paltry 8% of them achieve their resolution. While I applaud those 8%, I fail to understand why they couldn't have done this at any other point during the year. And while I don't have the proof, I'm willing to bet that those same 8% would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year. Here's why I believe New Year's Resolutions are almost always destined to fail. Every NYR requires: **1. Wait until the new year starts.** This absurdity alone should put this to bed. There's no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something. I believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into "effect" to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc. Then: **2. The second the New Year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.** The second the clock strikes 12, that's it. No more cigarettes, no more junk food. Ever. Why? Why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that? What is the reasoning? Why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once? And people think this is going to be successful? **3. If you "fall off the wagon" you have failed. There's no second chances.** If your last cigarette wasn't at 11:59 PM on December 31, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution. People treat NYR's as a do-or-die effort. If you don't go to the gym, if you ever touch another Dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that's it. You have failed at achieving your NYR and you may as well give up. It's such a ridiculous mindset. If you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up! It's ok! There's no reason to beat yourself up over it. Yet most people fail before February and completely give up their NYR thereafter. Humans are simply not hard-wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc., to be taken all at once like that. And there's no good reason for it either. It's a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there's absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year. In fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have. You wouldn't be waiting for the new year. And then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged. No wonder. It's an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.

CMV: Making New Year's Resolutions is almost always a futile effort, and anyone who waits until the new year to change a huge aspect of their lives is deluding them self. We hear it time and time again every new year. Our closest friends and families making new years resolutions. While I encourage people in improving themselves, I hate the idea of New Year's Resolutions. I believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning. [45% of Americans make resolutions every new year.](http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/) Yet just a paltry 8% of them achieve their resolution. While I applaud those 8%, I fail to understand why they couldn't have done this at any other point during the year. And while I don't have the proof, I'm willing to bet that those same 8% would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year. Here's why I believe New Year's Resolutions are almost always destined to fail. Every NYR requires: **1. Wait until the new year starts.** This absurdity alone should put this to bed. There's no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something. I believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into "effect" to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc. Then: **2. The second the New Year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.** The second the clock strikes 12, that's it. No more cigarettes, no more junk food. Ever. Why? Why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that? What is the reasoning? Why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once? And people think this is going to be successful? **3. If you "fall off the wagon" you have failed. There's no second chances.** If your last cigarette wasn't at 11:59 PM on December 31, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution. People treat NYR's as a do-or-die effort. If you don't go to the gym, if you ever touch another Dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that's it. You have failed at achieving your NYR and you may as well give up. It's such a ridiculous mindset. If you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up! It's ok! There's no reason to beat yourself up over it. Yet most people fail before February and completely give up their NYR thereafter. Humans are simply not hard-wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc., to be taken all at once like that. And there's no good reason for it either. It's a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there's absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year. In fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have. You wouldn't be waiting for the new year. And then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged. No wonder. It's an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.

t3_6zoo9k

CMV: Wood is literally the worst material for arts and crafts

I understand why it's still sold, but most of the cheap and flimsy products you find on the market are made of wood that isn't even sanded down that well. Obviously the amount of sanding isn't related to my argument, but it's not a very pleasurable experience when your hands are hurting from holding wood and/or getting splinters Take this example, I enjoy embroidery as a hobby, however, every accessory made of wood I've had has been flimsy and cut horribly, as opposed to plastic products which holds the fabric perfectly and is somewhat pleasing to hold, and looks nicer. Plus no matter how many wingnuts you have with the DIY products, and no matter how tight you screw them, it's not going to hold perfectly. It's like if somebody made of jelly was trying to put you in a headlock, no matter how hard he tries, and how much hard he holds you, he'll never manage. One possible counter-argument would be that my desk is wooden, but it has a sheen to it and holds everything on my desk including all my computer hardware (minus my printer). I don't know how, mind you, it feels dense and has a sheen to it. But if you buy any sort of DIY product made of wood it's generally going to be cheap and not very study. _____ > *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: Wood is literally the worst material for arts and crafts. I understand why it's still sold, but most of the cheap and flimsy products you find on the market are made of wood that isn't even sanded down that well. Obviously the amount of sanding isn't related to my argument, but it's not a very pleasurable experience when your hands are hurting from holding wood and/or getting splinters Take this example, I enjoy embroidery as a hobby, however, every accessory made of wood I've had has been flimsy and cut horribly, as opposed to plastic products which holds the fabric perfectly and is somewhat pleasing to hold, and looks nicer. Plus no matter how many wingnuts you have with the DIY products, and no matter how tight you screw them, it's not going to hold perfectly. It's like if somebody made of jelly was trying to put you in a headlock, no matter how hard he tries, and how much hard he holds you, he'll never manage. One possible counter-argument would be that my desk is wooden, but it has a sheen to it and holds everything on my desk including all my computer hardware (minus my printer). I don't know how, mind you, it feels dense and has a sheen to it. But if you buy any sort of DIY product made of wood it's generally going to be cheap and not very study.

t3_1hfema

I think the Zimmerman case perfectly highlights the left's ENJOYMENT of racism. CMV

I believe the left, including the majority of those on reddit, actually ENJOY racism. They USE it as a benchmark for self-identity and self-value, by rallying against what they perceive themselves to not be. The Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this. Had it been reported that Zimmerman was Hispanic, from the beginning, would there have been an issue? Any outcry at all? I don't believe so. It's the fact that most believed he was white that launched them into a self-indulgent, emotionally rewarding campaign of vitriol and condemnation against him. He was guilty without trial, and the much-beloved hate rolled in upon him. Reddit was flooded with articles on the event, some even going so far as to identify Zimmerman's address and family. There was so much ENJOYMENT of their own outrage. Then the details started to emerge. Uh oh. He wasn't white? He was being attacked? His head was being smashed into the pavement? He had a broken nose? Wait...HE WASN'T WHITE? Slowly it wasn't as enjoyable to follow the story to the left anymore. Where do you see new updates on the case on reddit now? Nowhere. Guilt over baseless condemnation, or is the left simply not interested when they can't exercise their hate of white males as an extension of their fabricated identity of upholders of morality and the rights of minorities? Perhaps it's just embarrassment? Why has it fallen off the radar in lefty-land?

I think the Zimmerman case perfectly highlights the left's ENJOYMENT of racism. CMV. I believe the left, including the majority of those on reddit, actually ENJOY racism. They USE it as a benchmark for self-identity and self-value, by rallying against what they perceive themselves to not be. The Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this. Had it been reported that Zimmerman was Hispanic, from the beginning, would there have been an issue? Any outcry at all? I don't believe so. It's the fact that most believed he was white that launched them into a self-indulgent, emotionally rewarding campaign of vitriol and condemnation against him. He was guilty without trial, and the much-beloved hate rolled in upon him. Reddit was flooded with articles on the event, some even going so far as to identify Zimmerman's address and family. There was so much ENJOYMENT of their own outrage. Then the details started to emerge. Uh oh. He wasn't white? He was being attacked? His head was being smashed into the pavement? He had a broken nose? Wait...HE WASN'T WHITE? Slowly it wasn't as enjoyable to follow the story to the left anymore. Where do you see new updates on the case on reddit now? Nowhere. Guilt over baseless condemnation, or is the left simply not interested when they can't exercise their hate of white males as an extension of their fabricated identity of upholders of morality and the rights of minorities? Perhaps it's just embarrassment? Why has it fallen off the radar in lefty-land?

t3_1xmixj

I think I should install industrial strength toilets and urinals in my house CMV

Fucking toilet clogs if I so much as blink at it, and my other half isn't a fan of sitting in my piss. My bad... but really I figure I can solve this problem. * An industrial toilet would be used to taking 10-50 huge shits a day, I figure this should cover me * This will be a large short term expense with long term benefits * If we ever sell the house, we can advertise this to big shitters like lumberjacks, construction workers and the like * The kind of people who don't appreciate this sort of thing in a house aren't the type of people I'd call a friend anyways CMV

I think I should install industrial strength toilets and urinals in my house CMV. Fucking toilet clogs if I so much as blink at it, and my other half isn't a fan of sitting in my piss. My bad... but really I figure I can solve this problem. * An industrial toilet would be used to taking 10-50 huge shits a day, I figure this should cover me * This will be a large short term expense with long term benefits * If we ever sell the house, we can advertise this to big shitters like lumberjacks, construction workers and the like * The kind of people who don't appreciate this sort of thing in a house aren't the type of people I'd call a friend anyways CMV

t3_1k1nfv

I think that with the current state of education in america, coupled with the outrageous financial burden that a student loan would be, I'm better off staying at my full time desk job and working to advance my career than going to college. CMV.

I currently work for roughly 29k a year at a desk job. I live in san diego. I have full medical, dental, and stock options. I am in a very good place for being 22 years old I feel. I feel like becoming part time at my job, (losing my benefits and halving my pay) to go to school would be a bad choice because in the end my degree won't get me much further ahead than working at my career for 4 years would have. I feel that college does nothing but look good on a resume, and that work experience looks much better. Please CMV. (Resubmission because I was 70 characters short of the minimum)

I think that with the current state of education in america, coupled with the outrageous financial burden that a student loan would be, I'm better off staying at my full time desk job and working to advance my career than going to college. CMV. I currently work for roughly 29k a year at a desk job. I live in san diego. I have full medical, dental, and stock options. I am in a very good place for being 22 years old I feel. I feel like becoming part time at my job, (losing my benefits and halving my pay) to go to school would be a bad choice because in the end my degree won't get me much further ahead than working at my career for 4 years would have. I feel that college does nothing but look good on a resume, and that work experience looks much better. Please CMV. (Resubmission because I was 70 characters short of the minimum)

t3_1yxxay

I think everyone is a little bit racistt, that it is a natural part of the human condition, and that it will never end CMV

In my mind there are two types of racism, overt conscious racism or (the Klan is a good example of this). This is not what I am referencing when I say everyone is a "little bit racist" the type of racism I am talking about is the subconscious type. In essence the brain is hardwired to generalize about everything. It is how humans deal with the metric crap-ton of data we consume every second. Our brains do not have the capacity to digest all of the details so it picks out a few key details, categorizes things we see/hear/touch/smell/taste, makes connections about them and then moves on to the next stimulus. This applies to humans as well, and is the basis for what I call unconscious racism. Race, is a reeeaally easy short hand for our brain to use, it is obvious, and comes with so many easy (possibly wrong) connections that it is a way for our brain to be lazy, and we are generally hardwired to do as much as possible with the least amount of energy (read we are hardwired to be as lazy as possible) because of this humans will always be a little bit racist and there is nothing we can do to get rid of it. just a note, I am not saying it is right or good, just that it is and always will be

I think everyone is a little bit racistt, that it is a natural part of the human condition, and that it will never end CMV. In my mind there are two types of racism, overt conscious racism or (the Klan is a good example of this). This is not what I am referencing when I say everyone is a "little bit racist" the type of racism I am talking about is the subconscious type. In essence the brain is hardwired to generalize about everything. It is how humans deal with the metric crap-ton of data we consume every second. Our brains do not have the capacity to digest all of the details so it picks out a few key details, categorizes things we see/hear/touch/smell/taste, makes connections about them and then moves on to the next stimulus. This applies to humans as well, and is the basis for what I call unconscious racism. Race, is a reeeaally easy short hand for our brain to use, it is obvious, and comes with so many easy (possibly wrong) connections that it is a way for our brain to be lazy, and we are generally hardwired to do as much as possible with the least amount of energy (read we are hardwired to be as lazy as possible) because of this humans will always be a little bit racist and there is nothing we can do to get rid of it. just a note, I am not saying it is right or good, just that it is and always will be

t3_3cexf4

CMV: The majority of minute silences are insincere and are just empty gestures.

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London. To commemorate this there has been a supposedly nation wide minute silence. While I wouldn't interrupt a minute silence I do think that they are arbitrary and not a good way of "showing respect". Usually they are touted as a way of remembering victims of tragedies, however as someone who lives across the country, I do not know the victims or any of their family and as a result other than the circumstances in which it happened, their deaths have little to no effect on my life. Because of this, I think it is disingenuous and borderline offensive to those close to the victims for me to pretend that I am actively upset by their deaths. In addition to this I said that minute silences are arbitrary; millions of people have died in the ten years since, some of them in similar circumstances even yet 99.9% of those will go " unremembered ". Surely by not holding a minute silence for at least the people who died in terror attacks we are tacitly implying disrespect? One could argue that it should be something carried out only in the home country of the victims which would not explain why the whole world continues to hold minute silences to commemorate 9/11. I am not saying that there should be a blanket ban on minute silences however. For example it recently made the news that there was a minute silence in the stadium before a football game to acknowledge the death of a fan. I wholeheartedly support that as it shows a community (either his literal, local community or the community of football fans) coming together to show solidarity for someone who's death may well have personally affected many of them. I apologise for the wall of text and any spelling mistakes due to mobile typing. Please change my view as it makes me feel like a cold and disrespectful person. _____ > *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 majority of minute silences are insincere and are just empty gestures. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London. To commemorate this there has been a supposedly nation wide minute silence. While I wouldn't interrupt a minute silence I do think that they are arbitrary and not a good way of "showing respect". Usually they are touted as a way of remembering victims of tragedies, however as someone who lives across the country, I do not know the victims or any of their family and as a result other than the circumstances in which it happened, their deaths have little to no effect on my life. Because of this, I think it is disingenuous and borderline offensive to those close to the victims for me to pretend that I am actively upset by their deaths. In addition to this I said that minute silences are arbitrary; millions of people have died in the ten years since, some of them in similar circumstances even yet 99.9% of those will go " unremembered ". Surely by not holding a minute silence for at least the people who died in terror attacks we are tacitly implying disrespect? One could argue that it should be something carried out only in the home country of the victims which would not explain why the whole world continues to hold minute silences to commemorate 9/11. I am not saying that there should be a blanket ban on minute silences however. For example it recently made the news that there was a minute silence in the stadium before a football game to acknowledge the death of a fan. I wholeheartedly support that as it shows a community (either his literal, local community or the community of football fans) coming together to show solidarity for someone who's death may well have personally affected many of them. I apologise for the wall of text and any spelling mistakes due to mobile typing. Please change my view as it makes me feel like a cold and disrespectful person.

t3_4a4mp9

CMV: As a liberal, I should support Bernie Sanders because Hillary Clinton or any Republican would spend trillions on military adventurism

First downside: I recognize that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton Second downside: I recognize that Hillary Clinton would have a number of benefits (from my perspective as a liberal) over a Republican, such as protecting a woman's right to an abortion. (I believe abortion rights would be mitigated by private donations to help women travel to abortion clinics). https://fundabortionnow.org/get-help/FAQ Third downside: I recognize that Bernie Sanders' policies on federal funding of college and single-payer healthcare have large costs and the benefits may be limited. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10793864/sanders-single-payer-vermont http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ The enormous upside: My belief is that because the cost of military adventurism is so enormous, the downsides of Bernie Sanders are overwhelmed by the upside of his restraint in the use of military power. Obama's invasion of Libya was relatively cheap, but the invasion of Iraq was very costly: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-libya-cost/ Hillary Clinton or a Republican would have invaded Libya harder (and more expensively): http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11134492/obama-clinton-libya-lessons Hillary Clinton or a Republican would be likely to invade more countries (for example Syria) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/ In summary: Bernie Sanders' programs may cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the economy with free college, single-payer healthcare and anti-free trade, but military adventurism involves trillions of dollars of damage to the economy. Is there anything I'm missing here that I should take into account?

CMV: As a liberal, I should support Bernie Sanders because Hillary Clinton or any Republican would spend trillions on military adventurism. First downside: I recognize that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton Second downside: I recognize that Hillary Clinton would have a number of benefits (from my perspective as a liberal) over a Republican, such as protecting a woman's right to an abortion. (I believe abortion rights would be mitigated by private donations to help women travel to abortion clinics). https://fundabortionnow.org/get-help/FAQ Third downside: I recognize that Bernie Sanders' policies on federal funding of college and single-payer healthcare have large costs and the benefits may be limited. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10793864/sanders-single-payer-vermont http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies/ The enormous upside: My belief is that because the cost of military adventurism is so enormous, the downsides of Bernie Sanders are overwhelmed by the upside of his restraint in the use of military power. Obama's invasion of Libya was relatively cheap, but the invasion of Iraq was very costly: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-libya-cost/ Hillary Clinton or a Republican would have invaded Libya harder (and more expensively): http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11134492/obama-clinton-libya-lessons Hillary Clinton or a Republican would be likely to invade more countries (for example Syria) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/ In summary: Bernie Sanders' programs may cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the economy with free college, single-payer healthcare and anti-free trade, but military adventurism involves trillions of dollars of damage to the economy. Is there anything I'm missing here that I should take into account?

t3_39r06x

CMV: Meat Eaters cannot consistently condemn radio presenter Asger Juhl for killing and eating a rabbit on-air.

Here's the story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/danish-radio-presenter-i-killed-a-rabbit-live-on-air-to-expose-peoples-hypocrisy-10316637.html There is nothing a meat-eater can say to condemn this event without being hypocritical. The reason he is controversial is because he is highlighting societal hypocrisy, rather than the harm done to the rabbit. (which many societies agree doesn't matter) To state my own position, I think it was an ugly and brutish act, but it might result in more total good from people abstaining from animal produce overall. I do not consume animal products.

CMV: Meat Eaters cannot consistently condemn radio presenter Asger Juhl for killing and eating a rabbit on-air. Here's the story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/danish-radio-presenter-i-killed-a-rabbit-live-on-air-to-expose-peoples-hypocrisy-10316637.html There is nothing a meat-eater can say to condemn this event without being hypocritical. The reason he is controversial is because he is highlighting societal hypocrisy, rather than the harm done to the rabbit. (which many societies agree doesn't matter) To state my own position, I think it was an ugly and brutish act, but it might result in more total good from people abstaining from animal produce overall. I do not consume animal products.

t3_1inwvh

I think straight people do not belong in gay bars. CMV

From my understanding after reading stories from numerous stories (I haven't actually frequented a gay bar myself due to lack of willing peers) that straight people are actually harmful at gay bars. The straight women go to avoid being hit on my straight men and to view the spectacle of gay men and women interacting. The straight men go to prey on unsuspecting straight women. And both the straight men and women will usually get insecure and/or insulted if a gay man or woman tries to hit on them. It seems unfair for gay men and women to have to deal with this in a place that is made for them. edit: People seem to think that because I think that something should apply to one situation, it should be applied to all situations, which somehow leads back to racial segregation or not liking black people. I don't that way and just want to apply this to straight people in gay bars. Nothing else. edit2: My views have been changed.

I think straight people do not belong in gay bars. CMV. From my understanding after reading stories from numerous stories (I haven't actually frequented a gay bar myself due to lack of willing peers) that straight people are actually harmful at gay bars. The straight women go to avoid being hit on my straight men and to view the spectacle of gay men and women interacting. The straight men go to prey on unsuspecting straight women. And both the straight men and women will usually get insecure and/or insulted if a gay man or woman tries to hit on them. It seems unfair for gay men and women to have to deal with this in a place that is made for them. edit: People seem to think that because I think that something should apply to one situation, it should be applied to all situations, which somehow leads back to racial segregation or not liking black people. I don't that way and just want to apply this to straight people in gay bars. Nothing else. edit2: My views have been changed.

t3_66mfvc

CMV: websites should not have password restrictions besides length of password.

[This is bullshit.](http://i.imgur.com/av9NeYA.png) Why should any website be able to tell me to create a password with these weird restrictions (including requiring things be intentionally impossible to say)? If I deem my password worthy of securing my information*, I should be able to use that password, no? *there should be at least one restriction which is length of your password. Requiring that I come up with s^oMe9pasw0rd that requires nonsense inside of it forces users to come up with the shortest passwords possible, in hopes that they remember them. I think I can come up with a better password than they require, and it doesn't involve th1% w3irD sh!t _____ > *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: websites should not have password restrictions besides length of password. [This is bullshit.](http://i.imgur.com/av9NeYA.png) Why should any website be able to tell me to create a password with these weird restrictions (including requiring things be intentionally impossible to say)? If I deem my password worthy of securing my information*, I should be able to use that password, no? *there should be at least one restriction which is length of your password. Requiring that I come up with s^oMe9pasw0rd that requires nonsense inside of it forces users to come up with the shortest passwords possible, in hopes that they remember them. I think I can come up with a better password than they require, and it doesn't involve th1% w3irD sh!t

t3_1eccnq

I believe parents who are against spanking their children are simply incapable of making tough decisions when it comes to discipline. CMV.

No parent *likes* spanking their children, but I think kids who aren't spanked generally turn out to be bad kids. Furthermore, some kids don't respond to other punishments, and likewise some kids don't respond to spanking. So while I do think spanking isn't always necessary for every kid, parents who are inherently against it are just incapable of making tough decisions. Change my view.

I believe parents who are against spanking their children are simply incapable of making tough decisions when it comes to discipline. CMV. No parent *likes* spanking their children, but I think kids who aren't spanked generally turn out to be bad kids. Furthermore, some kids don't respond to other punishments, and likewise some kids don't respond to spanking. So while I do think spanking isn't always necessary for every kid, parents who are inherently against it are just incapable of making tough decisions. Change my view.

t3_2722pg

CMV: i don't value "work ethic" or "getting ahead" and am content with putting in the bare minimum

i'm not speaking for anyone else (although i do see ppl who work 14 hour days in a firm to chase money and status as suckers who are wasting the best years of their life) but i'm content to spend the rest of my life putting in 20% and getting 40%. there are huge diminishing returns for the amount of effort put in and the increase in life satisfaction so i don't see why i should do more than the bare minimum to maintain my modest lifestyle. i pretty much cruise through my days and i would be satisfied with doing that for the rest of my life so i can spend more time w the people who matter to me and indulge in leisure. _____ > *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 value "work ethic" or "getting ahead" and am content with putting in the bare minimum. i'm not speaking for anyone else (although i do see ppl who work 14 hour days in a firm to chase money and status as suckers who are wasting the best years of their life) but i'm content to spend the rest of my life putting in 20% and getting 40%. there are huge diminishing returns for the amount of effort put in and the increase in life satisfaction so i don't see why i should do more than the bare minimum to maintain my modest lifestyle. i pretty much cruise through my days and i would be satisfied with doing that for the rest of my life so i can spend more time w the people who matter to me and indulge in leisure.

t3_3ri5n8

CMV: I'm a young-earth creationist.

I'm a Christian who has always believed that the world is around 6000-10000 years old. That's what I grew up being taught by my church and my family. I believe that the God of the Bible created everything from nothing, and He has always existed, even before time. Recently, however, I've been more critical of my faith and searching out for myself. I'm more liberal than I was a year ago. I've been to many conferences about creation that show the evidence for creation and the great flood being the reason for the fossil layers. Recently, my mind has turned toward more scientific thinking, but I'm still not convinced of evolution because I haven't seen the evidence for it from a perspective that isn't critical of it. Change my view, I know evolution is generally more accepted and creationists are generally seen as less intelligent or respectable for it.

CMV: I'm a young-earth creationist. I'm a Christian who has always believed that the world is around 6000-10000 years old. That's what I grew up being taught by my church and my family. I believe that the God of the Bible created everything from nothing, and He has always existed, even before time. Recently, however, I've been more critical of my faith and searching out for myself. I'm more liberal than I was a year ago. I've been to many conferences about creation that show the evidence for creation and the great flood being the reason for the fossil layers. Recently, my mind has turned toward more scientific thinking, but I'm still not convinced of evolution because I haven't seen the evidence for it from a perspective that isn't critical of it. Change my view, I know evolution is generally more accepted and creationists are generally seen as less intelligent or respectable for it.

t3_3gm9al

CMV: The reason people are against sagging pants to the point of erecting laws against it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

EDIT: So far people have been denouncing the reasons I give for it not being about race, but no one has given me a reason why it is about race. Just trying to shoot down my reason without presenting an argument is to why it is about race isn't going to change my mind. ------------------------------------------------- I have been against it for years. Frankly I find it unsightly as well as unhygienic. Recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one. Just another race baiting tactic. I’m an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to CMV. If your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth. How could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay? Its incredibly gross. Just look at it from a spectators point of view. More than 95% of people are appalled by this “fashion trend” that has also been widely proven to come from prison. Why would you want to give off that type of air about you. Who wants to look at someone else’s underwear anyway? There is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it. It is indecent exposure. **There are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.** Tell me one fashion trend that's as bad as this that gets no attention. You can't. I mean hell, black people aren’t the only one’s that do it. I guarantee that if there was a “fashion trend” as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash. _____ > *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 reason people are against sagging pants to the point of erecting laws against it has absolutely nothing to do with race. EDIT: So far people have been denouncing the reasons I give for it not being about race, but no one has given me a reason why it is about race. Just trying to shoot down my reason without presenting an argument is to why it is about race isn't going to change my mind. ------------------------------------------------- I have been against it for years. Frankly I find it unsightly as well as unhygienic. Recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one. Just another race baiting tactic. I’m an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to CMV. If your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth. How could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay? Its incredibly gross. Just look at it from a spectators point of view. More than 95% of people are appalled by this “fashion trend” that has also been widely proven to come from prison. Why would you want to give off that type of air about you. Who wants to look at someone else’s underwear anyway? There is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it. It is indecent exposure. **There are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.** Tell me one fashion trend that's as bad as this that gets no attention. You can't. I mean hell, black people aren’t the only one’s that do it. I guarantee that if there was a “fashion trend” as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash.

t3_1lcobg

I believe the majority of firearm legislation is wholly ineffective at preventing any kind of violent crime in th US, and that the only effective gun control measures would by definition violate the second and fourth amendment. CMV.

There are 270-300 million guns in the United States right now. I'm on my phone, so linking to a source is rough, but if you google "global firearms census" you'll likely find the papers to which I refer. I believe any kind of gun control legislation short of sweeping the streets and removing any and all firearms will result in the proportion of violent criminals who own and use guns, when compared to the proportion of law-abiding citizens, to go up. This leaves the populace unable to defend itself against violent crime and upsets the balance of power in any kind of altercation. Furthermore, designating certain areas as "gun free" means that those who wish to obey the law will disarm before entering, while those who wish to do violence will not be bothered at all. Finally (and perhaps in a different vein), current laws on the books, which regulate largely on aesthetic and ergonomic features of firearms rather than functionality, are an unnecessary and unconstitutional infringement on our rights without a demonstrated benefit to public safety. For reference on this last point, I live in CT, which has recently enacted assault weapon legislation. All this said, I'm willing to keep an open mind with this. I'm simply tired of hearing the following arguments (because I don't believe they hold water): * "Guns are dangerous. They hurt people. Therefore if we ban them, gun violence will decrease." My issue here is that you can stop the trickle of guns into the system, but in a system with critical mass like our own, there are already too many on the streets for this to be effective. If it becomes illegal to purchase a gun, then they will flow in the direction of those willing to break the law * "Why do you need a gun? Why do you need this KIND of gun?" For the same reason that a person "needs" a fast car, or "needs" to drink alcohol. I want one. It makes me feel good. As a responsible gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I feel safer walking to the train through a bad neighborhood where my friends have been mugged if I can defend myself. Both of these cause many more deaths per year than gun violence, but there is no ban on either. Change my view.

I believe the majority of firearm legislation is wholly ineffective at preventing any kind of violent crime in th US, and that the only effective gun control measures would by definition violate the second and fourth amendment. CMV. There are 270-300 million guns in the United States right now. I'm on my phone, so linking to a source is rough, but if you google "global firearms census" you'll likely find the papers to which I refer. I believe any kind of gun control legislation short of sweeping the streets and removing any and all firearms will result in the proportion of violent criminals who own and use guns, when compared to the proportion of law-abiding citizens, to go up. This leaves the populace unable to defend itself against violent crime and upsets the balance of power in any kind of altercation. Furthermore, designating certain areas as "gun free" means that those who wish to obey the law will disarm before entering, while those who wish to do violence will not be bothered at all. Finally (and perhaps in a different vein), current laws on the books, which regulate largely on aesthetic and ergonomic features of firearms rather than functionality, are an unnecessary and unconstitutional infringement on our rights without a demonstrated benefit to public safety. For reference on this last point, I live in CT, which has recently enacted assault weapon legislation. All this said, I'm willing to keep an open mind with this. I'm simply tired of hearing the following arguments (because I don't believe they hold water): * "Guns are dangerous. They hurt people. Therefore if we ban them, gun violence will decrease." My issue here is that you can stop the trickle of guns into the system, but in a system with critical mass like our own, there are already too many on the streets for this to be effective. If it becomes illegal to purchase a gun, then they will flow in the direction of those willing to break the law * "Why do you need a gun? Why do you need this KIND of gun?" For the same reason that a person "needs" a fast car, or "needs" to drink alcohol. I want one. It makes me feel good. As a responsible gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I feel safer walking to the train through a bad neighborhood where my friends have been mugged if I can defend myself. Both of these cause many more deaths per year than gun violence, but there is no ban on either. Change my view.

t3_2d6fmg

CMV: Religion is a disease that pose a grave threat to humanity and must cured at all cost.

Religion is a disease that has inflicted the human species since we looked up at the night sky and begin wondering what's out there. It's based on set of beliefs that has absolutely no root in rational thinking, but rather on "faith". It's based on arbitrary rules, traditions, and laws that has enslaved mankind for centuries because people allow myths like the Earth is at the center of the Universe and the Universe is 6000 years old to rule their lives. Science and human progress has advanced not because of religion, but in despite of it. Everything from the trial of Galileo and Copernicus to the continued doubting of evolution is because of religion. The Inquisition, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, and the mess in the Middle East and around the world today have religions at their root. If you claim that things like 9/11 and the Inquisition aren't promoted by religion, you are in denial and I challenge you to name one atrocity and I will find a Biblical/Torah/Quran verse that explicitly promotes it. It doesn't take religion to encourage people to do good, but it takes religion to get good people to commit atrocities. Religion is a disease worse than AIDS/cancer and must be cured at any cost except violence. That would defeat the purpose. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Religion is a disease that pose a grave threat to humanity and must cured at all cost. Religion is a disease that has inflicted the human species since we looked up at the night sky and begin wondering what's out there. It's based on set of beliefs that has absolutely no root in rational thinking, but rather on "faith". It's based on arbitrary rules, traditions, and laws that has enslaved mankind for centuries because people allow myths like the Earth is at the center of the Universe and the Universe is 6000 years old to rule their lives. Science and human progress has advanced not because of religion, but in despite of it. Everything from the trial of Galileo and Copernicus to the continued doubting of evolution is because of religion. The Inquisition, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, and the mess in the Middle East and around the world today have religions at their root. If you claim that things like 9/11 and the Inquisition aren't promoted by religion, you are in denial and I challenge you to name one atrocity and I will find a Biblical/Torah/Quran verse that explicitly promotes it. It doesn't take religion to encourage people to do good, but it takes religion to get good people to commit atrocities. Religion is a disease worse than AIDS/cancer and must be cured at any cost except violence. That would defeat the purpose.

t3_3amks3

CMV:English should not be the international language

I think English should not be the international language for these reasons: It's proven that is really hard to understand how to pronounce some words here /u/BrotherChe makes a really good point in another thread I saw. http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/3aj3vc/udefstones123_realizes_what_grower_not_a_shower/csdbnl5. Other languages such as Spanish the pronunciation of a word is pretty straight forward. I understand that the conjugation is the only tough part and the whole gender thing might be confusing at first (not that crazy if it ends on an a it's female, except agua which can be both, the only tough part is if it end on an e). Also English is not even the most spoken language in the world where Mandarin is first followed by Spanish. English is rising only because it's commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise. Also the whole small scale system that English has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it's a million of a million. I know this seems biased like I am arguing that Spanish should be the international language and it's my native language, but it makes more sense if it were. I didn't defend Mandarin because I've always had the impression of it being one of the hardest language to master. If it's otherwise I apologize and anyone who speaks other languages are welcome to support why your language should be the international language. _____ > *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:English should not be the international language. I think English should not be the international language for these reasons: It's proven that is really hard to understand how to pronounce some words here /u/BrotherChe makes a really good point in another thread I saw. http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/3aj3vc/udefstones123_realizes_what_grower_not_a_shower/csdbnl5. Other languages such as Spanish the pronunciation of a word is pretty straight forward. I understand that the conjugation is the only tough part and the whole gender thing might be confusing at first (not that crazy if it ends on an a it's female, except agua which can be both, the only tough part is if it end on an e). Also English is not even the most spoken language in the world where Mandarin is first followed by Spanish. English is rising only because it's commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise. Also the whole small scale system that English has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it's a million of a million. I know this seems biased like I am arguing that Spanish should be the international language and it's my native language, but it makes more sense if it were. I didn't defend Mandarin because I've always had the impression of it being one of the hardest language to master. If it's otherwise I apologize and anyone who speaks other languages are welcome to support why your language should be the international language.

t3_2f1smw

CMV: MDMA is as much a date rape drug as any other.

After reading the [Cee Lo Green thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/2f0618/cee_lo_green_pleads_no_contest_to_slipping/) in response to this [article](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/cee-lo-green-pleads-contest-slipping-ecstasy-woman-article-1.1921615) It seemed apparent many people, possibly most people believed MDMA was not a date rape drug [(one of the top comments)](http://i.imgur.com/mEsZ1V6.png). I read through some comments but found nothing as to why that might be the case. I have taken MDMA and found it to be an incredibly powerful drug. I become highly suggestible, and eager to please pretty much anyone even at my own expense. Even though my experience is anecdotal I think my reaction to MDMA is typical and much like other drugs someone who is spiked is much more likely to willingly have sex due to the effects of the drug and thus making it a date rape drug. CMV. I hope my submission is high enough quality, will message mods for approval. _____ > *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: MDMA is as much a date rape drug as any other. After reading the [Cee Lo Green thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/2f0618/cee_lo_green_pleads_no_contest_to_slipping/) in response to this [article](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/cee-lo-green-pleads-contest-slipping-ecstasy-woman-article-1.1921615) It seemed apparent many people, possibly most people believed MDMA was not a date rape drug [(one of the top comments)](http://i.imgur.com/mEsZ1V6.png). I read through some comments but found nothing as to why that might be the case. I have taken MDMA and found it to be an incredibly powerful drug. I become highly suggestible, and eager to please pretty much anyone even at my own expense. Even though my experience is anecdotal I think my reaction to MDMA is typical and much like other drugs someone who is spiked is much more likely to willingly have sex due to the effects of the drug and thus making it a date rape drug. CMV. I hope my submission is high enough quality, will message mods for approval.

t3_3obgor

CMV: Mass shootings are irrelevant, compared to other causes of death in the US. Efforts to ban assault weapons are a huge waste of resources that should go into more important things.

I was looking at the CMV's list of popular topics, and didn't see this particular line of argument anywhere. I'm gonna give it a shot. If there's another thread that proposes this same line of argument, please point me towards it, as I couldn't find any. I see a lot of people pouring huge amounts of effort into trying to regulate guns around the US. Huge amounts of time, money, etc. are spent on this issue, as if it's one of the most pressing concerns in the US today. Every school shooting is treated as a national tragedy, news outlets run stories on these events 24/7. This is a very visible problem, which is obviously why so many people care so deeply about it. The reality, is that mass shootings, from a risk perspective, are incredibly rare. If you look at the data, as an American, your lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are about 110 to 1^[[1]](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf). Your odds of dying in a random shooting in a public place are something like 384,000 to 1^[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States). It's just hard to justify spending so much time, effort, and money fighting something that's so trivial in the grand scheme. Possible counterargument: Shouldn't we do everything in our power to prevent such deaths, even if it's not as big an issue? After all, we spend a lot of effort helping victims of various fatal causes, such as natural disasters and rare illnesses, which are much rarer than mass shootings. Counter-counterargument: Ownership of such guns is such a heavily charged political AND cultural element for many Americans. That's why this is a contentious issue, and why gun control such as that proposed by president Obama is not easily going to pass. Even if it could pass, the amount of resources that would go into the passing of the law, the implementation, and the removal of all the assault weapons, plus any of the states that would certainly refuse to follow the order...it's a massive undertaking, for so little gain, and even then it's questionable whether it would do much of anything. The Columbine shootings, for instance, happened during a time when "assault weapons" were banned (1994-2004). And Virginia Tech used pistols that aren't even on the table to be banned. Why spend that much effort fighting tooth and nail for "maybe saving some people" when one can, say, invest in self-driving car research, or heart disease prevention, and save *magnitudes* more people? 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: Mass shootings are irrelevant, compared to other causes of death in the US. Efforts to ban assault weapons are a huge waste of resources that should go into more important things. I was looking at the CMV's list of popular topics, and didn't see this particular line of argument anywhere. I'm gonna give it a shot. If there's another thread that proposes this same line of argument, please point me towards it, as I couldn't find any. I see a lot of people pouring huge amounts of effort into trying to regulate guns around the US. Huge amounts of time, money, etc. are spent on this issue, as if it's one of the most pressing concerns in the US today. Every school shooting is treated as a national tragedy, news outlets run stories on these events 24/7. This is a very visible problem, which is obviously why so many people care so deeply about it. The reality, is that mass shootings, from a risk perspective, are incredibly rare. If you look at the data, as an American, your lifetime odds of dying in a car accident are about 110 to 1^[[1]](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf). Your odds of dying in a random shooting in a public place are something like 384,000 to 1^[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States). It's just hard to justify spending so much time, effort, and money fighting something that's so trivial in the grand scheme. Possible counterargument: Shouldn't we do everything in our power to prevent such deaths, even if it's not as big an issue? After all, we spend a lot of effort helping victims of various fatal causes, such as natural disasters and rare illnesses, which are much rarer than mass shootings. Counter-counterargument: Ownership of such guns is such a heavily charged political AND cultural element for many Americans. That's why this is a contentious issue, and why gun control such as that proposed by president Obama is not easily going to pass. Even if it could pass, the amount of resources that would go into the passing of the law, the implementation, and the removal of all the assault weapons, plus any of the states that would certainly refuse to follow the order...it's a massive undertaking, for so little gain, and even then it's questionable whether it would do much of anything. The Columbine shootings, for instance, happened during a time when "assault weapons" were banned (1994-2004). And Virginia Tech used pistols that aren't even on the table to be banned. Why spend that much effort fighting tooth and nail for "maybe saving some people" when one can, say, invest in self-driving car research, or heart disease prevention, and save *magnitudes* more people? CMV! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_32zu6c

CMV: Dale Carnagie's book "How to win friends and influence people" is a still an incredibly useful and relevant book.

How to win friends and influence people has been around for more than 80 years. Despite coming from a different time and using different examples, it is still one of the most useful and enriching books someone can read to improve their own life. I have personally used the tips from the book to benefit my own life and my relations with other people. I have gained wonderful employment through the strategies recommended by the book, I have more friends and am closer to the friends I had as a result of following Dale Carnegies advice. How to win friends and influence people is a book everyone should read. Its advice is so timeless that it will always be very useful and relevant to everyday living. _____ > *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: Dale Carnagie's book "How to win friends and influence people" is a still an incredibly useful and relevant book. How to win friends and influence people has been around for more than 80 years. Despite coming from a different time and using different examples, it is still one of the most useful and enriching books someone can read to improve their own life. I have personally used the tips from the book to benefit my own life and my relations with other people. I have gained wonderful employment through the strategies recommended by the book, I have more friends and am closer to the friends I had as a result of following Dale Carnegies advice. How to win friends and influence people is a book everyone should read. Its advice is so timeless that it will always be very useful and relevant to everyday living.

t3_2961m8

CMV: Suarez's punishment for biting is disproportionately long.

Let me start by saying biting people is clearly wrong, and has no place in football. Clearly Suarez needs to be punished and I agree he should play no further part in the World Cup. But four months globally? There's a few arguments against his bite. The main one being "Who bites people? 3 times!?" A weirdo bites people. But that's the thing, it's weird. It's not dangerous, not unless he's carrying disease (hold your joke, it's already been made). Biting is a crazy, childish act of someone who clearly has issues, but how is it more dangerous than two-footed challenges, or elbows, or headbutts? If he was gouging at someone's eyes you'd have a point but a bite causes no lasting damage. Fair enough, you might say, but that's not the issue. This is the World Cup, he's a global superstar, he needs to be seeing an example. There's kids watching. I agree, but there's a couple of things wrong with that. 1. If you're punishing him more severely because he's a big name player, that's patently unfair. 2. Why aren't we punishing all the other people who don't set an example? The divers, the shirt-pullers, the injury- fakers, the ones who chase the ref complaining? Aha, you say, but they're not violent are they? No they're not, but Assou-Ekotto was violent when he headbutted his own teammate. Is that not worse for the kids to be seeing? A player fighting with his own teammate? Players get away with potentially career-ending challenges week in week out, but a bite is worthy of a 4 month global ban? It's not Suarez's ban I disagree with, it's the inconsistency of it all. The reason people get so up in arms is the shock factor. We're used to seeing pinches, sly elbows, headbutts that it doesn't even register. God knows the powers that be aren't going after them. Biting is new, it's uncivilised, and it's just plain weird. But it's not dangerous, and the punishment is totally disproportionate to what is being doled out for other incidents. Plus it's easy for FIFA. If they make an example out of Suarez then they can safely assume not many other incidents of biting will occur. If they clamped down on two-footed challenges, shirt-pulling at corners, divers who feign injury to get others punished, well that would be a bit more difficult to follow through on. Suarez has been punished 3 times for a combined total of approximately 39 games for his biting, essentially a playground act, and it's been the easiest thing in the world to do because it's so unique they won't ever have to deal with it again. The FA have no obligation to Suarez, neither do FIFA. If he'd done this in Uruguay I doubt there'd be this hoo-ha about it. They protect their own, just like our FA does. I'll be the first to admit Gerrard gets away with stuff because he's English and one of our best players, the same way Terry and Rooney have done. Christ the FA practically closed their eyes, put their fingers and said "I'm not listening" when Rooney elbowed Mccarthy. But they did it because it was easier to do nothing than open a can of worms. FIFA have taken the easy option here too. To my mind all they've done is proved how much they care what people think of them, instead of doing the right thing. Otherwise Assou-Ekotto would be enjoying the first week of his 6 month global ban as we speak. _____ > *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: Suarez's punishment for biting is disproportionately long. Let me start by saying biting people is clearly wrong, and has no place in football. Clearly Suarez needs to be punished and I agree he should play no further part in the World Cup. But four months globally? There's a few arguments against his bite. The main one being "Who bites people? 3 times!?" A weirdo bites people. But that's the thing, it's weird. It's not dangerous, not unless he's carrying disease (hold your joke, it's already been made). Biting is a crazy, childish act of someone who clearly has issues, but how is it more dangerous than two-footed challenges, or elbows, or headbutts? If he was gouging at someone's eyes you'd have a point but a bite causes no lasting damage. Fair enough, you might say, but that's not the issue. This is the World Cup, he's a global superstar, he needs to be seeing an example. There's kids watching. I agree, but there's a couple of things wrong with that. 1. If you're punishing him more severely because he's a big name player, that's patently unfair. 2. Why aren't we punishing all the other people who don't set an example? The divers, the shirt-pullers, the injury- fakers, the ones who chase the ref complaining? Aha, you say, but they're not violent are they? No they're not, but Assou-Ekotto was violent when he headbutted his own teammate. Is that not worse for the kids to be seeing? A player fighting with his own teammate? Players get away with potentially career-ending challenges week in week out, but a bite is worthy of a 4 month global ban? It's not Suarez's ban I disagree with, it's the inconsistency of it all. The reason people get so up in arms is the shock factor. We're used to seeing pinches, sly elbows, headbutts that it doesn't even register. God knows the powers that be aren't going after them. Biting is new, it's uncivilised, and it's just plain weird. But it's not dangerous, and the punishment is totally disproportionate to what is being doled out for other incidents. Plus it's easy for FIFA. If they make an example out of Suarez then they can safely assume not many other incidents of biting will occur. If they clamped down on two-footed challenges, shirt-pulling at corners, divers who feign injury to get others punished, well that would be a bit more difficult to follow through on. Suarez has been punished 3 times for a combined total of approximately 39 games for his biting, essentially a playground act, and it's been the easiest thing in the world to do because it's so unique they won't ever have to deal with it again. The FA have no obligation to Suarez, neither do FIFA. If he'd done this in Uruguay I doubt there'd be this hoo-ha about it. They protect their own, just like our FA does. I'll be the first to admit Gerrard gets away with stuff because he's English and one of our best players, the same way Terry and Rooney have done. Christ the FA practically closed their eyes, put their fingers and said "I'm not listening" when Rooney elbowed Mccarthy. But they did it because it was easier to do nothing than open a can of worms. FIFA have taken the easy option here too. To my mind all they've done is proved how much they care what people think of them, instead of doing the right thing. Otherwise Assou-Ekotto would be enjoying the first week of his 6 month global ban as we speak.

t3_4nwgaa

CMV: Large platforms like Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter can exert a disproportionate amount of control over opinions and politics, and should be regulated

The common response I hear to this is that "those are private sites, they can do whatever they want". Legally speaking, this is true, but I approach this from a purely pragmatic/moral standpoint, so what the law does or does not say is irrelevant to my view. I'm more interested in rightness and correctness than legality :) Here's the problem. Yes, those sites are technically "private", but they function as a public commons. The world meets there to discuss everything from cat memes to politics. Facebook is #2 most visited site in the USA. Twitter is #8, Reddit is #9. That is a *tremendous* amount of power. The fact that the sites act as a public commons is more important than the fact that it's hosted on someone else's servers. The internet being the internet, *everything* is hosted on someone else's servers. Why is this important? Facebook was recently accused (with merit I'm unsure of) of manipulating trending stories towards those with a liberal slant away from conservative ones. Facebook supposedly took that accusation seriously, since they had an internal meeting about it, and invited some conservative lawmakers over for a meeting. They've also been caught out deleting posts in what appears to be a very selective enforcement of their community standards. Reddit has the recent /r/news debacle, and some other controversies centered around blatant selective rule application for or against certain topics in many of the default subreddits. Twitter has the inconsistent (apparently selective) application of their site rules, and some hard-to-prove cases of shadowbans and hashtag suppression. Network effects mean that, were I some evil person in charge of one of these companies, I can tacitly or even outright support these actions, and most of the visitors either won't know, won't care, and those that do are a minority that can be dismissed as loud and perpetually unsatisfied. My manipulation only has to be not **so blatant** that the average user will see it and be so outraged that they'd flee for another site. With the result that, given enough mindshare, I can, from the shadows, shape public opinion with relatively little effort on my part. Hide this story, promote that one, hide some comments, shadowban some people, ignore other rule violations... I see this as a massive, **scary** problem. So, what's wrong with saying that, once you have some arbitrary number of unique visitors over a long period of time, and function as a public commons of sorts (all three of the sites I mentioned do), that some rules regarding transparency and behavior should take effect?

CMV: Large platforms like Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter can exert a disproportionate amount of control over opinions and politics, and should be regulated. The common response I hear to this is that "those are private sites, they can do whatever they want". Legally speaking, this is true, but I approach this from a purely pragmatic/moral standpoint, so what the law does or does not say is irrelevant to my view. I'm more interested in rightness and correctness than legality :) Here's the problem. Yes, those sites are technically "private", but they function as a public commons. The world meets there to discuss everything from cat memes to politics. Facebook is #2 most visited site in the USA. Twitter is #8, Reddit is #9. That is a *tremendous* amount of power. The fact that the sites act as a public commons is more important than the fact that it's hosted on someone else's servers. The internet being the internet, *everything* is hosted on someone else's servers. Why is this important? Facebook was recently accused (with merit I'm unsure of) of manipulating trending stories towards those with a liberal slant away from conservative ones. Facebook supposedly took that accusation seriously, since they had an internal meeting about it, and invited some conservative lawmakers over for a meeting. They've also been caught out deleting posts in what appears to be a very selective enforcement of their community standards. Reddit has the recent /r/news debacle, and some other controversies centered around blatant selective rule application for or against certain topics in many of the default subreddits. Twitter has the inconsistent (apparently selective) application of their site rules, and some hard-to-prove cases of shadowbans and hashtag suppression. Network effects mean that, were I some evil person in charge of one of these companies, I can tacitly or even outright support these actions, and most of the visitors either won't know, won't care, and those that do are a minority that can be dismissed as loud and perpetually unsatisfied. My manipulation only has to be not **so blatant** that the average user will see it and be so outraged that they'd flee for another site. With the result that, given enough mindshare, I can, from the shadows, shape public opinion with relatively little effort on my part. Hide this story, promote that one, hide some comments, shadowban some people, ignore other rule violations... I see this as a massive, **scary** problem. So, what's wrong with saying that, once you have some arbitrary number of unique visitors over a long period of time, and function as a public commons of sorts (all three of the sites I mentioned do), that some rules regarding transparency and behavior should take effect?

t3_1lvm3r

I do not believe that trans-women or trans-men are real women or real men. CMV

I've heard it said that trans-women are "real women". This, I assume, is supposed to mean that I should think of them not as people who have changed their gender, but as a person who is that gender, since gender is just a social construct anyway. But I don't consider "woman" to be just a social construct or just a gender. When I think of "women" I am thinking of someone who was born with the qualities a trans-woman is trying as hard as possible to imitate. I think it's valuable to differentiate between a person who has changed their gender and a person who has not. I think trans-women or men should be regarded as trans-women or men, and that we should not being trying to convince people that they are actually "real" men or women", but instead we should be trying to convince them that being a "trans-woman" or a "trans-man" is a perfectly valid identity. CMV

I do not believe that trans-women or trans-men are real women or real men. CMV. I've heard it said that trans-women are "real women". This, I assume, is supposed to mean that I should think of them not as people who have changed their gender, but as a person who is that gender, since gender is just a social construct anyway. But I don't consider "woman" to be just a social construct or just a gender. When I think of "women" I am thinking of someone who was born with the qualities a trans-woman is trying as hard as possible to imitate. I think it's valuable to differentiate between a person who has changed their gender and a person who has not. I think trans-women or men should be regarded as trans-women or men, and that we should not being trying to convince people that they are actually "real" men or women", but instead we should be trying to convince them that being a "trans-woman" or a "trans-man" is a perfectly valid identity. CMV

t3_73ai6p

CMV: Carmelo Anthony is not a great basketball player.

Whenever I got the joy of watching the Knicks play last season (lol). Carmelo was always ballhogging and missing clutch shots. He's way past any prime he's ever had and has a terrible attitude expecially towards his teammates. The Thunder brought him in this season to raise some hype around westbrook who isn't a terrible PG, but is a little overrated in my honest opinion. Melo was infact ranked behind Lonzo Ball in the NBA player rankings in the 60s. Granted that doesn't mean much I think some experts share my same view and the shadow of old melo is what kept him from dropping much lower. I highly doubt the signing of melo makes the thunder any sort of contenders in the west because is russ couldn't beat GS with Prime KD and Ibaka. Adding Paul George and Melo won't change a thing versus the Kevin Durant Warriors. Whist stats do technically count for something I don't think it's terribly hard for someone in the NBA with his physical stature to Average 22.4 / 5.9 / 2.9 expecially when he demands the ball as often as he does. Please CMV if you can.

CMV: Carmelo Anthony is not a great basketball player. Whenever I got the joy of watching the Knicks play last season (lol). Carmelo was always ballhogging and missing clutch shots. He's way past any prime he's ever had and has a terrible attitude expecially towards his teammates. The Thunder brought him in this season to raise some hype around westbrook who isn't a terrible PG, but is a little overrated in my honest opinion. Melo was infact ranked behind Lonzo Ball in the NBA player rankings in the 60s. Granted that doesn't mean much I think some experts share my same view and the shadow of old melo is what kept him from dropping much lower. I highly doubt the signing of melo makes the thunder any sort of contenders in the west because is russ couldn't beat GS with Prime KD and Ibaka. Adding Paul George and Melo won't change a thing versus the Kevin Durant Warriors. Whist stats do technically count for something I don't think it's terribly hard for someone in the NBA with his physical stature to Average 22.4 / 5.9 / 2.9 expecially when he demands the ball as often as he does. Please CMV if you can.

t3_38u3e3

CMV:Watching a sport and picking the current champion or "best" team as "your team" is the worst thing you can do as a sports fan

After watching certain teams run through and win as the favored squad (New England Patriots, Barcelona, Chelsea, etc), I just can't deal understand why people pick teams as they do as "their team." My college roommate is the thing that drove me over the edge. His favorite teams are as followed: The New England Patriots, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Lebron (so Cleveland and the Miami Heat), Barcelona (he doesn't watch soccer, he just roots for them because of Lionel Messi), Real Madrid (which is the **rival** of Barcelona, who he roots for because "Ronaldo is awesome"), Kentucky basketball, Duke (he called Jahlil Okafor "his boy"), and is part of the "Money Team" and loves Floyd Mayweather Jr. With this great pairing of teams, it seems as though he's always winning! While that's fantastic for him, I think it's the worst thing you can do as an avid sports fan. To pick the guys who are all but certain to win year in and year out is bad because it's hardly committing to anything worthy. It reminds me of Peter La Fleur in Dodgeball: "I found that if you have a goal, that you might not reach it. But if you don't have one, then you are never disappointed. And I gotta tell ya... it feels phenomenal." Applied to this situation, people who like the best teams will never be disappointed. And I bet it feels *phenomenal*. For me, I'm like Kate Veach, who replies "I guess that makes sense in a really sad way." As a sports fan, you should commit to a team that you like, but within some range of geographical location/family ties/pairing teams that *actually make sense* (i.e. Barcelona/Real Madrid), not because they always win. > *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:Watching a sport and picking the current champion or "best" team as "your team" is the worst thing you can do as a sports fan. After watching certain teams run through and win as the favored squad (New England Patriots, Barcelona, Chelsea, etc), I just can't deal understand why people pick teams as they do as "their team." My college roommate is the thing that drove me over the edge. His favorite teams are as followed: The New England Patriots, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Lebron (so Cleveland and the Miami Heat), Barcelona (he doesn't watch soccer, he just roots for them because of Lionel Messi), Real Madrid (which is the **rival** of Barcelona, who he roots for because "Ronaldo is awesome"), Kentucky basketball, Duke (he called Jahlil Okafor "his boy"), and is part of the "Money Team" and loves Floyd Mayweather Jr. With this great pairing of teams, it seems as though he's always winning! While that's fantastic for him, I think it's the worst thing you can do as an avid sports fan. To pick the guys who are all but certain to win year in and year out is bad because it's hardly committing to anything worthy. It reminds me of Peter La Fleur in Dodgeball: "I found that if you have a goal, that you might not reach it. But if you don't have one, then you are never disappointed. And I gotta tell ya... it feels phenomenal." Applied to this situation, people who like the best teams will never be disappointed. And I bet it feels *phenomenal*. For me, I'm like Kate Veach, who replies "I guess that makes sense in a really sad way." As a sports fan, you should commit to a team that you like, but within some range of geographical location/family ties/pairing teams that *actually make sense* (i.e. Barcelona/Real Madrid), not because they always win. > *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_27sbij

CMV: The typical rationales for having children are either narcissistic or self-serving and therefore unethical

At the outset it should be said that I am religiously agnostic, although practically atheist, in that I never attend services and I don't observe any holidays (excepting secular version of Halloween and Christmas). Reproduction: arguably the most critical process for the general survival of our species - at least until genetic sorcerers are able to develop the chromosomal therapies we need to live forever - and certainly one whose import is drilled into our heads from an early age. Should the world suddenly be beset by global and intractable infertility, it would almost certainly mean the end of the human race within the next one hundred years. It is therefore critical that we keep replenishing kindergartens globally, in order that these kididdlers may work to provide for us in our old age and in turn propagate our genetic legacies when they reach adulthood, or 16 in the American South. Yet discussing reproduction in impersonal terms like this fails to address a not insignificant byproduct of each successful pregnancy: a new human consciousness. Each time a baby is pulled forth screaming into the delivery room, behind all the “oohs” and “ahhs” and “itsaboys,” there is the simple fact that Mom and Dad have called forth from the abyss a unique and isolated identity and cast it headlong into a cruel and callous universe, a universe whose machinations are still very much a mystery and whose ultimate purpose may never be known, if such a thing can be properly said to exist at all. While Dad is lighting a cigar in the hospital’s parking lot and calling his own father to share the good news, Junior is already set on a path toward either spiritual emptiness or the wholesale embrace of his own reproductive future as a balm for this. He is offered no explanation, other than perhaps some variety of “well, that’s what you’re supposed to do.” Given that it seems most explanations and justifications for reproduction are either wholly missing or accrue to the benefit of either the parents or society as a whole (excluding the child in question), it seems to me that such decisions to reproduce, given their inability to justify the creation of a new life *per se*, are unethical. Change my view. **EDIT**: I could have been more clear in my post, and certainly in my title, since a large number of comments were counter-arguments regarding the apparent contention that *all* self-serving actions are *ipso facto* unethical. Wasn't my argument. **EDIT 2: Judgment Day**: /u/swearrengen gets a delta for reframing the discussion in a way I hadn't thought of. I still maintain that a lack of justification beyond some form of "because that's what you're (i.e. we're) supposed to do" is ethically compromised. **EDIT 3: Rise of the Deltas**: /u/MonkeyButlers has articulated a useful deontological framework by which the impulse and decision to have children can be found to be satisfactorily ethical without requiring or appealing to ultimate meanings of life, etc. _____ > *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 typical rationales for having children are either narcissistic or self-serving and therefore unethical. At the outset it should be said that I am religiously agnostic, although practically atheist, in that I never attend services and I don't observe any holidays (excepting secular version of Halloween and Christmas). Reproduction: arguably the most critical process for the general survival of our species - at least until genetic sorcerers are able to develop the chromosomal therapies we need to live forever - and certainly one whose import is drilled into our heads from an early age. Should the world suddenly be beset by global and intractable infertility, it would almost certainly mean the end of the human race within the next one hundred years. It is therefore critical that we keep replenishing kindergartens globally, in order that these kididdlers may work to provide for us in our old age and in turn propagate our genetic legacies when they reach adulthood, or 16 in the American South. Yet discussing reproduction in impersonal terms like this fails to address a not insignificant byproduct of each successful pregnancy: a new human consciousness. Each time a baby is pulled forth screaming into the delivery room, behind all the “oohs” and “ahhs” and “itsaboys,” there is the simple fact that Mom and Dad have called forth from the abyss a unique and isolated identity and cast it headlong into a cruel and callous universe, a universe whose machinations are still very much a mystery and whose ultimate purpose may never be known, if such a thing can be properly said to exist at all. While Dad is lighting a cigar in the hospital’s parking lot and calling his own father to share the good news, Junior is already set on a path toward either spiritual emptiness or the wholesale embrace of his own reproductive future as a balm for this. He is offered no explanation, other than perhaps some variety of “well, that’s what you’re supposed to do.” Given that it seems most explanations and justifications for reproduction are either wholly missing or accrue to the benefit of either the parents or society as a whole (excluding the child in question), it seems to me that such decisions to reproduce, given their inability to justify the creation of a new life *per se*, are unethical. Change my view. **EDIT**: I could have been more clear in my post, and certainly in my title, since a large number of comments were counter-arguments regarding the apparent contention that *all* self-serving actions are *ipso facto* unethical. Wasn't my argument. **EDIT 2: Judgment Day**: /u/swearrengen gets a delta for reframing the discussion in a way I hadn't thought of. I still maintain that a lack of justification beyond some form of "because that's what you're (i.e. we're) supposed to do" is ethically compromised. **EDIT 3: Rise of the Deltas**: /u/MonkeyButlers has articulated a useful deontological framework by which the impulse and decision to have children can be found to be satisfactorily ethical without requiring or appealing to ultimate meanings of life, etc.

t3_65inn8

CMV: People who use the term "ISIS" to describe the terrorist group empower them and share responsibility for the terror that comes from them. (saying, "self described" doesn't excuse or minimize it. It is only an admission of your own ignorance.)

They don't call them the "Islamic state" in the middle east (mostly they say "Daesh"), so why do we do it here. They do not represent Islam and by allowing them to use the name we are enabling them. (I proclaim to be the president of the United states, so when you address me in the comments I prefer if you address me that way. Or you can recognize that just because I say it, doesn't make it so.). This is how ridiculous I feel it is to call them ISIS. There are ~1.6 billion Muslims in the world and ~100,000 Daesh (i.e. terrorists in the group most people think represent Islam). This equates to ~.00635%. That is six one hundredths of one percent.... Calling a terrorist organization any sort of religious name hurts everyone (except the ones who are asking to be called the name). Our society is weak, we love drama and we incite it at every corner. I feel that we have slipped into some weird reality. We live in a mix of "Talladega Nights" and "Idiocracy". _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People who use the term "ISIS" to describe the terrorist group empower them and share responsibility for the terror that comes from them. (saying, "self described" doesn't excuse or minimize it. It is only an admission of your own ignorance.). They don't call them the "Islamic state" in the middle east (mostly they say "Daesh"), so why do we do it here. They do not represent Islam and by allowing them to use the name we are enabling them. (I proclaim to be the president of the United states, so when you address me in the comments I prefer if you address me that way. Or you can recognize that just because I say it, doesn't make it so.). This is how ridiculous I feel it is to call them ISIS. There are ~1.6 billion Muslims in the world and ~100,000 Daesh (i.e. terrorists in the group most people think represent Islam). This equates to ~.00635%. That is six one hundredths of one percent.... Calling a terrorist organization any sort of religious name hurts everyone (except the ones who are asking to be called the name). Our society is weak, we love drama and we incite it at every corner. I feel that we have slipped into some weird reality. We live in a mix of "Talladega Nights" and "Idiocracy".

t3_6uvjc9

CMV: It is largely irrational for most Americans to be concerned about terrorism

Between 1995 and 2014, 3,264 Americans died to terrorism attacks in the US (according to The University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database) (it's a PDF so just go to [this Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=gtd+us+terror+deaths+fact+sheet) and click on the first link). This means that on average 163 Americans died each year on American soil from terror attacks, or about or about .05 deaths from terror per 100,000 people. This makes terrorism less deadly than car accidents ([10.9 deaths/100,000 people](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview)), suicides ([13.3 deaths/100,000](https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/)), and numerous other causes of death. Since it is so unlikely to affect/harm the average American, it is therefore very irrational for the average American to be cocerned about terrorism. Edit: I'm basically don't looking at comments now, but thanks replies. There were a lot of good points brought up, but nothing could quite convince me that I was wrong. Have a great day.

CMV: It is largely irrational for most Americans to be concerned about terrorism. Between 1995 and 2014, 3,264 Americans died to terrorism attacks in the US (according to The University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database) (it's a PDF so just go to [this Google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=gtd+us+terror+deaths+fact+sheet) and click on the first link). This means that on average 163 Americans died each year on American soil from terror attacks, or about or about .05 deaths from terror per 100,000 people. This makes terrorism less deadly than car accidents ([10.9 deaths/100,000 people](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview)), suicides ([13.3 deaths/100,000](https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/)), and numerous other causes of death. Since it is so unlikely to affect/harm the average American, it is therefore very irrational for the average American to be cocerned about terrorism. Edit: I'm basically don't looking at comments now, but thanks replies. There were a lot of good points brought up, but nothing could quite convince me that I was wrong. Have a great day.

t3_1tbu1e

I believe there was nothing wrong with how 4chan and /mensrights acted in the Occidental College anonymous rape report form incident. CMV

I believe there was nothing wrong with how 4chan and /mensrights acted in the Occidental College anonymous rape report form incident and I am appaled why most of reddit seemed to react negatively. Even some /mensrights regulars seemed to backpedal after the posts in subredditdrama and offmychest (altrough, I should stress that I am not sure to what degree this negative reaction only appeared so due to SRS bridading all the threads that dealt with the issue). Why I hold my opinion: I believe anonymous reporting of crimes, especially one that automatically results in the accused being summoned by a dean to an embarrasing visit does not belong in an university environment, but perhaps in the Soviet Union. The report form as it was designed simply had to be destroyed / made ineffective by any (legal) means necessary. How someoe could consider spamming it outrageous, but its existence itself okay is beyond me. Also, from the history of the sexual abuse at the Occidental college, it was IMHO pretty obvious that the administration only created the form as an ineffective feel good measure to shut up the critics, perhaps to cover up glaring problems with rape reporting in the past. The form was doomed from the start anyway, because having the ability to anonymously cause someone to be summoned to the dean is simply too great an attraction to trolls and people who want to prank / get back at someone. **False or malicious reports would make the majority of claims anyway.** The only difference is that 4chan and mensrights decided to mass spam it, thus making it only ineffective and overload it (thus effectively shutting it down), instead of actively malicious harrasment tool for pranksters which it would inevitably become if left alone. Exposing its idiocy by doing what would eventually happen anyway (people spaming it with trolling and false claims) is a rational thing to do. Hasten its death so we minimize its harm. For those unfamiliar with the incident, here is a short (and biased IMHO) summary: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/19/5226756/400-fake-rapes-reported-by-mens-rights-activists-at-la-college EDIT: Here is a more factual unbiased summary: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-occidental-abuse-hotline-20131220,0,589856.story#axzz2o1rjALnh I am leaving the above Verge summary too, so people see how biased some media were in reporting about the incident. CMV?

I believe there was nothing wrong with how 4chan and /mensrights acted in the Occidental College anonymous rape report form incident. CMV. I believe there was nothing wrong with how 4chan and /mensrights acted in the Occidental College anonymous rape report form incident and I am appaled why most of reddit seemed to react negatively. Even some /mensrights regulars seemed to backpedal after the posts in subredditdrama and offmychest (altrough, I should stress that I am not sure to what degree this negative reaction only appeared so due to SRS bridading all the threads that dealt with the issue). Why I hold my opinion: I believe anonymous reporting of crimes, especially one that automatically results in the accused being summoned by a dean to an embarrasing visit does not belong in an university environment, but perhaps in the Soviet Union. The report form as it was designed simply had to be destroyed / made ineffective by any (legal) means necessary. How someoe could consider spamming it outrageous, but its existence itself okay is beyond me. Also, from the history of the sexual abuse at the Occidental college, it was IMHO pretty obvious that the administration only created the form as an ineffective feel good measure to shut up the critics, perhaps to cover up glaring problems with rape reporting in the past. The form was doomed from the start anyway, because having the ability to anonymously cause someone to be summoned to the dean is simply too great an attraction to trolls and people who want to prank / get back at someone. **False or malicious reports would make the majority of claims anyway.** The only difference is that 4chan and mensrights decided to mass spam it, thus making it only ineffective and overload it (thus effectively shutting it down), instead of actively malicious harrasment tool for pranksters which it would inevitably become if left alone. Exposing its idiocy by doing what would eventually happen anyway (people spaming it with trolling and false claims) is a rational thing to do. Hasten its death so we minimize its harm. For those unfamiliar with the incident, here is a short (and biased IMHO) summary: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/19/5226756/400-fake-rapes-reported-by-mens-rights-activists-at-la-college EDIT: Here is a more factual unbiased summary: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-occidental-abuse-hotline-20131220,0,589856.story#axzz2o1rjALnh I am leaving the above Verge summary too, so people see how biased some media were in reporting about the incident. CMV?

t3_452y21

CMV: I think the punishment for rape is the US excessive.

Just to be clear, I'm not condoning rape. In the US, rapists can be handed [life sentences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Criminal_punishment). How does that punishment fit the crime? I understand putting someone in prison for the rest of their life for purposely ending someone else's (murder). But rape? I don't see the logic. I think 5 years should be the maximum sentence. Why is rape more serious than vehicular manslaughter or aggravated assault? Another disclaimer: neither me nor anyone I know has been accused of rape, so this isn't coming from a personally biased perspective. EDIT: Because many people are making the same point, I feel I should add it here. I get it: rape causes severe psychological trauma that can follow you for the rest of your life. *I'm not saying rapists should not be punished*; I just don't think that life in prison is commensurate to the crime. What you need to do to convince me is directly address why 5-10 years isn't sufficient punishment. EDIT 2: [Delta awarded](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/452y21/cmv_i_think_the_punishment_for_rape_is_the_us/czuszhx), thanks to everyone who civilly engaged. _____ > *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 punishment for rape is the US excessive. Just to be clear, I'm not condoning rape. In the US, rapists can be handed [life sentences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Criminal_punishment). How does that punishment fit the crime? I understand putting someone in prison for the rest of their life for purposely ending someone else's (murder). But rape? I don't see the logic. I think 5 years should be the maximum sentence. Why is rape more serious than vehicular manslaughter or aggravated assault? Another disclaimer: neither me nor anyone I know has been accused of rape, so this isn't coming from a personally biased perspective. EDIT: Because many people are making the same point, I feel I should add it here. I get it: rape causes severe psychological trauma that can follow you for the rest of your life. *I'm not saying rapists should not be punished*; I just don't think that life in prison is commensurate to the crime. What you need to do to convince me is directly address why 5-10 years isn't sufficient punishment. EDIT 2: [Delta awarded](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/452y21/cmv_i_think_the_punishment_for_rape_is_the_us/czuszhx), thanks to everyone who civilly engaged.

t3_1c0uub

I am 27 and feel like I should have done more drugs - CMV

So ok...First time poster... and I am not sure how to really go about this... so I'll just start typing... I have been going through a pretty interesting phase lately in my life recently. A breakup with a girl that was far too young for me (she was 20 and I am 27) and in this break up time i decided to get a last minute ticket to go to Coachella. I am a music producer, and I have only ever smoked weed or drank... and my problem is that everyone around me seems to be innamoured with doing drugs. I'm not talking about weed, that's no big deal IMO. I am talking MDMA, Coke, Shrooms... lots of the "party drugs". I feel this intense pressure and sense that I am missing out on some right of passage or experience to do something more wild, crazy and careless. Let me backpedal a minute... After high school, I went straight to community college... and after not really getting anything accomplished at community college, I moved away from home (Chicago) to go to a technical school for music at the age of 20 in Arizona. From there I moved to LA and worked in recording studios from 20-23. This was a lot of grueling long hours 7 days a week just trying to make myself known. I did a decent job, got to work with some famous people, but never really partied that much. Then I freak out about where my life is headed, and I moved back to Chicago for a year, finished the AA degree at community college and partied a bit, since I was already feeling this pressure of not 'acting my age' and not being carefree enough. After this year, I once again moved back to LA and started working again, this time doing work on movies. Warner Brothers and stuff like that. Through working with various people, I finally ended up working in doing sound for Video games. Finally got employed in San Diego, which is where I am now. I have a stable job and income. I have amazing work hours, tons of freedom, an incredible boss, vacation time... etc etc (you get the picture, it's a good job). This sounds good right? If it is so good, why do I feel so lost? Why do I feel like I wish I had just drank myself into a stupor at a big 4 year school? Why do I feel like I should roll on X at Coachella just to fit in with everyone else in California that seems to just be looking for a good time? Why can't I just be satisfied with who I am and what choices I've made up until this point? Why do I keep looking for some missing key to my youth. I really feel pressure to do something stupid at Coachella... and I don't know if I should or shouldn't. I don't think I want to... but I am sick of always looking back and feeling regret in every choice. It's a horrible way to live... and one I want to stop. CMV!

I am 27 and feel like I should have done more drugs - CMV. So ok...First time poster... and I am not sure how to really go about this... so I'll just start typing... I have been going through a pretty interesting phase lately in my life recently. A breakup with a girl that was far too young for me (she was 20 and I am 27) and in this break up time i decided to get a last minute ticket to go to Coachella. I am a music producer, and I have only ever smoked weed or drank... and my problem is that everyone around me seems to be innamoured with doing drugs. I'm not talking about weed, that's no big deal IMO. I am talking MDMA, Coke, Shrooms... lots of the "party drugs". I feel this intense pressure and sense that I am missing out on some right of passage or experience to do something more wild, crazy and careless. Let me backpedal a minute... After high school, I went straight to community college... and after not really getting anything accomplished at community college, I moved away from home (Chicago) to go to a technical school for music at the age of 20 in Arizona. From there I moved to LA and worked in recording studios from 20-23. This was a lot of grueling long hours 7 days a week just trying to make myself known. I did a decent job, got to work with some famous people, but never really partied that much. Then I freak out about where my life is headed, and I moved back to Chicago for a year, finished the AA degree at community college and partied a bit, since I was already feeling this pressure of not 'acting my age' and not being carefree enough. After this year, I once again moved back to LA and started working again, this time doing work on movies. Warner Brothers and stuff like that. Through working with various people, I finally ended up working in doing sound for Video games. Finally got employed in San Diego, which is where I am now. I have a stable job and income. I have amazing work hours, tons of freedom, an incredible boss, vacation time... etc etc (you get the picture, it's a good job). This sounds good right? If it is so good, why do I feel so lost? Why do I feel like I wish I had just drank myself into a stupor at a big 4 year school? Why do I feel like I should roll on X at Coachella just to fit in with everyone else in California that seems to just be looking for a good time? Why can't I just be satisfied with who I am and what choices I've made up until this point? Why do I keep looking for some missing key to my youth. I really feel pressure to do something stupid at Coachella... and I don't know if I should or shouldn't. I don't think I want to... but I am sick of always looking back and feeling regret in every choice. It's a horrible way to live... and one I want to stop. CMV!

t3_1q5w5k

I believe that "Free to play" games are complete scams and are never justified. CMV.

On paper, it might sound good to have a free game that draws you in and gives you perks for monetary donations if you like what you see. But in practice, it completely changes a video game into a psychologically aggressive environment which is always reminding you what you're not getting if you don't pay real money. These games are essentially built to bully you out of your money and give nothing back of any value. This goes double for "pay to win" games, but also applies when it's only ascetic. Someone once told me an excellent analogy. Pretend you're shopping at a department store and you find some awesome clothes that are ridiculously cheap, so you decide to buy them. But when you get to the checkout counter, you find out that you're not allowed to take the clothes out of the store. While they're "yours", you can only own them within the confines of the store. So you find yourself coming back to the store everyday because you really want to wear those awesome clothes you purchased. So while you're walking around the store wearing your awesome clothes, you have lots of time to see everything else that's on sale until you're tempted to buy more. Also, other shoppers will see you wearing your awesome clothes and be jealous of you, and want to buy those clothes for themselves. So in the end, the act of purchasing your clothes gave you nothing of value (because let's be honest, you never actually owned anything), and only enabled the store to further advertize to you and indirectly to your friends. It's like the store didn't even sell anything, but still wanted your money and used empty promises and peer pressure to get it out of you. In short, a scam. Another good analogy is that paying for stuff in a F2P game is like creating a horcrux. It doesn't have any actual value on its own; you give it value by paying for something, which is like putting part of your soul into the game that you can't take back out. Once you do it, you find it hard to separate yourself from the game without feeling like you've lost something important. You get emotionally invested and you can't let it go, even though the only real value in the game is the artificial value you gave it by depositing your money into it. From there, it creates a self-perpetuating "Gambler's Fallacy" which preys on your psychological weakness and makes you spend more money. I hear the argument all the time that "Games are a business and they need to make money," but that doesn't excuse a business model that is so blatantly scummy and predatory upon the weak-willed, any more than it justifies companies like Enron to exist. So I can only really think of two justifications for the Free-to-play business model: 1) A fool deserves to be separated from his money. 2) It gives the strong-willed a chance to practice spotting and circumventing scams and not spending their money wastefully. If anyone's got any other ideas, let's hear them. Because from where I stand, these two things are so laughably contrary to what the spirit of a video game is supposed to be that it just disgusts me. Sure, there might be elements of an interesting game somewhere in there, but the pressure to pay is so psychologically harmful that it's not worth it to get involved.

I believe that "Free to play" games are complete scams and are never justified. CMV. On paper, it might sound good to have a free game that draws you in and gives you perks for monetary donations if you like what you see. But in practice, it completely changes a video game into a psychologically aggressive environment which is always reminding you what you're not getting if you don't pay real money. These games are essentially built to bully you out of your money and give nothing back of any value. This goes double for "pay to win" games, but also applies when it's only ascetic. Someone once told me an excellent analogy. Pretend you're shopping at a department store and you find some awesome clothes that are ridiculously cheap, so you decide to buy them. But when you get to the checkout counter, you find out that you're not allowed to take the clothes out of the store. While they're "yours", you can only own them within the confines of the store. So you find yourself coming back to the store everyday because you really want to wear those awesome clothes you purchased. So while you're walking around the store wearing your awesome clothes, you have lots of time to see everything else that's on sale until you're tempted to buy more. Also, other shoppers will see you wearing your awesome clothes and be jealous of you, and want to buy those clothes for themselves. So in the end, the act of purchasing your clothes gave you nothing of value (because let's be honest, you never actually owned anything), and only enabled the store to further advertize to you and indirectly to your friends. It's like the store didn't even sell anything, but still wanted your money and used empty promises and peer pressure to get it out of you. In short, a scam. Another good analogy is that paying for stuff in a F2P game is like creating a horcrux. It doesn't have any actual value on its own; you give it value by paying for something, which is like putting part of your soul into the game that you can't take back out. Once you do it, you find it hard to separate yourself from the game without feeling like you've lost something important. You get emotionally invested and you can't let it go, even though the only real value in the game is the artificial value you gave it by depositing your money into it. From there, it creates a self-perpetuating "Gambler's Fallacy" which preys on your psychological weakness and makes you spend more money. I hear the argument all the time that "Games are a business and they need to make money," but that doesn't excuse a business model that is so blatantly scummy and predatory upon the weak-willed, any more than it justifies companies like Enron to exist. So I can only really think of two justifications for the Free-to-play business model: 1) A fool deserves to be separated from his money. 2) It gives the strong-willed a chance to practice spotting and circumventing scams and not spending their money wastefully. If anyone's got any other ideas, let's hear them. Because from where I stand, these two things are so laughably contrary to what the spirit of a video game is supposed to be that it just disgusts me. Sure, there might be elements of an interesting game somewhere in there, but the pressure to pay is so psychologically harmful that it's not worth it to get involved.

t3_52nghf

CMV: The media's decision to censor the Milwaukee "take it to the suburbs" comment was acceptable.

Why am I bringing this up now? There's controversy once again over media editing of a live interview. Here, Bill Clinton's remarks on Hillary collapsing "frequently. " This has happened before, in borderline libelous ways, to George Zimmerman and Shirley Sherrod, as well as when the sister of a Milwaukee man killed by police told rioters to take "it to the suburbs. " I think the Milwaukee edit was justifiable because it would discourage angry youth from descending on suburban neighborhoods and possibly prevent another flare up of violence. _____ > *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 media's decision to censor the Milwaukee "take it to the suburbs" comment was acceptable. Why am I bringing this up now? There's controversy once again over media editing of a live interview. Here, Bill Clinton's remarks on Hillary collapsing "frequently. " This has happened before, in borderline libelous ways, to George Zimmerman and Shirley Sherrod, as well as when the sister of a Milwaukee man killed by police told rioters to take "it to the suburbs. " I think the Milwaukee edit was justifiable because it would discourage angry youth from descending on suburban neighborhoods and possibly prevent another flare up of violence.

t3_2yqtrd

CMV: It is not worth the effort for me to cook rather than order delivery or eat out

Hello Reddit, I live in an apartment with several roommates, all male. We are all on separate budgets and as such do not really share meals or food, except for really commonplace things like salt and olive oil. So basically I eat most of my meals solo, unless I'm with my gf or going out to eat with friends. Now, I'm not one of those guys who hates cooking. In fact, I love cooking; my gf and I cook meals together all the time and love doing so. However, I don't feel that it's worth the effort for me to cook when by myself. Reasons: * I am never really "stocked" on food and so I rarely have all the ingredients on hand for a recipe. Which means that if I want to cook something, I usually have to go to the grocery store first. If I try to plan out in advance and "stock up", a lot of food ends up being wasted due to changed plans, etc. * The difference in cost between cooking and buying a meal for one person isn't that huge. For a family of 4 eating out is vastly more expensive that cooking at home, but I can get a decent meal for <$10 that is already prepared for me. If I had to guess I'd say the average meal I eat from grocery store food is maybe $5, so it's not that big of a difference, at least not enough to justify the extra time and effort involved with cooking * I hate washing pots and pans after using them. I don't have a dishwasher, so washing up is often a pretty annoying task * Some of my roommates leave the kitchen messy after they use it and I don't feel like cleaning up after them I'm going to be moving to a new apartment in a few months where I will have a lot more space (and a dishwasher) so this view will probably be changed when I do, but I'd still like it changed now if possible, to potentially save some money. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is not worth the effort for me to cook rather than order delivery or eat out. Hello Reddit, I live in an apartment with several roommates, all male. We are all on separate budgets and as such do not really share meals or food, except for really commonplace things like salt and olive oil. So basically I eat most of my meals solo, unless I'm with my gf or going out to eat with friends. Now, I'm not one of those guys who hates cooking. In fact, I love cooking; my gf and I cook meals together all the time and love doing so. However, I don't feel that it's worth the effort for me to cook when by myself. Reasons: * I am never really "stocked" on food and so I rarely have all the ingredients on hand for a recipe. Which means that if I want to cook something, I usually have to go to the grocery store first. If I try to plan out in advance and "stock up", a lot of food ends up being wasted due to changed plans, etc. * The difference in cost between cooking and buying a meal for one person isn't that huge. For a family of 4 eating out is vastly more expensive that cooking at home, but I can get a decent meal for <$10 that is already prepared for me. If I had to guess I'd say the average meal I eat from grocery store food is maybe $5, so it's not that big of a difference, at least not enough to justify the extra time and effort involved with cooking * I hate washing pots and pans after using them. I don't have a dishwasher, so washing up is often a pretty annoying task * Some of my roommates leave the kitchen messy after they use it and I don't feel like cleaning up after them I'm going to be moving to a new apartment in a few months where I will have a lot more space (and a dishwasher) so this view will probably be changed when I do, but I'd still like it changed now if possible, to potentially save some money.

t3_4g57nn

CMV: There should be all unisex bathrooms

Currently, it is my belief that there should be no gender-specific bathrooms. This belief stems from the observation that if buildings had only stalls, with one bathroom, it would be cheaper than having two separate bathrooms, one with urinals and stalls and one with stalls. Additionally, by having only unisex bathrooms the whole trans-gender bathroom debate will be remedied because no-one will feel excluded from going to the bathroom of their choice, because there is only one choice. By installing only stalls, people can save on cost, while also protecting privacy and comfort. _____ > *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 should be all unisex bathrooms. Currently, it is my belief that there should be no gender-specific bathrooms. This belief stems from the observation that if buildings had only stalls, with one bathroom, it would be cheaper than having two separate bathrooms, one with urinals and stalls and one with stalls. Additionally, by having only unisex bathrooms the whole trans-gender bathroom debate will be remedied because no-one will feel excluded from going to the bathroom of their choice, because there is only one choice. By installing only stalls, people can save on cost, while also protecting privacy and comfort.

t3_1ethqx

I believe that, in your mid 20's, those who keep their head down and do there own thing will contribute more to society later on in life.

I am 24, and I think that we are taught that our opinions/ideas are important and that we need to take advantage of our "youthful perspective. I think this comes from our parent's generation that went through the Civil Rights Movement in their 20s/30s. Yet, I think that there is no need to project our morals onto society at this young age. The goal should be to maintain our morals while learning how to navigate the realities of adulthood. If we do that, we can make a much larger impact when we decide to raise our voices. EDIT!: CMMFV EDIT #2: Great Responses everyone! I am really blown away by how positive and thoughtful all the responses were. I have had some bad experiences when expressing my viewpoints on the internet. This was an extremely positive, refreshing debat thread. Thanks everyone! I wish I could give you all Reddit Gold but, yeah right, I ain't spending real money on this shit :)

I believe that, in your mid 20's, those who keep their head down and do there own thing will contribute more to society later on in life. I am 24, and I think that we are taught that our opinions/ideas are important and that we need to take advantage of our "youthful perspective. I think this comes from our parent's generation that went through the Civil Rights Movement in their 20s/30s. Yet, I think that there is no need to project our morals onto society at this young age. The goal should be to maintain our morals while learning how to navigate the realities of adulthood. If we do that, we can make a much larger impact when we decide to raise our voices. EDIT!: CMMFV EDIT #2: Great Responses everyone! I am really blown away by how positive and thoughtful all the responses were. I have had some bad experiences when expressing my viewpoints on the internet. This was an extremely positive, refreshing debat thread. Thanks everyone! I wish I could give you all Reddit Gold but, yeah right, I ain't spending real money on this shit :)

t3_1e0lt4

I believe that the government should provide an employment system for anyone who needs a job, regardless of their situation, criminal background and work history. CMV.

Every workday shuttle buses and 15-passenger vans are dispatched to certain locations in municipal areas and those present at 7am are picked up and either taken to an office for initial processing or taken to various job sites to be given a daily task.

I believe that the government should provide an employment system for anyone who needs a job, regardless of their situation, criminal background and work history. CMV. Every workday shuttle buses and 15-passenger vans are dispatched to certain locations in municipal areas and those present at 7am are picked up and either taken to an office for initial processing or taken to various job sites to be given a daily task.

t3_1ecu7c

I think gene patents are unethical and stymie science. CMV

Genes exist in nature and therefore are not patentable. You couldn't patent gold just because you elucidated its atomic structure I feel genes are the same way. edit:This only applies to naturally occurring genes and not to artificially created genes, those I believe should be patentable.

I think gene patents are unethical and stymie science. CMV. Genes exist in nature and therefore are not patentable. You couldn't patent gold just because you elucidated its atomic structure I feel genes are the same way. edit:This only applies to naturally occurring genes and not to artificially created genes, those I believe should be patentable.

t3_3a0ex1

CMV: Moral relativism is the only true moral principle.

What prompted this post was the question at the end of this [thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/35hzj2/92_of_married_women_in_egypt_have_undergone/cr4rqc6?context=3) I feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent. But I also understand that this is just a belief. There's no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level. Are morals are completely created by the natural world. Starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution. Much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line. If an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on. This works similarly with cultures. The groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code. Furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be. I know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively. Any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain. For simplicity's sake "just because" is the only valid argument for our moral codes. When I really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts I see that their evilness is manufactured by society. Those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists. All this said I am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person. I don't advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself. But I do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying. They make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition. The reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti-gay, pro-choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value. One issue that I struggle with in particular is animal cruelty. For better or worse I don't feel any major sense of empathy when I hear about an animal being "brutally" treated or killed. In reaction I simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly I wonder in confusion at other's outrage. **tldr; There is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Moral relativism is the only true moral principle. What prompted this post was the question at the end of this [thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/35hzj2/92_of_married_women_in_egypt_have_undergone/cr4rqc6?context=3) I feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent. But I also understand that this is just a belief. There's no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level. Are morals are completely created by the natural world. Starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution. Much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line. If an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on. This works similarly with cultures. The groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code. Furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be. I know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively. Any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain. For simplicity's sake "just because" is the only valid argument for our moral codes. When I really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts I see that their evilness is manufactured by society. Those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists. All this said I am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person. I don't advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself. But I do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying. They make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition. The reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti-gay, pro-choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value. One issue that I struggle with in particular is animal cruelty. For better or worse I don't feel any major sense of empathy when I hear about an animal being "brutally" treated or killed. In reaction I simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly I wonder in confusion at other's outrage. **tldr; There is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.**

t3_1ecb89

I think the current gay rights movement is a) obnoxious and b) a distraction.

I am a mild supporter of gay marriage (I don't see it hurting things if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, but marriage as a whole isn't a terribly important issue to me). I also support groups that are against LGBT bullying and legislation that makes sexual orientation-based discrimination illegal. BUT, the gay rights seems to me obnoxious and a harmful distraction, for the following reasons: **Gay marriage is treated as if it ought to be obvious, and anyone who disagrees is a horrible person.** Shouldn't changing the definition of one of our most fundamental institutions be looked upon with suspicion? Marriage *has* been defined as being between one man and one woman in Western culture for over a millennium (with the exception of a few fringe groups that allowed polygamy). Obviously "It's always been that way" isn't a convincing argument, but isn't it reasonable for people (i.e., a few of my older and more traditional relatives) to question that change? **The gay rights movement unfairly compares themselves to other civil rights movements.** I can't think of how many times friends of mine, as well as national leaders, have compared the current situation LGBT Americans are in to African Americans before the Civil Rights movement. As far as I can tell, this is a totally invalid comparison. Certainly there is discrimination and restriction of gay rights, but that's completely different from systematic control over an entire group of people. Marriage is more symbolic than anything else--the "rights" that come with marriage are far less important than the right to vote. I also don't like how the gay rights movement uses the idea of true love to advance their agenda. Most people who are against gay marriage (except a few wackos who are increasingly dying off) aren't trying to stop gay people from being in love. **Most importantly, gay marriage distracts from other, more important issues.** Income inequality and global warming are both far more dangerous to our society than gay marriage. And yet, the average college student is far more concerned with gay marriage than either of the other two. Gay marriage not being recognized by the government is a minor injustice. Income inequality and global warming both threaten the fate of millions of people in the upcoming century. And yet (perhaps because they are more controversial, perhaps because they don't have easy solutions) they are often ignored. Change my view.

I think the current gay rights movement is a) obnoxious and b) a distraction. I am a mild supporter of gay marriage (I don't see it hurting things if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, but marriage as a whole isn't a terribly important issue to me). I also support groups that are against LGBT bullying and legislation that makes sexual orientation-based discrimination illegal. BUT, the gay rights seems to me obnoxious and a harmful distraction, for the following reasons: **Gay marriage is treated as if it ought to be obvious, and anyone who disagrees is a horrible person.** Shouldn't changing the definition of one of our most fundamental institutions be looked upon with suspicion? Marriage *has* been defined as being between one man and one woman in Western culture for over a millennium (with the exception of a few fringe groups that allowed polygamy). Obviously "It's always been that way" isn't a convincing argument, but isn't it reasonable for people (i.e., a few of my older and more traditional relatives) to question that change? **The gay rights movement unfairly compares themselves to other civil rights movements.** I can't think of how many times friends of mine, as well as national leaders, have compared the current situation LGBT Americans are in to African Americans before the Civil Rights movement. As far as I can tell, this is a totally invalid comparison. Certainly there is discrimination and restriction of gay rights, but that's completely different from systematic control over an entire group of people. Marriage is more symbolic than anything else--the "rights" that come with marriage are far less important than the right to vote. I also don't like how the gay rights movement uses the idea of true love to advance their agenda. Most people who are against gay marriage (except a few wackos who are increasingly dying off) aren't trying to stop gay people from being in love. **Most importantly, gay marriage distracts from other, more important issues.** Income inequality and global warming are both far more dangerous to our society than gay marriage. And yet, the average college student is far more concerned with gay marriage than either of the other two. Gay marriage not being recognized by the government is a minor injustice. Income inequality and global warming both threaten the fate of millions of people in the upcoming century. And yet (perhaps because they are more controversial, perhaps because they don't have easy solutions) they are often ignored. Change my view.

t3_1lxhgv

The best outcome, geopolitically, will be if the bill to authorize military intervention in Syria narrowly fails in US Congress. CMV

My reasoning is: 1. Obama is trying curb future use of chemical weapons like sarin, both inside and outside Syria, by giving teeth to the Geneva convention. I believe this is a laudable goal. He is *not* trying to solve the Syrian Civil War as a whole, and there is very likely no way for the US military to assist in the war at large. 2. Using a cruise missile against a known chemical weapons manufacture/storage facility would likely be effective as a deterrent. 3. Doing so, however, may draw us into a longer and more engaged conflict, including, possibly, a ground war. The ramifications of this (for both the US and Syria, not to mention the rest of the world) could be dire. 4. All of this is massively complicated by the potential reactions of China, Iran, and especially Russia. I don't know if I believe the "World War III is imminent!" line of thought, but suffice it to say that Syria is a powder-keg. Therefore I think the best option is to have the possibility of reprisal be *this close* to reality - but still failing. I'm talking about a margin of a few votes. This provides *some* deterrent towards the use of chemical weapons while avoiding conflict with Russia. I believe if enough votes are secured to defeat the bill, congressional leaders should ask members to switch their votes (if necessary) to ensure a narrow margin. I think this solution makes the best of a pretty bad situation. Change my view?

The best outcome, geopolitically, will be if the bill to authorize military intervention in Syria narrowly fails in US Congress. CMV. My reasoning is: 1. Obama is trying curb future use of chemical weapons like sarin, both inside and outside Syria, by giving teeth to the Geneva convention. I believe this is a laudable goal. He is *not* trying to solve the Syrian Civil War as a whole, and there is very likely no way for the US military to assist in the war at large. 2. Using a cruise missile against a known chemical weapons manufacture/storage facility would likely be effective as a deterrent. 3. Doing so, however, may draw us into a longer and more engaged conflict, including, possibly, a ground war. The ramifications of this (for both the US and Syria, not to mention the rest of the world) could be dire. 4. All of this is massively complicated by the potential reactions of China, Iran, and especially Russia. I don't know if I believe the "World War III is imminent!" line of thought, but suffice it to say that Syria is a powder-keg. Therefore I think the best option is to have the possibility of reprisal be *this close* to reality - but still failing. I'm talking about a margin of a few votes. This provides *some* deterrent towards the use of chemical weapons while avoiding conflict with Russia. I believe if enough votes are secured to defeat the bill, congressional leaders should ask members to switch their votes (if necessary) to ensure a narrow margin. I think this solution makes the best of a pretty bad situation. Change my view?

t3_1ii9vi

In relation to gun control, I believe since American has no realistic chance to get rid of all guns, the only way to increase public safety is to increase the amount of guns. CMV

I am on the fence about gun control in general. There are fair arguments on both sides. I can only conclude that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrate the utility of gun control laws. The dream scenario is obviously to remove all existing guns, to include those in the hands of criminals. Only law enforcement will have guns. However, that is impossible, criminals will always find guns. So realistically, there is almost no chance we can completely get rid of guns in America. Since we cannot un-arm the part of the populous that wants to do harm, the only reasonable solution is to arm the part of the populous that wants to defend themselves. EDIT: It appears that I have to explain my plan to arm the populous. It would be a gov't sponsored push for gun safety education (similar to driving), gov't sponsored campaign for gun ownership, tax cuts for 1st time gun owners, stricter background check on gun purchase, stricter laws for gun registration (like cars), free law-enforcement provided gun training, lower ammo prices. The idea isn't to arm the populous to fight a war against the criminals. The idea is to promote gun ownership to changer the perception of the criminal's evaluation of their potential victims. If criminals believes that more people are armed due to this push for additional gun owners, they will have to re-evaluate the threat level of their victims, thus gravitating toward crimes that will be less likely to result in a dangerous confrontation with their victims. Criminals don't want to die either. So if they think everyone has a gun, instead of a home robbery at gun point, they are more likely to try to attempt a burglary when no one is home. Instead of car jacking you on the street, they might try car theft instead. Thus, making the society safer as a whole. TL;DR: Since getting rid of all guns is out of the question, the better way to increase public safety in relation to gun control is to increase the amount of guns through gov't sponsored programs. The goal is to change criminal's perception of the vulnerability of their targets to deter them to commit "riskier" crimes.

In relation to gun control, I believe since American has no realistic chance to get rid of all guns, the only way to increase public safety is to increase the amount of guns. CMV. I am on the fence about gun control in general. There are fair arguments on both sides. I can only conclude that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrate the utility of gun control laws. The dream scenario is obviously to remove all existing guns, to include those in the hands of criminals. Only law enforcement will have guns. However, that is impossible, criminals will always find guns. So realistically, there is almost no chance we can completely get rid of guns in America. Since we cannot un-arm the part of the populous that wants to do harm, the only reasonable solution is to arm the part of the populous that wants to defend themselves. EDIT: It appears that I have to explain my plan to arm the populous. It would be a gov't sponsored push for gun safety education (similar to driving), gov't sponsored campaign for gun ownership, tax cuts for 1st time gun owners, stricter background check on gun purchase, stricter laws for gun registration (like cars), free law-enforcement provided gun training, lower ammo prices. The idea isn't to arm the populous to fight a war against the criminals. The idea is to promote gun ownership to changer the perception of the criminal's evaluation of their potential victims. If criminals believes that more people are armed due to this push for additional gun owners, they will have to re-evaluate the threat level of their victims, thus gravitating toward crimes that will be less likely to result in a dangerous confrontation with their victims. Criminals don't want to die either. So if they think everyone has a gun, instead of a home robbery at gun point, they are more likely to try to attempt a burglary when no one is home. Instead of car jacking you on the street, they might try car theft instead. Thus, making the society safer as a whole. TL;DR: Since getting rid of all guns is out of the question, the better way to increase public safety in relation to gun control is to increase the amount of guns through gov't sponsored programs. The goal is to change criminal's perception of the vulnerability of their targets to deter them to commit "riskier" crimes.

t3_4uoe1g

CMV: Hate and Attention promote terrorism, not religion

I'm sure we're all privy to the numerous attacks. Seems like there a few everyday and there are thousands of comments screaming "refugees" or "sjw". Even Bush admitted that his attacks in the middle east was one of the factors which led to IS being created. The more you push people away and hate, the more desperate and angry you make them. If you push all the Islamic people out, ISIS has a perfect reason for why "Islam" should defeat the West. So many people have said that the more attention you give to the murderers, the more murders there'll be. These people are mentally ill. I'm not promoting a ban on the news but not mentioning anything about the terrorist could definitely help.

CMV: Hate and Attention promote terrorism, not religion. I'm sure we're all privy to the numerous attacks. Seems like there a few everyday and there are thousands of comments screaming "refugees" or "sjw". Even Bush admitted that his attacks in the middle east was one of the factors which led to IS being created. The more you push people away and hate, the more desperate and angry you make them. If you push all the Islamic people out, ISIS has a perfect reason for why "Islam" should defeat the West. So many people have said that the more attention you give to the murderers, the more murders there'll be. These people are mentally ill. I'm not promoting a ban on the news but not mentioning anything about the terrorist could definitely help.

t3_20lggn

Fred Phelps and the "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church have done more to promote gay rights and secular thought than almost any other single group. CMV

(note: I will refer to "gay people" and "gay youth" a lot here, but that can easily be substituted for "secular", "Jewish", "black", or any of the other groups they target) Now that it looks like Fred Phelps is going to die soon, this seems like a good time to bring this up. I am sure most of you are familiar with [the WBC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church) and what they do. Although their actions are deplorable and hurtful to those involved, particularly their picketing of funerals, I think that they are so ridiculous that they cross over into cartoon-villain territory; that they are, in fact, a [parody of themselves](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w35M8ViyNs) and that only the severely mentally disturbed actually take them seriously. One major contributing factor for this is that they target those who are in the US military, which put a lot of conservatives in a position where they cannot defend the group's actions. This is exemplified when [Shirley Phelps went to interview on Fox News](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEGLFJ-Nqq4). This was when the gay marriage debate in the US was at its boiling point, yet the WBC is so extreme that they got Fox News to actually defend gay people. Heck, [even the KKK doesn't like them](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnfHQZ6xmaI). I've only ever seen them either ridiculed, attacked, or ignored. When they came to my home town a couple of years ago to picket in front of the high school in response to us being "fag enablers", a large portion of the community [formed a human chain around the entire school and nearby religious centers with their backs turned to them](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7dbRJy65uI) so that those who didn't want to deal with them didn't have to, demonstrating to everyone, especially the gay youth in our town, that our community doesn't stand for discrimination. The WBC GAVE us that opportunity to come together in a way that I don't think could have otherwise been easily done. tl;dr: They are so extreme that they make all but the most severely homophobic/religious people stop and think, "Well that's just ridiculous". By generally being assholes, they have a position on the public stage, but by alienating almost everyone, they are everyone's punching bag. **addendum:** I included "promoting secular thought" in the title and neglected to properly address it. Their reasons for hating minorities and gay people in particular is cited to be religious. I know with myself that criticizing them forced me to reevaluate my own ideas of using religion as a justification for public policy, and I know that many other people had similar experiences. **EDIT:** Wow, good responses all around. I have come close to giving a delta on a few points, but I would need to mull it over for a few days first.

Fred Phelps and the "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church have done more to promote gay rights and secular thought than almost any other single group. CMV. (note: I will refer to "gay people" and "gay youth" a lot here, but that can easily be substituted for "secular", "Jewish", "black", or any of the other groups they target) Now that it looks like Fred Phelps is going to die soon, this seems like a good time to bring this up. I am sure most of you are familiar with [the WBC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church) and what they do. Although their actions are deplorable and hurtful to those involved, particularly their picketing of funerals, I think that they are so ridiculous that they cross over into cartoon-villain territory; that they are, in fact, a [parody of themselves](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w35M8ViyNs) and that only the severely mentally disturbed actually take them seriously. One major contributing factor for this is that they target those who are in the US military, which put a lot of conservatives in a position where they cannot defend the group's actions. This is exemplified when [Shirley Phelps went to interview on Fox News](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEGLFJ-Nqq4). This was when the gay marriage debate in the US was at its boiling point, yet the WBC is so extreme that they got Fox News to actually defend gay people. Heck, [even the KKK doesn't like them](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnfHQZ6xmaI). I've only ever seen them either ridiculed, attacked, or ignored. When they came to my home town a couple of years ago to picket in front of the high school in response to us being "fag enablers", a large portion of the community [formed a human chain around the entire school and nearby religious centers with their backs turned to them](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7dbRJy65uI) so that those who didn't want to deal with them didn't have to, demonstrating to everyone, especially the gay youth in our town, that our community doesn't stand for discrimination. The WBC GAVE us that opportunity to come together in a way that I don't think could have otherwise been easily done. tl;dr: They are so extreme that they make all but the most severely homophobic/religious people stop and think, "Well that's just ridiculous". By generally being assholes, they have a position on the public stage, but by alienating almost everyone, they are everyone's punching bag. **addendum:** I included "promoting secular thought" in the title and neglected to properly address it. Their reasons for hating minorities and gay people in particular is cited to be religious. I know with myself that criticizing them forced me to reevaluate my own ideas of using religion as a justification for public policy, and I know that many other people had similar experiences. **EDIT:** Wow, good responses all around. I have come close to giving a delta on a few points, but I would need to mull it over for a few days first.

t3_1eai2l

I don't think Tycho Brahe contributed greatly to the subject of Astronomy. CMV

Tycho would throw massive parties, get drunk, and look at the stars. It seems his largest contribution was to write down measurements. Although accurate for his time, this job would have been accomplished eventually with or without him, and he didn't use his data to come to any meaningful conclusions like his assistant Kepler did.

I don't think Tycho Brahe contributed greatly to the subject of Astronomy. CMV. Tycho would throw massive parties, get drunk, and look at the stars. It seems his largest contribution was to write down measurements. Although accurate for his time, this job would have been accomplished eventually with or without him, and he didn't use his data to come to any meaningful conclusions like his assistant Kepler did.

t3_200cxj

I'm offended, as an American, over the new slang word "Murica". CMV

The Urban Dictionary's first definition that comes up is "The way un-educated Americans (generally rednecks, hicks, republicans, or very patriotic people) say America." Seriously? Republicans or very patriotic people? Really? Are Democrats not patriotic? I get so offended by this I have to keep from going to blows when I hear it. I know I have no right to not be offended. I don't believe we should pass any law to try and prevent people from being offended. I believe that people who want to change the law to keep from being offended can't control their own emotions so they want others to do it for them. That's not what this is about. I respect Freedom of Speach. This is about a derogatory word toward people who are patriotic Americans, who love the County, what it stands for, and our Constitution. If you hate Americans so much, get the hell out. The term "Tea Baggers" is another lewd and disgusting term used toward Conservative Americans that I hate. I don't use the term "Libertard" and I'm equally offended by that. But you know, I could live with "Tea Bagger", and "Libertard" because it's toward a certain political party. But "Murica" has no place in anyone's vocabulary. This is *our* Country we're talking about. Maybe I should have put this on r/offmychest, since I doubt you'll be able to CMV.

I'm offended, as an American, over the new slang word "Murica". CMV. The Urban Dictionary's first definition that comes up is "The way un-educated Americans (generally rednecks, hicks, republicans, or very patriotic people) say America." Seriously? Republicans or very patriotic people? Really? Are Democrats not patriotic? I get so offended by this I have to keep from going to blows when I hear it. I know I have no right to not be offended. I don't believe we should pass any law to try and prevent people from being offended. I believe that people who want to change the law to keep from being offended can't control their own emotions so they want others to do it for them. That's not what this is about. I respect Freedom of Speach. This is about a derogatory word toward people who are patriotic Americans, who love the County, what it stands for, and our Constitution. If you hate Americans so much, get the hell out. The term "Tea Baggers" is another lewd and disgusting term used toward Conservative Americans that I hate. I don't use the term "Libertard" and I'm equally offended by that. But you know, I could live with "Tea Bagger", and "Libertard" because it's toward a certain political party. But "Murica" has no place in anyone's vocabulary. This is *our* Country we're talking about. Maybe I should have put this on r/offmychest, since I doubt you'll be able to CMV.

t3_31cokw

CMV: I believe faster-than-light travel by any means is unattainable.

I enjoy learning about physics, especially special relativity. As I've learned more I've become progressively more convinced that FTL can never be more than a fantasy. Assuming: 1. Experimental evidence shows us that special relativity is mostly accurate, if not wholly 2. In a universe where special relativity is accurate, to travel faster than light is to travel backwards in time 3. Time is not traverseable It follows that FTL cannot occur. Given these assumptions, is there any other conclusion to be drawn? Why do high-profile physicists continue to take the idea of superluminal travel seriously? Or else what's wrong with these assumptions?

CMV: I believe faster-than-light travel by any means is unattainable. I enjoy learning about physics, especially special relativity. As I've learned more I've become progressively more convinced that FTL can never be more than a fantasy. Assuming: 1. Experimental evidence shows us that special relativity is mostly accurate, if not wholly 2. In a universe where special relativity is accurate, to travel faster than light is to travel backwards in time 3. Time is not traverseable It follows that FTL cannot occur. Given these assumptions, is there any other conclusion to be drawn? Why do high-profile physicists continue to take the idea of superluminal travel seriously? Or else what's wrong with these assumptions?

t3_36iliy

CMV: I think being attracted to adolescent children is widespread due to it's evolutionary necessity, and that people who make the most noise about sexualising children being disgusting are likely struggling with an internal conflict as a result of having sexual feelings

Biologically, adolescent children are sexual beings. I don't think any right minded person would disagree with that, since the whole point of puberty is for children to become capable of having children themselves. Along with the biological changes which happen to children's bodies during puberty, there are also psychological changes which start, on average, at about 10. I say on average, because these changes have been found to start as early as 6, but 10 seems to be the age at which most children become capable of expressing a distinct interest in sex, independent of abuse or anything else like that [(source)](http://ge.tt/9KQHtiG2/v/0). As children, we were all sexually attracted to children. Again, this is an adaptive behaviour which at one point was necessary for the continuation of the species. Believe it or not, there hasn't been any research which looks at whether adults ever stop being attracted to adolescent children. There is plenty of research that shows that adults respond to erotic adult stimuli but none which has tested adults against erotic stimuli involving children, for quite obvious reasons (child porn is illegal). There is no logical reason to think, however, that adults have an off switch, to stop them from feeling sexually attracted towards children. One [recent study](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/11/18/one-ten-men-sexually-attracted-children/#.VVtyFlUUzGc) suggests that about 10% of men and 4% of women reported a sexual attraction to children. In a survey done in the 1970's, it was more like 1 in 4 for men (can't find source). So assuming for a second that a large of significant proportion of society are attracted to children, let's say for arguments sake that the majority are not exclusive. Now consider the age we live in where sexualising children is so taboo, pedophiles cannot speak to doctors in confidence about it due to mandatory reporting laws. Yet, at the same time, western society seems fixated with youth sexuality, which can be observed in popular culture. I think everyone can agree that abusing children is abhorrent and something that is worth coming down hard on, but suggest for a second that sexually promiscuous adolescent children instigated sexual activity with an adult and all hell breaks lose. It's just too much for people to handle. Children are not sexual beings? Children cannot be sexual being until they reach the age of consent, because how oh earth will they be able to deal with the consequences of sex? Fun fact, children have been having sex for millions of years and the idea that children are somehow distinct from adults is a relatively new thing. The idea that children are not sexual beings is new too. The only reason I can think of for adults to get angry to the point of wishing murder upon adults who engage in sexual activity with children; in cases where the child is the one to instigate it, is that the adult getting angry is conflicted inside to the point that they wish to distance themselves so much from it, that they say such things. The same has been found to be true for [homophobic men being gay](http://www.ibtimes.com/homophobes-likely-be-closet-gays-study-finds-434958). Even though I don't feel I should have to qualify this, I do not advocated the sexual abuse of children. That isn't my point. Would love to hear if people can change my view! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think being attracted to adolescent children is widespread due to it's evolutionary necessity, and that people who make the most noise about sexualising children being disgusting are likely struggling with an internal conflict as a result of having sexual feelings. Biologically, adolescent children are sexual beings. I don't think any right minded person would disagree with that, since the whole point of puberty is for children to become capable of having children themselves. Along with the biological changes which happen to children's bodies during puberty, there are also psychological changes which start, on average, at about 10. I say on average, because these changes have been found to start as early as 6, but 10 seems to be the age at which most children become capable of expressing a distinct interest in sex, independent of abuse or anything else like that [(source)](http://ge.tt/9KQHtiG2/v/0). As children, we were all sexually attracted to children. Again, this is an adaptive behaviour which at one point was necessary for the continuation of the species. Believe it or not, there hasn't been any research which looks at whether adults ever stop being attracted to adolescent children. There is plenty of research that shows that adults respond to erotic adult stimuli but none which has tested adults against erotic stimuli involving children, for quite obvious reasons (child porn is illegal). There is no logical reason to think, however, that adults have an off switch, to stop them from feeling sexually attracted towards children. One [recent study](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/11/18/one-ten-men-sexually-attracted-children/#.VVtyFlUUzGc) suggests that about 10% of men and 4% of women reported a sexual attraction to children. In a survey done in the 1970's, it was more like 1 in 4 for men (can't find source). So assuming for a second that a large of significant proportion of society are attracted to children, let's say for arguments sake that the majority are not exclusive. Now consider the age we live in where sexualising children is so taboo, pedophiles cannot speak to doctors in confidence about it due to mandatory reporting laws. Yet, at the same time, western society seems fixated with youth sexuality, which can be observed in popular culture. I think everyone can agree that abusing children is abhorrent and something that is worth coming down hard on, but suggest for a second that sexually promiscuous adolescent children instigated sexual activity with an adult and all hell breaks lose. It's just too much for people to handle. Children are not sexual beings? Children cannot be sexual being until they reach the age of consent, because how oh earth will they be able to deal with the consequences of sex? Fun fact, children have been having sex for millions of years and the idea that children are somehow distinct from adults is a relatively new thing. The idea that children are not sexual beings is new too. The only reason I can think of for adults to get angry to the point of wishing murder upon adults who engage in sexual activity with children; in cases where the child is the one to instigate it, is that the adult getting angry is conflicted inside to the point that they wish to distance themselves so much from it, that they say such things. The same has been found to be true for [homophobic men being gay](http://www.ibtimes.com/homophobes-likely-be-closet-gays-study-finds-434958). Even though I don't feel I should have to qualify this, I do not advocated the sexual abuse of children. That isn't my point. Would love to hear if people can change my view!

t3_5g5luz

CMV: In a fight to the death at given conditions, a horse will kill a bobcat more than 90% of the time.

**Arena**: 120.0 yards × 53.3 yards of finely manicured turf, walled in with irrelevantly high solid barriers that can be neither scaled or hurdled. The 60 degree climate-controlled arena has no obstructions, save the surrounding walls. **Horse**: A healthy 1200 pound Stallion from the Great Plains of the USA, 16 hands (64") tall at the withers. **Bobcat**: A healthy 40 lb cat from the Midwestern USA, 24" tall at it's shoulders. The opponents will have 60 minutes to fight to the death. If neither dies within the 60 minutes, the contest would be restarted with a new set of above-described opponents and the clock would begin again. Contests would repeat as such until a kill is made within the prescribed period. I believe that the Bronco would be the victor in this scenario 9+/10 times. The Bobcat's assets (mobility/agility, cunning, experience as a hunter, fangs, and claws) would simply be overwhelmed by the following characteristics of it's opponent: * the defensive bucking of the horse would make a critically damaging wound exceedingly difficult for the cat to land * the leg strength and hard hooves of the horse cannot be understated as defensive (or offensive) weapons * the horse's thick hide would protect the horse from lesser blows by the cat's claws * the sheer weight and power of the horse generates so much inertia that just being close to the horse puts the cat into danger, let alone if the horse feels threatened I do concede that it would be possible for the cat to effectively maim one of the horse's ankles, bringing it to the ground if broken or sufficiently cut. In this scenario (which I believe to be the Bobcat's best chance to make a kill), the cat could potentially take advantage of the immobilized horse's vulnerable belly or neck and make a fatal injury. However, in landing such a blow to the horse's leg, the cat would have necessarily put itself into an extremely dangerous position and may not itself survive the ensuing crash. Even if it were to take the horse down and immobilize him early in the match, the horse would thrash once on the ground and minimize or eliminate any opportunity for the cat to make a critical blow. _____ > *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: In a fight to the death at given conditions, a horse will kill a bobcat more than 90% of the time. **Arena**: 120.0 yards × 53.3 yards of finely manicured turf, walled in with irrelevantly high solid barriers that can be neither scaled or hurdled. The 60 degree climate-controlled arena has no obstructions, save the surrounding walls. **Horse**: A healthy 1200 pound Stallion from the Great Plains of the USA, 16 hands (64") tall at the withers. **Bobcat**: A healthy 40 lb cat from the Midwestern USA, 24" tall at it's shoulders. The opponents will have 60 minutes to fight to the death. If neither dies within the 60 minutes, the contest would be restarted with a new set of above-described opponents and the clock would begin again. Contests would repeat as such until a kill is made within the prescribed period. I believe that the Bronco would be the victor in this scenario 9+/10 times. The Bobcat's assets (mobility/agility, cunning, experience as a hunter, fangs, and claws) would simply be overwhelmed by the following characteristics of it's opponent: * the defensive bucking of the horse would make a critically damaging wound exceedingly difficult for the cat to land * the leg strength and hard hooves of the horse cannot be understated as defensive (or offensive) weapons * the horse's thick hide would protect the horse from lesser blows by the cat's claws * the sheer weight and power of the horse generates so much inertia that just being close to the horse puts the cat into danger, let alone if the horse feels threatened I do concede that it would be possible for the cat to effectively maim one of the horse's ankles, bringing it to the ground if broken or sufficiently cut. In this scenario (which I believe to be the Bobcat's best chance to make a kill), the cat could potentially take advantage of the immobilized horse's vulnerable belly or neck and make a fatal injury. However, in landing such a blow to the horse's leg, the cat would have necessarily put itself into an extremely dangerous position and may not itself survive the ensuing crash. Even if it were to take the horse down and immobilize him early in the match, the horse would thrash once on the ground and minimize or eliminate any opportunity for the cat to make a critical blow.

t3_1umvzi

I believe that criminals/offenders from a less-privileged background should be given shorter sentences for their crimes than what is pre-set in the system. CMV.

So there is a trend that a lot of crimes are done by people from bad socio-economic backgrounds. They are really forced into that life of crime due to the difficulties they encounter. Now the principle behind this, and what I believe, is that the state was unable to take care of them properly, didn't allocate more wealth to them and generally placed them on the back burner. So it is partially the state's fault that they have ended up here. Thus, the full burden and responsibility of the crime upon them should be shifted partially to the state and according to that principle, they should be given a reduced sentence since they now are not the only one at fault. Secondly, on a more practical level, I believe that since these people spend so much time in prison, when they get out, they actually have a more chance of committing a crime again due to the conditioning they received in prison. So reducing their sentences will not only make them spend less time in such a terrible prison system but also will reduce their chances of committing a crime again.

I believe that criminals/offenders from a less-privileged background should be given shorter sentences for their crimes than what is pre-set in the system. CMV. So there is a trend that a lot of crimes are done by people from bad socio-economic backgrounds. They are really forced into that life of crime due to the difficulties they encounter. Now the principle behind this, and what I believe, is that the state was unable to take care of them properly, didn't allocate more wealth to them and generally placed them on the back burner. So it is partially the state's fault that they have ended up here. Thus, the full burden and responsibility of the crime upon them should be shifted partially to the state and according to that principle, they should be given a reduced sentence since they now are not the only one at fault. Secondly, on a more practical level, I believe that since these people spend so much time in prison, when they get out, they actually have a more chance of committing a crime again due to the conditioning they received in prison. So reducing their sentences will not only make them spend less time in such a terrible prison system but also will reduce their chances of committing a crime again.

t3_67d9o5

CMV: iPhones are superior to Android phones

For someone like me who has a macbook and an iPhone 7 Plus, iPhones are superior to to android phones. Not only because of the integration between all the apple products, but because of the actual software itself. All the android phones I've had in the past started slowing down and lagging crazy when after a year or so. I've had this iPhone 7 Plus for maybe half a year now and it hasn't shown any signs of aging. I believe that the iOS software is built for longevity. Before my iPhone 7 Plus, I used an iPhone 5s that i've had for many years before it showed any signs of decay at all.   As well as this, my macbook enhances my iPhone experience so much. iMessage, shared photos, and a variety of things makes it so much easier to use Apple products. Although you get a lot more customization on Android phones, it's not good enough to make me want to switch, especially when iPhones will stay pristine and run smoothly a few years down the line. Convince me to buy the Galaxy S8 Plus. _____ > *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: iPhones are superior to Android phones. For someone like me who has a macbook and an iPhone 7 Plus, iPhones are superior to to android phones. Not only because of the integration between all the apple products, but because of the actual software itself. All the android phones I've had in the past started slowing down and lagging crazy when after a year or so. I've had this iPhone 7 Plus for maybe half a year now and it hasn't shown any signs of aging. I believe that the iOS software is built for longevity. Before my iPhone 7 Plus, I used an iPhone 5s that i've had for many years before it showed any signs of decay at all.   As well as this, my macbook enhances my iPhone experience so much. iMessage, shared photos, and a variety of things makes it so much easier to use Apple products. Although you get a lot more customization on Android phones, it's not good enough to make me want to switch, especially when iPhones will stay pristine and run smoothly a few years down the line. Convince me to buy the Galaxy S8 Plus.

t3_1mmhfb

I believe that all non-labor unions (SPECIFICALLY TEACHERS UNIONS) are a joke and perpetuate a weak education system. CMV

I think that teacher's unions (and lots of other non-labor unions) have declined into organizations whose sole function is to keep people employed, regardless of how well they do their jobs. The original function of unions goes back to the American Industrial Revolution, when regulation was virtually nonexistent. Factory laborers banded together and demanded their employers make reforms for their factories to guarantee better safety, hours, pay, etc. In modern society, teachers have taken the idea of a union and warped it into a manipulative system. The reality is that teachers (speaking mainly for public schools) are paid relatively well to sustain a decent standard of living, and have no real workplace hazards. Therefore the function of the teacher's union is solely based on two things: - **Keeping teachers employed**, and - **Raising/maintaining salaries** Now being teachers, wouldn't you expect these people to be more concerned about the quality of education they provide? Lots are. *But lots aren't*. There is a reason the US is falling so far behind in terms of education; it starts in public schools. Teacher's jobs are protected by the unions, and there is nothing to incentivize them to improve their education (competition). Teacher's unions should be disbanded or modified so that their sole purpose is to improve education techniques. Teachers should also be paid based on performance of students (Not a full salary; it is unfair considering some students don't give a shit and fail regardless of the teacher's skill. But pay should be affected somewhat by pass/fail rates). There must be some way to provide an incentive for teachers to "up the ante" and kick-start education in this country. I understand that teachers alone are not the sole problem; young people today are not very motivated and are under the impression that being educated is worthless- that is another debate altogether, but I think education is important and reform should begin with our educators. For reference, I am a sixteen year old female living in a fairly liberal area. I attend a nice high school, with nice facilities, but some pretty awful teachers that belong to a union. It is clear at my school and other schools in the district that education standards are very low and that teachers are guaranteed pay regardless of academic performance.

I believe that all non-labor unions (SPECIFICALLY TEACHERS UNIONS) are a joke and perpetuate a weak education system. CMV. I think that teacher's unions (and lots of other non-labor unions) have declined into organizations whose sole function is to keep people employed, regardless of how well they do their jobs. The original function of unions goes back to the American Industrial Revolution, when regulation was virtually nonexistent. Factory laborers banded together and demanded their employers make reforms for their factories to guarantee better safety, hours, pay, etc. In modern society, teachers have taken the idea of a union and warped it into a manipulative system. The reality is that teachers (speaking mainly for public schools) are paid relatively well to sustain a decent standard of living, and have no real workplace hazards. Therefore the function of the teacher's union is solely based on two things: - **Keeping teachers employed**, and - **Raising/maintaining salaries** Now being teachers, wouldn't you expect these people to be more concerned about the quality of education they provide? Lots are. *But lots aren't*. There is a reason the US is falling so far behind in terms of education; it starts in public schools. Teacher's jobs are protected by the unions, and there is nothing to incentivize them to improve their education (competition). Teacher's unions should be disbanded or modified so that their sole purpose is to improve education techniques. Teachers should also be paid based on performance of students (Not a full salary; it is unfair considering some students don't give a shit and fail regardless of the teacher's skill. But pay should be affected somewhat by pass/fail rates). There must be some way to provide an incentive for teachers to "up the ante" and kick-start education in this country. I understand that teachers alone are not the sole problem; young people today are not very motivated and are under the impression that being educated is worthless- that is another debate altogether, but I think education is important and reform should begin with our educators. For reference, I am a sixteen year old female living in a fairly liberal area. I attend a nice high school, with nice facilities, but some pretty awful teachers that belong to a union. It is clear at my school and other schools in the district that education standards are very low and that teachers are guaranteed pay regardless of academic performance.

t3_51ow0i

CMV: Foreigners coming to the UK opening businesses and ignoring the employment laws should go right back where they came from

So my ex girlfriend (we're on good terms) is moving to London. She visited the place for a month and fell in love with it. She's so set on moving to London, that she's willing to take a job working 65 hours a week for minimum wage at an ethnic restaurant (I'm not specifying which origin, because I don't have any problems with people from that particular place, so it's not part of the point). She says they are all forced to work that long hours in the restaurant, and they will be terminated if they don't agree. Her opinion is that you can just not agree if you don't want to. My view is that the European culture is not to treat people like slaves, and that long hours are very hard on the body and mental health. If someone suddenly can't take it anymore, they shouldn't be fired, partly because it's not legal to fire someone for that reason, and partly because if you sign an opt-out agreement from the 48-hour week, you have the right to return back to the protection of the law with a weeks notice. I am a bit biased, because I care about her, and she has never worked before, and she has a history of depression (this long hours increases the risk of depression, especially in young females), so I know it's just not good for her, so I don't want her to do it, but it isn't my decision to make. I've said I'll be more than happy to get this employer into legal troubles (he also bought flats 28 years ago and is not making ridiculous profit margins renting it out to his workers). She says I should stop judging people, who I've never met. But I think this is just a tad disrespectful to the domestic culture, and if you are here for that (I'm not British either though), you should go right back where you came for, because living in a foreign country is not a right, but a privilege, that should warrant some level of respect. I've said I might actually try to get this employer into legal trouble (I'm not a solicitor so I can't do much, but I do know where to report it). She says I'm way overreacting and that I shouldn't interfere in what she's doing, which it does feel a bit like I'm doing. I probably would be doing it driven by emotion, but then again deep inside I do think this kinda employer shouldn't be welcome in the EU. _____ To sum up: Emotionally loaded I am willing to report a future employer of my ex for taking advantage of people and breaking the employment laws, probably driven by my worries about her, but also because I don't want this type of employers in the EU. I think they should go right back to where they come from, if they don't wanna run their business in accordance with the laws that protect the rights of our workers.

CMV: Foreigners coming to the UK opening businesses and ignoring the employment laws should go right back where they came from. So my ex girlfriend (we're on good terms) is moving to London. She visited the place for a month and fell in love with it. She's so set on moving to London, that she's willing to take a job working 65 hours a week for minimum wage at an ethnic restaurant (I'm not specifying which origin, because I don't have any problems with people from that particular place, so it's not part of the point). She says they are all forced to work that long hours in the restaurant, and they will be terminated if they don't agree. Her opinion is that you can just not agree if you don't want to. My view is that the European culture is not to treat people like slaves, and that long hours are very hard on the body and mental health. If someone suddenly can't take it anymore, they shouldn't be fired, partly because it's not legal to fire someone for that reason, and partly because if you sign an opt-out agreement from the 48-hour week, you have the right to return back to the protection of the law with a weeks notice. I am a bit biased, because I care about her, and she has never worked before, and she has a history of depression (this long hours increases the risk of depression, especially in young females), so I know it's just not good for her, so I don't want her to do it, but it isn't my decision to make. I've said I'll be more than happy to get this employer into legal troubles (he also bought flats 28 years ago and is not making ridiculous profit margins renting it out to his workers). She says I should stop judging people, who I've never met. But I think this is just a tad disrespectful to the domestic culture, and if you are here for that (I'm not British either though), you should go right back where you came for, because living in a foreign country is not a right, but a privilege, that should warrant some level of respect. I've said I might actually try to get this employer into legal trouble (I'm not a solicitor so I can't do much, but I do know where to report it). She says I'm way overreacting and that I shouldn't interfere in what she's doing, which it does feel a bit like I'm doing. I probably would be doing it driven by emotion, but then again deep inside I do think this kinda employer shouldn't be welcome in the EU. Emotionally loaded I am willing to report a future employer of my ex for taking advantage of people and breaking the employment laws, probably driven by my worries about her, but also because I don't want this type of employers in the EU. I think they should go right back to where they come from, if they don't wanna run their business in accordance with the laws that protect the rights of our workers.

t3_2w4etw

CMV: 'Buzzfeed Feminism' does more harm to feminism than good.

The word 'feminist' has really been bandied about lately, and lots of clickbait websites have begun to focus on women's issues. On the one hand, it's nice to see such a large population thinking about gender issues and attempting to destigmatise the word. On the other, I think it's doing more harm than good by distilling the actual feminist issues into cute clickable taglines. A few bullets of things that have annoyed me: * Frequent misuse of the gender pay gap statistic to suggest that employers pay their female employees 23 cents less than their male employees, when the statistic is actually much more [complicated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap), but no less interesting and useful. * A focus on feminism through the lens of simplistic, white, upper-middle class issues. * Juxtaposing the occasional real issues with gifs of shocked expressions, cats or Beyonce. Why this annoys me: * By presenting relatively trivial feminist issues or real issues in a trivial way, rather than as more nuanced or serious problems, 'Buzzfeed feminism' confirms for those already wary of feminism that the movement is of little import and that gender inequality is not a serious issue. * It's turned important feminist terms like '[patriarchy](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikerose/this-is-harry-potter-with-hermione-as-the-lead#.sdb9ebQgL)' into cute buzzwords, reducing the serious problem of gender disparity into 'cute' 'Girl Power' clickable headlines and moving away from the substance and scholarship that should mark what is essentially a political movement. * It broadens the word 'feminist' to describe even those activities which ought to be incompatible with the most basic tenets of feminism (e.g. by making light of [misandry](http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/romantic-poems-for-misandrists#.pmWY5KjoB) or dismissing men's oppression by the patriachy). As a result, it alienates other marginalised groups and especially prevents men from becoming allies by confirming their suspicions that feminism is 'against 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: 'Buzzfeed Feminism' does more harm to feminism than good. The word 'feminist' has really been bandied about lately, and lots of clickbait websites have begun to focus on women's issues. On the one hand, it's nice to see such a large population thinking about gender issues and attempting to destigmatise the word. On the other, I think it's doing more harm than good by distilling the actual feminist issues into cute clickable taglines. A few bullets of things that have annoyed me: * Frequent misuse of the gender pay gap statistic to suggest that employers pay their female employees 23 cents less than their male employees, when the statistic is actually much more [complicated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap), but no less interesting and useful. * A focus on feminism through the lens of simplistic, white, upper-middle class issues. * Juxtaposing the occasional real issues with gifs of shocked expressions, cats or Beyonce. Why this annoys me: * By presenting relatively trivial feminist issues or real issues in a trivial way, rather than as more nuanced or serious problems, 'Buzzfeed feminism' confirms for those already wary of feminism that the movement is of little import and that gender inequality is not a serious issue. * It's turned important feminist terms like '[patriarchy](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikerose/this-is-harry-potter-with-hermione-as-the-lead#.sdb9ebQgL)' into cute buzzwords, reducing the serious problem of gender disparity into 'cute' 'Girl Power' clickable headlines and moving away from the substance and scholarship that should mark what is essentially a political movement. * It broadens the word 'feminist' to describe even those activities which ought to be incompatible with the most basic tenets of feminism (e.g. by making light of [misandry](http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/romantic-poems-for-misandrists#.pmWY5KjoB) or dismissing men's oppression by the patriachy). As a result, it alienates other marginalised groups and especially prevents men from becoming allies by confirming their suspicions that feminism is 'against them'.

t3_34opso

CMV: Torture can work, even if it is clearly evil

**EDIT**: View has been changed, thanks to wjbc. Thanks also to everyone else participating! I think torture is barbaric and evil. It should never be condoned. However, I feel like this is a separate issue from whether torture **can work**. The reason I think torture can work is through introspection: **It is 100% clear to me that if I were tortured, I would break and give all my information up.** If the torture were anything serious, at least. I'm not sure about sleep deprivation, or solitary confinement (both of which might be considered torture). But anything like a brutal beating plus a credible threat to cut off one my fingers - or worse, and there is a **lot** worse - and I have no doubt I would break. Even if my secrets were protecting something very important to me. I'm human and have my limit. Not proud of it, but there it is. Am I wrong about this? Several experts, including from the CIA and military, have said that "torture does not work" (others have said otherwise, but let's focus on these for now). I just don't get what "does not work" means, when I know it would work on me. An obvious possible objection to my position is that torture can work "too well" - people make stuff up. I totally buy that, I would first tell all the stuff I actually knew, then I would make stuff up if they were still torturing me. So I do get that torture can lead to false information. Still, even if it isn't perfect, it seems like it could be effective - my ability to lie, in a **consistent** way, under torture, seems very unlikely. My lies would be all over the place. I feel like a skilled interrogator could tell the difference at least some of the time. And even if some lies got through, at least torture could provide multiple leads - for investigations without any, that seems very useful. A second possible objection to my position is that I might just be a self-aware wimp. Maybe the average soldier or terrorist has a superhuman ability to ignore torture that I can't even conceive of. In other words, torture might work on me, but maybe not on the people it would be used on? This might be partly true, but you would need to provide evidence to convince me - I realize soldiers and terrorists aren't average people, but I find it hard to imagine they can withstand the most brutal of tortures. Also, you would need to convince me that it is true for **all** or at least **most** soldiers and terrorists - if some are resistant, but a significant amount are not, then torture would still be fairly useful (capture a dozen of the enemy, torture them all until one of them breaks, all you need is one). Again, I think torture is barbaric and evil. I do not condone it and no one should. I am only talking about the possible **effectiveness** of it. However, that does lead to some practical implications - sometimes it is necessary to do barbaric and evil things, if not doing them would be far worse. That's why this isn't a CMV about a view that is abstract, this actually is something that I think can matter. **EDIT**: View has been changed, thanks to wjbc. Thanks also to everyone else participating! _____ > *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: Torture can work, even if it is clearly evil. **EDIT**: View has been changed, thanks to wjbc. Thanks also to everyone else participating! I think torture is barbaric and evil. It should never be condoned. However, I feel like this is a separate issue from whether torture **can work**. The reason I think torture can work is through introspection: **It is 100% clear to me that if I were tortured, I would break and give all my information up.** If the torture were anything serious, at least. I'm not sure about sleep deprivation, or solitary confinement (both of which might be considered torture). But anything like a brutal beating plus a credible threat to cut off one my fingers - or worse, and there is a **lot** worse - and I have no doubt I would break. Even if my secrets were protecting something very important to me. I'm human and have my limit. Not proud of it, but there it is. Am I wrong about this? Several experts, including from the CIA and military, have said that "torture does not work" (others have said otherwise, but let's focus on these for now). I just don't get what "does not work" means, when I know it would work on me. An obvious possible objection to my position is that torture can work "too well" - people make stuff up. I totally buy that, I would first tell all the stuff I actually knew, then I would make stuff up if they were still torturing me. So I do get that torture can lead to false information. Still, even if it isn't perfect, it seems like it could be effective - my ability to lie, in a **consistent** way, under torture, seems very unlikely. My lies would be all over the place. I feel like a skilled interrogator could tell the difference at least some of the time. And even if some lies got through, at least torture could provide multiple leads - for investigations without any, that seems very useful. A second possible objection to my position is that I might just be a self-aware wimp. Maybe the average soldier or terrorist has a superhuman ability to ignore torture that I can't even conceive of. In other words, torture might work on me, but maybe not on the people it would be used on? This might be partly true, but you would need to provide evidence to convince me - I realize soldiers and terrorists aren't average people, but I find it hard to imagine they can withstand the most brutal of tortures. Also, you would need to convince me that it is true for **all** or at least **most** soldiers and terrorists - if some are resistant, but a significant amount are not, then torture would still be fairly useful (capture a dozen of the enemy, torture them all until one of them breaks, all you need is one). Again, I think torture is barbaric and evil. I do not condone it and no one should. I am only talking about the possible **effectiveness** of it. However, that does lead to some practical implications - sometimes it is necessary to do barbaric and evil things, if not doing them would be far worse. That's why this isn't a CMV about a view that is abstract, this actually is something that I think can matter. **EDIT**: View has been changed, thanks to wjbc. Thanks also to everyone else participating!

t3_5oxca1

CMV: "Stopping power" isn't really that important in self-defense scenarios.

I'll use Wikipedia's definition: Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause enough ballistic trauma to a target (human or animal) to immediately incapacitate (and thus stop) the target. There's a lot of debate over what cartridges provide the best stopping power and what is optimal for a self defense situation. My view is that the importance of stopping power isn't really that important for an average citizen in a self defense scenario. A police officer is more likely to get into a confrontation with a determined attacker who might be under the influence of PCP or some other drug that would keep them moving after being shot. Simply having a gun and being confident in it's use will put you head-and-shoulders above most people to begin with. A .22lr will still kill a person if the shot is placed correctly. A .380 might not kill someone as quickly as a .45acp but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get shot with one! I think having *any* kind of firearm is enough to ward off most people who intend to do you harm. What are the odds that some 6 foot tall body builder on PCP is going to attack you? Most people will never even use their guns so why place so much emphasis on having the absolute best tool for the job? If you're more comfortable with a small caliber weapon then you will be more effective with it than something that makes you flinch/hurts your hand when using it. Also, a smaller caliber weapon often holds more ammo and you can take quicker follow-up shots. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you can shoot the person multiple times very quickly. I recently purchased a .380 that holds 16 rounds and I feel it's more than adequate for a defense situation. > *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: "Stopping power" isn't really that important in self-defense scenarios. I'll use Wikipedia's definition: Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause enough ballistic trauma to a target (human or animal) to immediately incapacitate (and thus stop) the target. There's a lot of debate over what cartridges provide the best stopping power and what is optimal for a self defense situation. My view is that the importance of stopping power isn't really that important for an average citizen in a self defense scenario. A police officer is more likely to get into a confrontation with a determined attacker who might be under the influence of PCP or some other drug that would keep them moving after being shot. Simply having a gun and being confident in it's use will put you head-and-shoulders above most people to begin with. A .22lr will still kill a person if the shot is placed correctly. A .380 might not kill someone as quickly as a .45acp but I sure as hell wouldn't want to get shot with one! I think having *any* kind of firearm is enough to ward off most people who intend to do you harm. What are the odds that some 6 foot tall body builder on PCP is going to attack you? Most people will never even use their guns so why place so much emphasis on having the absolute best tool for the job? If you're more comfortable with a small caliber weapon then you will be more effective with it than something that makes you flinch/hurts your hand when using it. Also, a smaller caliber weapon often holds more ammo and you can take quicker follow-up shots. Stopping power doesn't really matter if you can shoot the person multiple times very quickly. I recently purchased a .380 that holds 16 rounds and I feel it's more than adequate for a defense situation. > *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_6txxss

CMV: The left's tendency to carelessly call people racist/sexist/bigoted has alienated and divided people while leading to actual racism rising in response in the form of the alt right

This went on far before Trump ran for President. In 2012 for example, you had articles like this saying Mitt Romney was racist for saying that Obama "attacking success", which is a secret racist dog whistle. https://thedailybanter.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-and-the-deceptive-use-of-racist-language/ It has gotten to the point where very mainstream conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro, Heather Mac Donald (who wrote articles in the WSJ saying that more policing is beneficial to minority communities and as a result was attacked as a white supremacist), Christina Hoff Sommers, Jason Riley, etc. have faced very large protests to prevent them from speaking at college campuses, usually because they are deemed some variant of "hateful". Meanwhile, you have articles like this one saying things like "The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt" while accusing people like Ben Carson and Ted Cruz of "white supremacist ideology". http://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/white_men_must_be_stopped_the_very_future_of_the_planet_depends_on_it_partner/ Many conservatives and advocates of cracking down on illegal immigration were also accused of anti-Latino racism. Stuff like this has resulted in many conservative white Americans who aren't particularly "privileged" or racist but support things like tougher border security feel alienated and under siege by the media and the left. The alt right and white nationalists capitalize on this with white identity politics, claiming white people are the true victims. Meanwhile, the media is like the boy who cried wolf; they cried "racist" for the past decade and now they barely have any trust when there are actual racists. _____ > *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 left's tendency to carelessly call people racist/sexist/bigoted has alienated and divided people while leading to actual racism rising in response in the form of the alt right. This went on far before Trump ran for President. In 2012 for example, you had articles like this saying Mitt Romney was racist for saying that Obama "attacking success", which is a secret racist dog whistle. https://thedailybanter.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-and-the-deceptive-use-of-racist-language/ It has gotten to the point where very mainstream conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro, Heather Mac Donald (who wrote articles in the WSJ saying that more policing is beneficial to minority communities and as a result was attacked as a white supremacist), Christina Hoff Sommers, Jason Riley, etc. have faced very large protests to prevent them from speaking at college campuses, usually because they are deemed some variant of "hateful". Meanwhile, you have articles like this one saying things like "The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt" while accusing people like Ben Carson and Ted Cruz of "white supremacist ideology". http://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/white_men_must_be_stopped_the_very_future_of_the_planet_depends_on_it_partner/ Many conservatives and advocates of cracking down on illegal immigration were also accused of anti-Latino racism. Stuff like this has resulted in many conservative white Americans who aren't particularly "privileged" or racist but support things like tougher border security feel alienated and under siege by the media and the left. The alt right and white nationalists capitalize on this with white identity politics, claiming white people are the true victims. Meanwhile, the media is like the boy who cried wolf; they cried "racist" for the past decade and now they barely have any trust when there are actual racists.

t3_2sdhz5

CMV: Spirituality is pointless

I admit that this is more a gut feeling and not anything I have thought in depth about. I believe that spirituality is the attempt to deal with dissatisfaction, which in nearly all cases is caused by outward issues, by somehow making everything vaguely inward. Inner peace, meditations, and spiritual paths do nothing to actively fix the problems causing dissatisfaction to begin with. The only people I can think of that are dissatisfied for reasons that are completely inward are people with depression, anxiety, our other mental issues. Since these are basically brain defects I don't see how ill-defined unscientific imaginings can be of any help either. Anyone who is "spiritual" is tircking themselves into happiness by solving made up problems with made up solutions. I'm speaking more of seventies, new age, western spirituality more than religious spirituality in this post, but the argument applies to either. Edit : The term spiritual seems too broad to totally discount. Spirituality seems not to be totally without merit as a whole, although I maintain it is not for me.

CMV: Spirituality is pointless. I admit that this is more a gut feeling and not anything I have thought in depth about. I believe that spirituality is the attempt to deal with dissatisfaction, which in nearly all cases is caused by outward issues, by somehow making everything vaguely inward. Inner peace, meditations, and spiritual paths do nothing to actively fix the problems causing dissatisfaction to begin with. The only people I can think of that are dissatisfied for reasons that are completely inward are people with depression, anxiety, our other mental issues. Since these are basically brain defects I don't see how ill-defined unscientific imaginings can be of any help either. Anyone who is "spiritual" is tircking themselves into happiness by solving made up problems with made up solutions. I'm speaking more of seventies, new age, western spirituality more than religious spirituality in this post, but the argument applies to either. Edit : The term spiritual seems too broad to totally discount. Spirituality seems not to be totally without merit as a whole, although I maintain it is not for me.

t3_3nj128

CMV: Gun Control Proponents undermine their own argument

I was reading this article from the NYT [How They Got Their Guns] (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0) and Slate (How Mass shooters got their guns)[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/how_roseburg_newtown_and_other_mass_shooters_got_their_guns.html]. Had a few thoughts about how there is little logic in the idea that increased gun control legislation would fix the issues. Most of these people had no legal history that would prevent them from not owning a gun. Of the 14, 2 had a drug offense (misdemeanor possession and paraphernalia), 2 had domestic violence charges (2002 and 2006 respectively). One of each SHOULD have disqualified them from purchasing a firearm, but the departments in charge of those cases failed to report the charges to the databases used to conduct background checks. One had a charge from kicking a hole in the wall at a bar and the other had several settled small charges since the 90's (undisclosed, so this one is useless to analyze, if anyone can find out i'd like to know). None of these past events of these people can be reasonably used to develop a background check system that WORKS. Then from the mental health angle, many of these people had done nothing at all other than being a loner, possibly dealing with issues that were half treated but became clear warning signs AFTER they did unspeakable things. Someone please point me to a logical argument and change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Gun Control Proponents undermine their own argument. I was reading this article from the NYT [How They Got Their Guns] (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0) and Slate (How Mass shooters got their guns)[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/how_roseburg_newtown_and_other_mass_shooters_got_their_guns.html]. Had a few thoughts about how there is little logic in the idea that increased gun control legislation would fix the issues. Most of these people had no legal history that would prevent them from not owning a gun. Of the 14, 2 had a drug offense (misdemeanor possession and paraphernalia), 2 had domestic violence charges (2002 and 2006 respectively). One of each SHOULD have disqualified them from purchasing a firearm, but the departments in charge of those cases failed to report the charges to the databases used to conduct background checks. One had a charge from kicking a hole in the wall at a bar and the other had several settled small charges since the 90's (undisclosed, so this one is useless to analyze, if anyone can find out i'd like to know). None of these past events of these people can be reasonably used to develop a background check system that WORKS. Then from the mental health angle, many of these people had done nothing at all other than being a loner, possibly dealing with issues that were half treated but became clear warning signs AFTER they did unspeakable things. Someone please point me to a logical argument and change my view.

t3_1j8fal

I have a feeling that any Palestinian state that comes into existence will be a total craphole and still be agitating to conquer Israel. CMV

We don't have to argue the validity of a Palestinian state. For the first part of my view - I have very little faith that the Palestinian leadership is really looking out for its people and only looking out for its supporters which leaves a lot of people out of the loop. The PA as is jails atheists, regime critics, critics of islam, people who sell land to jews, and people who work with the Israeli's. there is a significant amount of political violence and I don't see that ending seeing as most political parties contain armed wings. It will probably be a mess between religious peoples and people who want western economics so oppression of women and liberal thinkers will likely be policy. As for the second part, I don't think the drive to conquer the rest of Israel, which many consider to be occupied will ever end, and war with Israel, or at least regular attempted attacks either supported or unsupported by the state, are bound to happen. People like Khaled Mashaal don't go away just because they make peace. edit: spelling [I 100% regret making this!](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tr4HURfDBsc/T72FfXS6XAI/AAAAAAAAIkw/xG-KvvrQhJg/s1600/tumblr_m3yjrgDA1t1qar5tro10_r1_1280.png)

I have a feeling that any Palestinian state that comes into existence will be a total craphole and still be agitating to conquer Israel. CMV. We don't have to argue the validity of a Palestinian state. For the first part of my view - I have very little faith that the Palestinian leadership is really looking out for its people and only looking out for its supporters which leaves a lot of people out of the loop. The PA as is jails atheists, regime critics, critics of islam, people who sell land to jews, and people who work with the Israeli's. there is a significant amount of political violence and I don't see that ending seeing as most political parties contain armed wings. It will probably be a mess between religious peoples and people who want western economics so oppression of women and liberal thinkers will likely be policy. As for the second part, I don't think the drive to conquer the rest of Israel, which many consider to be occupied will ever end, and war with Israel, or at least regular attempted attacks either supported or unsupported by the state, are bound to happen. People like Khaled Mashaal don't go away just because they make peace. edit: spelling [I 100% regret making this!](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tr4HURfDBsc/T72FfXS6XAI/AAAAAAAAIkw/xG-KvvrQhJg/s1600/tumblr_m3yjrgDA1t1qar5tro10_r1_1280.png)

t3_2gizt0

CMV: If something doesn't smell or have stains, it isn't dirty.

I feel like people have this ephemeral notion of something being "dirty" just because you've worn it once, but to me that not only seems silly, but detrimental to your clothes (not to mention environmental impacts). The point of washing something is so that a) you are practicing good hygiene, and b) you look presentable. So I see nothing wrong with doing a "sniff test" and a quick visual inspection before I determine if it's clean or not. I don't really have a whole lot else to say on the topic, but I'm curious to see what other people think. _____ > *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 something doesn't smell or have stains, it isn't dirty. I feel like people have this ephemeral notion of something being "dirty" just because you've worn it once, but to me that not only seems silly, but detrimental to your clothes (not to mention environmental impacts). The point of washing something is so that a) you are practicing good hygiene, and b) you look presentable. So I see nothing wrong with doing a "sniff test" and a quick visual inspection before I determine if it's clean or not. I don't really have a whole lot else to say on the topic, but I'm curious to see what other people think.